Where do the Lakers go from here...?

[trojanfan12]

I am telling you.

The 3 team deal proposed by @Arizona_Sting is brilliant.

San Antonio will be hard pressed to find a better return than that haul, and Phoenix has their future core ready to go with plenty of cap space to work with in the summer of 2020. The benefit for the Lakers is beyond obvious.

Agree 100%.

I'm actually surprised that I haven't seen proposed anywhere else. It makes a ton of sense for all 3 teams.

Ingram and Kuzma would fit very well with what the Spurs do.

As you said, the benefit to the Lakers is obvious and the Suns get a guy they like for their future. I think Ball and Booker would fit very well together, especially if Ball develops at least a serviceable outside shot.

 

[flyerhawk]

It's only a nice asset if that player pans out or if it's a pick in an upcoming draft.

On paper, I agree that giving up the #2 seems like a pretty big cost just to get rid of Mozgov's contract.

But when you consider that it was a player who was no longer going to be part of the Lakers future and that it puts them in position to land 2 max guys.

It really wasn't much to give up.

My point wasn't that it was a bad trade. My point is that dumping bad contracts requires you to give up assets.

 

[flyerhawk]

Because if the Lakers simply stretch Deng, they will only be able to sign 2 max players.

If they want to "hit the FA lotto" and get Lebron, PG and Kawhi, they have to include Deng in a trade because just stretching him doesn't free up enough cap space.

Well that is a situation where they WANT to clear the cap space. But that would make the deal even more costly for the Lakers.

 

[flyerhawk]

I am telling you.

The 3 team deal proposed by @Arizona_Sting is brilliant.

San Antonio will be hard pressed to find a better return than that haul, and Phoenix has their future core ready to go with plenty of cap space to work with in the summer of 2020. The benefit for the Lakers is beyond obvious.

Not sure I agree that this is the best haul for the Spurs but maybe. It would really depend on whether they think Kuzma and/or Ingram can become All-Star level players. The 2 late 1sts and a future pick from the Lakers, which I think would need to be 2020, isn't all that great a haul.

IMO, that deal only makes sense if the Celtics and Sixers choose not to go all in on Leonard.

 

[trojanfan12]

My point wasn't that it was a bad trade. My point is that dumping bad contracts requires you to give up assets.

Yeah, that's definitely true. Especially when that contract isn't an expiring contract at the time you're trying to unload it.

 

[trojanfan12]

Well that is a situation where they WANT to clear the cap space. But that would make the deal even more costly for the Lakers.

Really wouldn't matter because with what they're getting back, it would be very costly anyway. If you can put together getting Lebron, PG and Kawhi, you have to pay whatever it costs.

 

[DJ]

I am telling you.

The 3 team deal proposed by @Arizona_Sting is brilliant.

San Antonio will be hard pressed to find a better return than that haul, and Phoenix has their future core ready to go with plenty of cap space to work with in the summer of 2020. The benefit for the Lakers is beyond obvious.

It really is. 1 of the better trade proposals I have seen posted in my almost 4 years here.

 

[DJ]

Really wouldn't matter because with what they're getting back, it would be very costly anyway. If you can put together getting Lebron, PG and Kawhi, you have to pay whatever it costs.

That is an instant contender.

 

[trojanfan12]

Not sure I agree that this is the best haul for the Spurs but maybe. It would really depend on whether they think Kuzma and/or Ingram can become All-Star level players. The 2 late 1sts and a future pick from the Lakers, which I think would need to be 2020, isn't all that great a haul.

IMO, that deal only makes sense if the Celtics and Sixers choose not to go all in on Leonard.

The bold is the key to the whole thing and depends on Kawhi.

If Kawhi says that he will only re-sign with the Lakers...I don't see the Sixers or Celtics being willing to give up very much of what they have put together. Both teams have worked way too hard to get where they are to just give a bunch of it up for what would likely be a 1 year rental.

But, if Kawhi says that the Lakers are merely his preferred destination and he would consider re-signing with another team...then I think both the Celtics and Sixers will make offers that beat the Lakers.

 

[DJ]

I never suggested keeping Randle instead of a major free agent. I'm merely weighing the merits of Randle vs Kuzma.

Kuzma.

 

[tlance]

Not sure I agree that this is the best haul for the Spurs but maybe. It would really depend on whether they think Kuzma and/or Ingram can become All-Star level players. The 2 late 1sts and a future pick from the Lakers, which I think would need to be 2020, isn't all that great a haul.

IMO, that deal only makes sense if the Celtics and Sixers choose not to go all in on Leonard.

I have said all along that the Celtics hold all the cards here. They have the best packages to offer.

I honestly don't think anything Philly can give (obviously assuming Embiid and Simmons are untradeable) is as attractive as that Laker/Phoenix package. The 6ers have the assets to make a quality deal for sure, but not better than that.

 

[shopson67]

It's only a nice asset if that player pans out or if it's a pick in an upcoming draft.

On paper, I agree that giving up the #2 seems like a pretty big cost just to get rid of Mozgov's contract.

But when you consider that it was a player who was no longer going to be part of the Lakers future and that it puts them in position to land 2 max guys.

It really wasn't much to give up.

The pick where the player was originally selected is of no value to the new team; they are getting the player (bad pick or not), not that draft position. Calling it the #2 pick is overstating Russell's value by quite a margin.

 

[shopson67]

I have said all along that the Celtics hold all the cards here. They have the best packages to offer.

I honestly don't think anything Philly can give (obviously assuming Embiid and Simmons are untradeable) is as attractive as that Laker/Phoenix package. The 6ers have the assets to make a quality deal for sure, but not better than that.

The Celtics are in a bind unless they want to move Kyrie (and if the Spurs are good with that). Hayward ($31M) and Horford ($28M) make too much to be included without requiring more from the Spurs, and the Celtics aren't going to move Tatum. That basically leaves the only potential package that works under the cap to be Rozier/Brown/Morris/Yabusele and picks. Does that sound like something the Spurs are going to jump at? Or something the Celtics will be willing to offer, as it strips out their depth?

 

[shopson67]

Kuzma.

If were talking 3 max guys, both will be gone.

 

[DJ]

If were talking 3 max guys, both will be gone.

Not so sure about that (Kuzma only makes 1.6 million.), but if you're talking about one or the other as far as keeping? I'm rolling with Kuzma since he's cheaper and has better range.

 

[flyerhawk]

I have said all along that the Celtics hold all the cards here. They have the best packages to offer.

I honestly don't think anything Philly can give (obviously assuming Embiid and Simmons are untradeable) is as attractive as that Laker/Phoenix package. The 6ers have the assets to make a quality deal for sure, but not better than that.

You think that package is better than, say, #10, #26, Saric, and Covington? Toss in a couple of 2nds as sweeteners?

 

[shopson67]

You think that package is better than, say, #10, #26, Saric, and Covington? Toss in a couple of 2nds as sweeteners?

For the Spurs, yes.

 

[flyerhawk]

For the Spurs, yes.

So Kuzma, Ingram, #25, #31, and a future Lakers pick which will likely be a late 1st are better?

To each their own I guess.

 

[shopson67]

So Kuzma, Ingram, #25, #31, and a future Lakers pick which will likely be a late 1st are better?

To each their own I guess.

The knowns are the players involved, and I feel Kuzma/Ingram are far better than Saric/Covington with more upside left. Sure, there is one better pick in the Sixers trade you suggested, but who are they going to get there? Kevin Knox? Until that pick is made, it's a crapshoot.

 

[flyerhawk]

The knowns are the players involved, and I feel Kuzma/Ingram are far better than Saric/Covington with more upside left. Sure, there is one better pick in the Sixers trade you suggested, but who are they going to get there? Kevin Knox? Until that pick is made, it's a crapshoot.

This is all hypothetical of course and I don't think that Kawhi is leaving, but I would imagine that the Spurs would probably want to make the pick. #10 pick is FAR more likely to result in a quality player than something in the late 20s.

Ingram and Kuzma represent more upside than Saric/Covington mostly since Covington is a known entity. But as of right now I think you would have a tough time arguing that Kuzma and Ingram are better than Saric/Covington.

If it were more about upside then swap out Covington with Fultz.