1. Is Jordan Clarkson the point guard of the future for the Lakers?

Each week, ESPN.com Lakers beat writer Baxter Holmes, along with ESPN.com NBA writers Ramona Shelburne and Arash Markazi, will weigh in on three questions that are on the minds of Los Angeles Lakers followers.

Holmes: Whoa, there. It's hard to look at this rebuilding roster and think that any player at any position is the future of said position for the Lakers. That said, Clarkson has been a pleasant surprise. The Lakers bought a second-round pick to get him last year and he has shown enough during a recent stretch to be worth their meager investment. Can he ultimately become one of the top point guards in the West? That's a tall mountain to climb.

Shelburne: I think he's part of the Lakers' future, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he's the point guard of the future. He has shown some nice potential in this extended playing time, but he's a long way away from being able to run his own team yet. But he's certainly shown enough to justify the Lakers' faith in him (they moved up to get him) and make a case for a bigger role next season.

Markazi: No. I think he's a point guard who has a future with the Lakers and can be a solid contributor to a contending team, but when I look at Clarkson I don't see the Lakers' point guard of the future. I still think that will be Russell Westbrook at some point.

2. Considering the Lakers' offensive output lately, is Nick Young's recent absence from the lineup as problematic as his presence has been at times?

Nick Young is going through a tough stretch, but ultimately, the Lakers need a healthy Young to be effective. Rocky Widner/Getty Images

Holmes: Before Wednesday, Young hadn't played since being benched in the second half of the Lakers' Jan. 25 loss to Houston, and the Lakers' offense hasn't been great since then. But I don't know that he'd make all the difference, either. Byron Scott is clearly trying to send a message to Young, and it's more important that message get through and for them to be on the same page than it is for Young to be out there, up to the same old antics that infuriate Scott.

Shelburne: This is really an important stretch of Young's career. With Kobe Bryant out, it's his opportunity to lead this team and not just entertain. He hasn't been healthy, but as soon as he is, the Lakers need him back ASAP to provide some consistency.

Markazi: I think Young can make a positive contribution to the team, but he's going through a funk right now and I think the communication between him and Scott needs to be improved. I think the Lakers are a better team with a healthy and focused Nick Young, but he doesn't appear to be either right now.

3. Is it imperative for the Lakers to not only finish in the bottom five to keep their first-round draft pick, but also to descend into the bottom three to secure a top selection?

Holmes: If you're going to be bad, you might as well go all the way to give yourself a shot at that top pick. I guess what I'm really saying is, if the the Lakers are within range of the league's worst record in the final week and they start winning games, then that's a huge mistake.

Shelburne: Bottom three would be better, sure, but it's not imperative. You don't want to be sitting in that 5-hole, in which just one unlucky ping-pong ball could vault another team ahead of you into the top five and you lose your pick. But at some point, the Lakers really can't control this process. They just need to play out the string.

Markazi: I think it's imperative the Lakers be as bad as possible this season so they keep their top-five-protected pick. Sure, it would be better to be in the bottom three to guarantee that, but they can't control how bad the other tanking teams will be. Either way, losing would be better than winning in the second half of the season.