Which Big?: update Christian Wood signs
Moderators: TyCobb, Danny Darko, Kilroy
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
- snaquille oatmeal
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 16,767
- And1: 4,770
- Joined: Nov 15, 2005
- Location: San Diego
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
I got “other”
Wouldn’t mind DHo back a third time.
Wouldn’t mind DHo back a third time.
Forum permissions
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot trade for basketball reasons in this forum
You cannot but I can...five rings!
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot trade for basketball reasons in this forum
You cannot but I can...five rings!
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,934
- And1: 1,622
- Joined: May 16, 2007
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
I’d go with Wood for a year.
He’s selfish, but talented.
In a reserve role, he would be low risk.
What happened to Wenyen Gabriel?
Really like him too, but he is undersized at the 5.
He’s selfish, but talented.
In a reserve role, he would be low risk.
What happened to Wenyen Gabriel?
Really like him too, but he is undersized at the 5.
Formerly lakerRD
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 832
- And1: 653
- Joined: Jun 16, 2014
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
I think they probably won't sign a big, or at most, will retain TT as a cheerleading veteran.
Ham had numerous opportunities to play Bamba, he basically never did it. He never even tried playing him along with AD. They also simply refused to sign a free agent C before the end of the regular season (if I'm not mistaken, they could have done it).
The way the staff (Ham) thinks is very clear: play AD as a full C till the rest of his career, and when he rests during games, they go small ball. I'm afraid Ham is set on making Rui his official backup C from now on, at least during games. So, the FO is acting in accordance with this belief. Hayes would gain significant minutes only when AD doesn't play at all, so there would be no need for another relevant C.
Ham loves his veteran guards and forwards. His top 8 guys are set, with the 6 from last season (DLO, Reaves, LBJ, AD, Rui, Vando) + Gabe (subs Schroder) and Prince (subs TBJ). I'd bet these guys will play heavy minutes as long as they're healthy.
MaxC, Cam and Hayes might be on and off the rotation, maybe along with Fino, but I'd bet these guys won't play much. MaxC will only get significative minutes if his game screams rotation player, and there's an injury to a forward or stg.
All in all, Ham is a conservative coach, with a conservative approach, typical of a recent rookie. He'll play the guys he trusts and knows, and will keep running away from playing traditional Cs as he always did. So, the FO matched the coach's way, and had a similar thinking in team construction.
It's safe to say they didn't tackle their biggest issues (acquiring a guard capable of closing games - which is very, very tough, anyway; having a real rim protecting backup C, or at least capable of banging with the bigs; or improving the 3pt shooting). But they got good contracts and kept the core, with flexibility for improving.
They are incredibly well positioned now, compared to 1 yr ago. It's a damn miracle pulled by Rob. But, IMO, Ham limits the ceilling of this team.
Ham had numerous opportunities to play Bamba, he basically never did it. He never even tried playing him along with AD. They also simply refused to sign a free agent C before the end of the regular season (if I'm not mistaken, they could have done it).
The way the staff (Ham) thinks is very clear: play AD as a full C till the rest of his career, and when he rests during games, they go small ball. I'm afraid Ham is set on making Rui his official backup C from now on, at least during games. So, the FO is acting in accordance with this belief. Hayes would gain significant minutes only when AD doesn't play at all, so there would be no need for another relevant C.
Ham loves his veteran guards and forwards. His top 8 guys are set, with the 6 from last season (DLO, Reaves, LBJ, AD, Rui, Vando) + Gabe (subs Schroder) and Prince (subs TBJ). I'd bet these guys will play heavy minutes as long as they're healthy.
MaxC, Cam and Hayes might be on and off the rotation, maybe along with Fino, but I'd bet these guys won't play much. MaxC will only get significative minutes if his game screams rotation player, and there's an injury to a forward or stg.
All in all, Ham is a conservative coach, with a conservative approach, typical of a recent rookie. He'll play the guys he trusts and knows, and will keep running away from playing traditional Cs as he always did. So, the FO matched the coach's way, and had a similar thinking in team construction.
It's safe to say they didn't tackle their biggest issues (acquiring a guard capable of closing games - which is very, very tough, anyway; having a real rim protecting backup C, or at least capable of banging with the bigs; or improving the 3pt shooting). But they got good contracts and kept the core, with flexibility for improving.
They are incredibly well positioned now, compared to 1 yr ago. It's a damn miracle pulled by Rob. But, IMO, Ham limits the ceilling of this team.
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
- CZ Eddie
- Starter
- Posts: 2,497
- And1: 824
- Joined: Jan 30, 2010
- Location: Austin, TX
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
I'd really like to see the Lakers hold onto Colin Castleton and develop him.
He's intelligent and learns quick and has a nice full skillset.
As a Magic fan, I'm pretty familiar with Bamba and Bol Bol.
Both are great if used in the right system.
But Castleton can be used with success in any system.
He's intelligent and learns quick and has a nice full skillset.
As a Magic fan, I'm pretty familiar with Bamba and Bol Bol.
Both are great if used in the right system.
But Castleton can be used with success in any system.
Keep your politics out of my sports
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
- Danny Darko
- Forum Mod - Lakers
- Posts: 17,828
- And1: 5,416
- Joined: Jun 24, 2005
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
We need man strength don't we?
Robin Lopez is still out there, Dwight? and unmentioned thus far- I think Jay Huff. could be a good fit.
Robin Lopez is still out there, Dwight? and unmentioned thus far- I think Jay Huff. could be a good fit.
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 626
- And1: 444
- Joined: Sep 28, 2018
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
Danny Darko wrote:We need man strength don't we?
Robin Lopez is still out there, Dwight? and unmentioned thus far- I think Jay Huff. could be a good fit.
Lopez is already gone (Bucks) unfortunately. The best available guys (irrespective of context and fit) are probably Wood, Biyombo, Willy Hernangomez and Bol Bol.
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 748
- And1: 331
- Joined: Jan 24, 2012
- Location: Too far from home.
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
Omer Yurtseven
"Be quick, don't hurry" -John Wooden-
"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth" -Plato-
"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth" -Plato-
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,819
- And1: 5,487
- Joined: Jun 04, 2021
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
Sasha Booyacheck.
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
- TylersLakers
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,901
- And1: 2,824
- Joined: Jan 20, 2006
- Location: Winnipeg Canada
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
I want Christian Wood or Biyombo. The talent upside with Wood is just too good.
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 626
- And1: 444
- Joined: Sep 28, 2018
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
Probably Wood would make the most sense: AD will be out and then we will need offensive production from a big. Wood is exactly the player who can provide that.
Even though he is not a good defender, we have played legitimately terrible ones at C (see Harrell or Thomas Bryant). Wood is at least a step above them.
He is also not that short: 6'9 in today's league is an acceptable height - especially for someone who is not supposed to log more than 15 mins as a C (when Davis is healthy)
Even though he is not a good defender, we have played legitimately terrible ones at C (see Harrell or Thomas Bryant). Wood is at least a step above them.
He is also not that short: 6'9 in today's league is an acceptable height - especially for someone who is not supposed to log more than 15 mins as a C (when Davis is healthy)
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 534
- And1: 126
- Joined: Jul 14, 2012
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
Doug_12 wrote:Probably Wood would make the most sense: AD will be out and then we will need offensive production from a big. Wood is exactly the player who can provide that.
Even though he is not a good defender, we have played legitimately terrible ones at C (see Harrell or Thomas Bryant). Wood is at least a step above them.
He is also not that short: 6'9 in today's league is an acceptable height - especially for someone who is not supposed to log more than 15 mins as a C (when Davis is healthy)
Bol Bol can take up the same role too
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 626
- And1: 444
- Joined: Sep 28, 2018
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
zuju wrote:Doug_12 wrote:Probably Wood would make the most sense: AD will be out and then we will need offensive production from a big. Wood is exactly the player who can provide that.
Even though he is not a good defender, we have played legitimately terrible ones at C (see Harrell or Thomas Bryant). Wood is at least a step above them.
He is also not that short: 6'9 in today's league is an acceptable height - especially for someone who is not supposed to log more than 15 mins as a C (when Davis is healthy)
Bol Bol can take up the same role too
Hmm, I don't see it: Wood is miles better than Bol offensively. He is a great p'n'r/p'n'p executor; he can finish around the rim confidently, can shoot both from mid range and three; he can create his own shot against average defenders etc... Offensively he is just complete. There is no one else available who is even close to his level.
His issue is defense (every aspect of defense: awareness maybe being the biggest), but that's neither the strength of Bol. Bol might be a better natural rim protector due to his frame, but his skinny size doesn't allow him to stay at the C and constantly rumble, collide etc... w/ guys way heavier than him. And that's just one issue: he also seems to not find its place in defense much and I'm not sure there is enough motivation in him to change that. Having said this, I'm not sure that Bol for example, will be able to kick Hayes out of the rotation...
I'm quite convinced that Wood is the best player we can get to play the aforementioned offense heavy backup role.
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 626
- And1: 444
- Joined: Sep 28, 2018
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
Wood can also open up options to play different rotations like starting: Vincent, Reaves, Lebron, Wood and Davis. That is a very balanced starting lineup. 4 capable shooters around AD puts us in a great offensive position. He looked the best when we fielded a lineup like that. Defensively that is also not bad: apart from Wood everyone can play at least mediocre defense. Some (like Vincent or Reaves) even good and some (like Davis) elite level.
Then we can field a 2nd unit of: Russell, Christie, Prince, Rui, Vando. Which is again balanced: we have here some scorers who can especially be good against second string players (like Rui or Dlo) and some nice defenders who can stabilize the system (Prince, Christie and Vando).
And then we have the fringe players who can occasionally jump in: Hood-Schifino, Reddish and Hayes
Then we can field a 2nd unit of: Russell, Christie, Prince, Rui, Vando. Which is again balanced: we have here some scorers who can especially be good against second string players (like Rui or Dlo) and some nice defenders who can stabilize the system (Prince, Christie and Vando).
And then we have the fringe players who can occasionally jump in: Hood-Schifino, Reddish and Hayes
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,342
- And1: 1,558
- Joined: Oct 20, 2015
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
With this squad, we need a big off the bench to hold the fort defensively while Davis sits. Not offense.
A defensive rebounder with lateral speed who is a good outlet passer and sets crisp screens and gets easy putback buckets. Somebody who can pass, has good hands.
Although young and a skinny greenhorn, Castleton at 6’11” checks all those boxes.
I’m starting to think we might need Tristan Thompson to be the one to fill the last spot the most, to be a player-coach type player.
A defensive rebounder with lateral speed who is a good outlet passer and sets crisp screens and gets easy putback buckets. Somebody who can pass, has good hands.
Although young and a skinny greenhorn, Castleton at 6’11” checks all those boxes.
I’m starting to think we might need Tristan Thompson to be the one to fill the last spot the most, to be a player-coach type player.
NBA titles since the merger: LAL 11, CHI 6, SAS 5, BOS 5, GSW 4.
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 626
- And1: 444
- Joined: Sep 28, 2018
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
I think we can get Castleton for a two-way contract. No need to choose between an offensive "powerhouse" and him
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
- CZ Eddie
- Starter
- Posts: 2,497
- And1: 824
- Joined: Jan 30, 2010
- Location: Austin, TX
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
Doug_12 wrote:I think we can get Castleton for a two-way contract. No need to choose between an offensive "powerhouse" and him
Thankfully, he's already on a two-way contact.
And I think it's pretty likely he'll still be under contract when the season starts.
This kid isn't getting cut. He'll be sticking around.
His bullet passes on a dime are pretty amazing.
Keep your politics out of my sports
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
- dAdo dA dEvil
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,553
- And1: 476
- Joined: Jun 27, 2013
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
After seeing Castleton play I think we already have an insurance for the C position. After all he is already with us via 2 way contract. We do still need another C but if we can't land Woods or Bol I think Castleton would be just fine with limited minutes.
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,342
- And1: 1,558
- Joined: Oct 20, 2015
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
AD, Hayes, Castleton is fine with me as our C rotation.
Hachimura, [T Thompson] can spot a few minutes at the five so that AD can rest some.
Hachimura, [T Thompson] can spot a few minutes at the five so that AD can rest some.
NBA titles since the merger: LAL 11, CHI 6, SAS 5, BOS 5, GSW 4.
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
- Dr Aki
- RealGM
- Posts: 34,429
- And1: 29,438
- Joined: Mar 03, 2008
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
Castleton
23yo, 6'11", 250 lbs, mobile, good touch around the paint, playmaking chops
Just needs to crash the boards harder and get used to NBA competition
23yo, 6'11", 250 lbs, mobile, good touch around the paint, playmaking chops
Just needs to crash the boards harder and get used to NBA competition
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,342
- And1: 1,558
- Joined: Oct 20, 2015
Re: Which Big Should the Lakers Sign?
AD and this guy is a good one two punch at C, or even a good twin tower combo.
Rob ‘em blind Pelinka
Rob ‘em blind Pelinka
NBA titles since the merger: LAL 11, CHI 6, SAS 5, BOS 5, GSW 4.