In Reply to: Re: Reading that too and sounds plausible posted by SehornBlew on June 17, 2017 at 09:54:27
Fultz, IMO, brings classic indications of being potentially a great player - all the skill, size, talents, and instincts required. Lonzo, again IMO, brings an intriguing possibility, due to his attribute and, skills and intangibles, of being a once in a long while transformational player along the lines of a Magic, a Russell, or a Bird.
They both, IMO, present risks for those teams who draft them (as all picks do). Fultz, for all his skills and talents, may not have an impact on his team that becomes more than the sum of his parts - think Maravich or George McGinnis.
Lonzo for all his potential may not end up being the transformational player everyone hopes he is. He could end up being a fast big point guard effective only along the lines of someone like Chris Collins - very very good but not transformational.
Both are good risks and any team getting either of these kids are probably going to be better off than before but the question is to what extent? That is where the risk resides.
Still, IMO the Lakers would be smart to go with Lonzo for his potential as well as what he brings to the game - not to mention that he want to be a Laker and he is the hometown kid with all that that implies.
Post a Followup