Russell to the Wolves?

[Coolbreeze44]

If you watched the Lakers last year at all, you know Russell wasn't very good. Many are pointing to his improved shooting after the all star break. Yeah, in a vacuum those numbers might mean something. But in reality the Lakers were a joke and no opponents had any reason to take them seriously. The games were completely meaningless, not much more than exhibitions as they tried not to win too much. So I think making a case based on those games is really hollow. He has a lot to prove. Not saying he can't become a really good NBA player, but that jury is still in the middle of deliberations.

[mrhockey89]

I think anyone on this board would be lying if they say they watched more than a handful of Laker games last year. What I do remember, however, is that his rookie season improved quite a bit as the season went on and he started to get out of Kobe's shadow.

[Coolbreeze44]

I think anyone on this board would be lying if they say they watched more than a handful of Laker games last year. What I do remember, however, is that his rookie season improved quite a bit as the season went on and he started to get out of Kobe's shadow.

You don't live on the West coast like I do. So I saw a lot of games just based on the time they were on. Not only that, for some reason the Lakers still had a lot of national games on TV. If you were going to watch a lot of the NBA, you were going to see Russell.

[60WinTim]

Not sure if "I" would pull the trigger, but I would not be upset if Thibs pulled the trigger.

Russell was pretty bad the first half of the season, like an average rookie would be, I suppose. But he definitely played better in the second half of the season. There was even one month when he was a potential threat to one of KAT's rookie of the month awards, but KAT closed that door pretty quick.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

If you watched the Lakers last year at all, you know Russell wasn't very good. Many are pointing to his improved shooting after the all star break. Yeah, in a vacuum those numbers might mean something. But in reality the Lakers were a joke and no opponents had any reason to take them seriously. The games were completely meaningless, not much more than exhibitions as they tried not to win too much. So I think making a case based on those games is really hollow. He has a lot to prove. Not saying he can't become a really good NBA player, but that jury is still in the middle of deliberations.

Shooting is still shooting though. There are many guys who never sniff 40% 3pt shooting even when they are wide open and he managed 39% for an extended period of games even if it isn't the biggest sample size. I don't believe someone can luckily shoot 39% from 3 because the defense just doesn't care. The the guy can shoot 3's at the NBA level. That's more than you can say for any of these prospects and frankly you never know if they translate. Stauskas was a fantastic shooter in college who just lost it for some reason at the next level. I don't think that will be the case with these prospects, but there's still a chance it could happen while Russell has shown it at this level already. I also think Russell is going to be a PnR savant in the NBA when he figures it out and that's the most used play in the game so I think he's gonna bring elite 3pt shooting and PnR play and that's huge in today's game.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

I side with Khans with respect to Russell's shooting. We have a full season at OSU against top D1 competition where he was over 40% on threes, and a rookie NBA season where he shot threes at the league average for the season and over 39% for the last half...on decent volume too. I think there is ample evidence to indicate he is going to be a very good NBA long-distance shooter.

And his overall rookie numbers were very close to Wig's and Zach's:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&y1=2015&p1=lavinza01&y2=2015&p2=wiggian01&y3=2016&p3=russeda01&p4=&p5=&p6=

As I mentioned in another thread, he put up these numbers having to put up with Kobe and playing for a poor coach. If he got to play his second year under a great player development coach like Thibs, wouldn't we expect a big leap forward and even better numbers next year?

[Monster]

Cool since you have watched Russell last season can you maybe comment on what type of value you may put on him going forward either for the Wolves or for the rest of the league? I know that's hard to do at this point but I'm curious to hear some more thoughts on him from ya.

[Coolbreeze44]

Cool since you have watched Russell last season can you maybe comment on what type of value you may put on him going forward either for the Wolves or for the rest of the league? I know that's hard to do at this point but I'm curious to hear some more thoughts on him from ya.

My best description of him would be "crafty". But I can't really put a value on him right now because he's far from a finished product. Like a lot of rookies he needs to get much stronger, particularly in his lower body. I like his basketball skills, but it will be interesting to see what he gets out of his physical skills. As I've said before, you don't have to be a great athlete to be a great basketball player. But you have to find a way to overcome your physical limitations. Some guys like Curry and Bird have been able to do that. But there's a lot of guys like Randy Foye who couldn't. With all due respect to the posters championing his success last year, it's my opinion he was definitely a 1st year disappointment given his draft position.

[Monster]

Cool since you have watched Russell last season can you maybe comment on what type of value you may put on him going forward either for the Wolves or for the rest of the league? I know that's hard to do at this point but I'm curious to hear some more thoughts on him from ya.

My best description of him would be "crafty". But I can't really put a value on him right now because he's far from a finished product. Like a lot of rookies he needs to get much stronger, particularly in his lower body. I like his basketball skills, but it will be interesting to see what he gets out of his physical skills. As I've said before, you don't have to be a great athlete to be a great basketball player. But you have to find a way to overcome your physical limitations. Some guys like Curry and Bird have been able to do that. But there's a lot of guys like Randy Foye who couldn't. With all due respect to the posters championing his success last year, it's my opinion he was definitely a 1st year disappointment given his draft position.

Thanks for the breakdown that seems pretty fair to me. To me like you laid out he is a skilled player but how much does he learn to use what he has and improve it? I would say Russell's rookie season left me wanting a lot more form a #2 pick so I have no problem with someone saying it was disappointing. I would say considering his situation (not sure any of the top 10 picks had a worse one) playing for the Lakers it also wasn't a season where I would lose hope in the guy either. I would say it was a mixed bag but you can live with that based on his age and situation. I think that next tier of rookies all showed some nice promise considering they started the season one year removed from playing HS basketball.

[KiwiMatt]

I'm against trading the 5th pick for D'Angelo Russell.

Irrespective of the whole Nick Young fiasco I am concerned as to why the Lakers would want to trade Russell after one season. There's no doubt in my mind that Russell's development was stalled by the Kobe farewell tour, but if the Lakers are prepared to give up on him this early I see this as a major red flag.

Not to mention Russell isn't a good fit here. I'd prefer Dunn, Murray or Hield.