Kawhi wants out of San Antonio

[Heatles84]

I agree that you never get fair value, but Kyrie straight up isn't even close. I would defintely prefer a package with a couple high picks or young talent in rookie deals like Ball and Ingram.

The problem is, teams like the Kings who have high picks to offer would be on crack to deal them for Kawhi. Kawhi isn't likely to resign in Sacramento.

And franchises like the Kings are the ones that make terrible moves like this.

 

[The Q]

I agree that you never get fair value, but Kyrie straight up isn't even close. I would defintely prefer a package with a couple high picks or young talent in rookie deals like Ball and Ingram.

The problem is, teams like the Kings who have high picks to offer would be on crack to deal them for Kawhi. Kawhi isn't likely to resign in Sacramento.

Sure. 27 and the clippers pick.


Make this easy and get this done now so Boston can focus on using its MLE to replace Baynes

 

[The Q]

And franchises like the Kings are the ones that make terrible moves like this.

Like I Said before.

Good franchises let bad franchises do bad franchise things.

 

[tlance]

Agree. No doubt that both Boston and Philly will kick the tires on Kawhi. The problem is what does Kawhi really want? Does he want to be a Laker bad enough that he'll refuse to re-sign with anyone else? Or does he just want to go to what he feels is a better situation with the Lakers merely being his first choice?

I don't see Boston or Philly giving up veryh much of what they have for a guy who may very well be a 1 year rental.

OKC was able to take a chance on PG as a 1 year rental because they weren't going to be contenders with just Westbrook anyway. So, if PG walks away, they are in essentially the same place they were before they traded for PG.

The Celtics and Sixers are already contenders. If they give up much of what makes them contenders and Kawhi walks after the season, they have set themselves back a good bit over a 1 year rental.

Don't see either of them being willing to take that risk.

The other reason OKC was willing to give as much as they did for PG13 is because they needed to show commitment to winning in order to get Russ to extend. The PG trade accomplished that, whether or not PG leaves.

 

[tlance]

Brian grant Odom Caron Butler and a late first?

The kg trade is probably the best example.

Kyrie is better than anything minny got for KG. Kyrie Plus clipper pick and 27 blows away anything anyone else got.

I disagree.

If Kyrie were healthy and on a long term contract he would be worth more.

Given the state of his knee and the fact that he only has 1 year left, Kyrie's trade value isn't anywhere near where it was last summer or where you want it be.

 

[flyerhawk]

Both.

One can’t say the Celtics could just resign kyrie but not use that same logic for the spurs. Especially when we knew kyrie had knee issues during the trade.

Why would the Spurs want to bring in a player they could lose next year? Why not just keep Kawhi?

The Spurs have to be looking for players they have control over for a few years.

 

[The Q]

I disagree.

If Kyrie were healthy and on a long term contract he would be worth more.

Given the state of his knee and the fact that he only has 1 year left, Kyrie's trade value isn't anywhere near where it was last summer or where you want it be.

You may wanna look at what they got.

Al Jefferson, one decent pick and some young role players.

 

[flyerhawk]

I disagree.

If Kyrie were healthy and on a long term contract he would be worth more.

Given the state of his knee and the fact that he only has 1 year left, Kyrie's trade value isn't anywhere near where it was last summer or where you want it be.

If the Spurs get Kyrie and change for Kawhi then the market has really dried up and there are serious questions about Kahwi's knee.

 

[The Q]

Why would the Spurs want to bring in a player they could lose next year? Why not just keep Kawhi?

The Spurs have to be looking for players they have control over for a few years.

When is the last time the spurs bottomed out?

When they tanked, lied about Robinson’s and injury and then another him maybe retiring so the league would give them Duncan so the de accuse wouldn’t have to move?

Unless pop quits now too they’re not a team that will try to bottom out.

 

[tlance]

My law professor and I published a paper about how Stern way overstepped his bounds. That was a terrible conflict of interest. The reason for Demps was to set up a "chinese wall" to avoid such conflicts. and then they broke that bitch down the second it seemed inconvenient for them to abide by it.

Correct.

As I say every time this no comes up, and the point so many Laker fans can't grasp (@trojanfan12 and @True Lakers Fan seem to get it) is that the problem was the league office ever agreeing to run the team in the first place.

The commissioner (not Stern or Silver) would ever veto a trade made between 2 well intentioned franchises.

 

[The Q]

Correct.

As I say every time this no comes up, and the point so many Laker fans can't grasp (@trojanfan12 and @True Lakers Fan seem to get it) is that the problem was the league office ever agreeing to run the team in the first place.

The commissioner (not Stern or Silver) would ever veto a trade made between 2 well intentioned franchises.

Well the problem was they told all the teams that Demps had the authority to make deals.

He wanted to resign after the veto, because it cut him off at the knees. Idk what they did to get him to stay.

 

[tlance]

Sure. 27 and the clippers pick.


Make this easy and get this done now so Boston can focus on using its MLE to replace Baynes

That would be a good offer that might get it done.

 

[flyerhawk]

You may wanna look at what they got.

Al Jefferson, one decent pick and some young role players.

Al Jefferson, Theo Ratliff, Gerald Green, Ryan Gomes, Telfair and 2 1st round drafts, one of which was a lottery pick.

 

[tlance]

Well the problem was they told all the teams that Demps had the authority to make deals.

He wanted to resign after the veto, because it cut him off at the knees. Idk what they did to get him to stay.

That too.

Had Stern simply instructed Demps that any deal required his stamp of approval, this whole thing would have been avoided.

But it can't be argued that the Demps trade was good, because it was the other deal that positioned NOLA to get Anthony Davis.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Correct.

As I say every time this no comes up, and the point so many Laker fans can't grasp (@trojanfan12 and @True Lakers Fan seem to get it) is that the problem was the league office ever agreeing to run the team in the first place.

The commissioner (not Stern or Silver) would ever veto a trade made between 2 well intentioned franchises.

As far as I'm concerned, Stern was right to veto a bad trade like that. He was protecting the Then Hornets. Im tired of hearing fans blame the commissioner for that

 

[flyerhawk]

That would be a good offer that might get it done.

Ultimately it depends on how determined Kawhi is to play for the Lakers. If he only wants to play there then his trade value shrivels up.

If he is willing to play for any contender as well then his trade skyrockets.

Sixers could offer Saric, Fultz, #10, and change. Maybe Covington as well.

But honestly there are a number of teams that could get into the mix that aren't being discussed right now.

 

[The Q]

That too.

Had Stern simply instructed Demps that any deal required his stamp of approval, this whole thing would have been avoided.

But it can't be argued that the Demps trade was good, because it was the other deal that positioned NOLA to get Anthony Davis.

False.

It was the wink wink deal with benson to buy a struggling franchise that landed them brow.

Quite he amazing coincidence.

 

[The Q]

That too.

Had Stern simply instructed Demps that any deal required his stamp of approval, this whole thing would have been avoided.

But it can't be argued that the Demps trade was good, because it was the other deal that positioned NOLA to get Anthony Davis.

The problem is that would be the clear conflict of interest it was.

By vetoing the deal the league was basically saying we won’t allow you to trade him to the lakers.

Frankly, the hornets shouldn’t have been allowed to trade him anywhere after the veto.

 

[flyerhawk]

When is the last time the spurs bottomed out?

When they tanked, lied about Robinson’s and injury and then another him maybe retiring so the league would give them Duncan so the de accuse wouldn’t have to move?

Unless pop quits now too they’re not a team that will try to bottom out.

The Spurs aren't going to tank. Not even sure how that is even part of the discussion. They were nearly a 50 win team while getting nothing from Kawhi. Just about any trade they make will make them better next season. Tanking isn't in the conversation.

 

[tlance]

The problem is that would be the clear conflict of interest it was.

By vetoing the deal the league was basically saying we won’t allow you to trade him to the lakers.

Frankly, the hornets shouldn’t have been allowed to trade him anywhere after the veto.

The problem was that the original trade didn't include enough future assets to allow a new owner to put their own stamp on a newly acquired team.

Demps should have understood that, and Stern should have made his expectation clear to Demps.

And yes, it isn't impossible that lottery could have been fixed, but had they Pelicans done the Laker deal, they wouldn't have had those ping pong balls that allowed them to get Davis.