You wrote “Culver is the exact sort of defender and secondary handler the Lakers lack.” Were you trolling the Lakers? Or do you have inside information about the Brandon Ingram and Lonzo Ball trade?
The whole problem for the Lakers last season was having secondary “playmakers” who couldn’t shoot. How exactly is adding another bad outside shooter going to help LeBron in playoff minutes, or any other types of minutes?
In your description of Culver, you said he is not an elite NBA athlete. He can’t burst by defenders and he can’t elevate, so he’s not going to be as good a finisher as Ingram. And you already said he’s an “average” shooter, but that’s at the college level.
Oh, and you said he has a habit of pounding the ball into oblivion when he starts playing hero ball. Another useful skill on a Lakers roster with LeBron Ingram and Lance Lance the Dance Machine.
You also said he will be a good but not great defender. Lonzo is an elite defender.
In your final verdict, you put him somewhere in the middle between star and bust. And you even included Lance Stephenson in your comps.
Now I understand why you said Culver is the best fit for the Lakers.
What could be a better fit for the Lakers than adding a second Lance Stephenson to the roster?
I want the other guard next to him (Lonzo) to be an elite-defending low-usage player with a great shot.