Tank Tank Or Tank Tank Tank?

You reference the top teams/contenders but why exactly do you feel a team that is "just" a playoff-contender wouldn't want him?

 

GS already has Curry, Klay, and Livingston, and that's of room not a lot for a 4th guard, especially since having a spark off the bench guard is pretty low on their needs. Houston, SA, LAC are the same way. Toronto, the Hawks, Boston, and Wizards, if you consider them legit contenders all have two guards handling a lot of minutes. Are their 3rd guards great? No, they all have greater needs. But maybe I'm wrong? Which of teams needs an undersized (I only bring up his height because of defense reasons) scoring guard as priority.

 

You misunderstood my question. I got your point about why you think the top teams/contenders might not go after him. I'm asking why you think that next tier - the "playoff contenders" wouldn't go after him (Charlotte. Detroit. Milwaukee. Orlando. Chicago. Indiana. Utah. Memphis etc)

 

Oh, gotcha. I feel that unless a team has delusions of grandeur that they can win title and the Lou would that them over the top, would be the purpose? He's almost 32 with 11 seasons under his belt, he has a pretty specific skill set, and I don't know why a team with young guards would to have him cut into their PT. And the fact the LA would looking for a draft pick or younger player, I just don't see the upside for a team trading for him.

 

Lou just turned 30 on October 27th...so not as close to 32. His value is at a high right now, and his contract is a bargain. He's a much cheaper..better Jamal Crawford this year.

 

I did mistake the age. My bad, but he's been the league for a decent period of time. But if your your premise that the can be moved, with a good deal y'all, which team and what are they realistically going to give for him? He's a 1 1/2 season rental. I wouldn't give up a 1st rounder or a promising you player.

 

i think mash's point might be that the teams for whom lou is worth a first don't have good firsts to offer?

if, say, cleveland, offered me a limited protection 2020 pick or something...maybe that works?

again, my point is that when you have someone producing like lou on his contract, i don't care where you are in the standings, you're fielding calls, not making them.

 

There are numerous examples throughout the years of teams making - or trying to make - deadline moves just to help them make the playoffs. I brought up two from last year with Washington/Detroit. If you go the year before, the Heat gave up a lot for Dragic and they were 22-30 at the time. The Thunder traded for Kanter and three others in one trade and Waiters in another trade and they were 29-25. The Suns had the same record when they gave up the Lakers' pick to get Knight and another 1st rounder to get Wright. The C Bags gave up a 1st round pick to get Isaiah Thomas and were 20-31 at the time. Win-now moves aren't limited to just title contenders. The upside is a better shot at making the playoffs and that in itself is significant for some franchises who don't have a long history of success (or for coaches/GMs who may be on the hot seat). Having Lou eat into the playing time of young players is more of a concern for a bad team - like the Lakers, which should be developing their youth. For a team that is actually good, it's really less of a concern. Otherwise you wouldn't see things like Jon Leuer getting more PT than Stanley Johnson on the Pistons. They don't play the same position but the Pistons playing Leuer so much forces Morris to the SF spot, which then eats into Johnson's role. It's all about winning for these teams and Lou could help them win. Even if all it'll end up is a 1st round beatdown by the Cavs, it's still important to teams.

 

Why would he only be a 1.5 season rental? That may be his contract length and he very well could depart as a FA in 2018 but to declare him a rental is premature as nothing is stopping a team from re-signing him.

 

I brought up several examples from the last two years alone where fringe playoff teams made trades - often giving up young talent and/or picks. You may not see the value in just making the playoffs but what I am telling you is that franchises do.

Anyways I agree we are going around and around but I wanted to address that point. I've never once said the Lakers will trade him for decent value or that the market guarantees that a decent value is available. I've only been saying the Lakers should trade him for decent value if it is available and I don't think, given his production/salary, that it's unrealistic to obtain.

 

the argument has been about the bolded, not the underlined.

and the bolded will likely be addressed by factual outcome in the coming weeks, right? IF the lakers can get a good return, they'll move him. if not, they won't.

trading for the sake of opening up minutes or losing games was another point i argued against, but the real question is whether the scenarios being thrown around (stan johnson, WCS, mid first/late lotto pick) are realistic. i don't think so, but will be happy if the facts come down the other way.

 

Correct. As I said before, if I am wrong, I'll own it. I can only go off of my opinion based on my perception of Lou's value and that historically teams have been willing to give up decent value at the trade deadline for players like that. People disagree and I get it. If I am right, great. I won't gloat nor do people need to eat crow. I am just interested in what is best for the Lakers and I think trading Lou for decent value and the tangible benefits that come with it (opening up minutes/losing games) is what is best for the Lakers. If people think keeping Lou is what is best for the Lakers, then I respect that opinion as well.

 

Yup. If the deadline doesn't yield anything, the Lakers can still trade Lou over the summer.