2024-25 Team Developments: Trades / Free Agents / News / Rumors / Ideas

Being the underdog is the way to go

Other teams might overlook us and we should have a chip on our shoulders with something to prove

 

I like Franz a lot but man that is a big contract for someone you don't know if you can play in the playoffs because his shot goes Josh Giddey on you

 

high draft pick bird rights trap ftw.

you can't spend a high pick, have that player enjoy any amount of success, and then not max him out. it's some sort of unwritten law these days.

i'm curious to see what houston does with jalen green for this reason. is he a max guy? hell no. are they going to have to either pay him that or trade him to someone who tells his agent they will? i think so.

 

hadn't seen this posted. i didn't want derozan, but lol at SA offering up their space to help him get to sac. no way we got such an offer (glad, but still).

if we don't deal directly with utah, we'll need them for the same purposes for a trade, i think.

 

Looks like the Bulls are finally doing the right thing and going Cooper Flagg tanking/hunting: wonder if this increases the chances of a Lavine move.

 

this is the move i was referencing above, actually. apart from our maybe not wanting lavine, we'd have to send out more salary than we take in on a lavine trade, and chicago wants to get under the luxury tax. so what could happen is chicago sending a 1st with lavine, but we don't get it. danny ainge gets it.

we send: dlo/rui/jhs/hayes/reddish

we get: lavine/utah 2nd?

chicago sends: lavine/1st

chicago gets: rui/jhs/hayes

utah sends: 2nd rounder to us

utah gets: dlo (whom they cut or save for trade)/jhs/1st

could also simplify the deal by keep jhs and hayes and subbing in gabe or vando, but i don't like giving up gabe when we don't have another pg on the roster (though lavine and reaves can both run it a big in a pinch). and i don't like giving up vando because i heart vando.

finally, we could also try to kick in a first to get kessler from utah in the deal. that would be pretty good.

 

Not in a million years

Lakers hate is real and runs deep in the NBA

 

Lopez is old and I would NOT trade for him but as far as the rebounding goes, the argument was always that he still helped the team rebound because he boxed out his man so effectively. Him being on the court was a net positive for the team’s rebounding even though his personal RPG were low.

 

We shouldn’t have to give up a first when everyone knows the Bulls are trying to dump him.
If that’s the case, this would be a really, really bad trade for us.
Firsts should be saved for players who aren’t broken.

 

The contracts now are insane.
I remember thinking that Shaq getting $100 million was crazy money back in the day.
Guys who are decent role players get that now.

 

Yeah I like the Lavine move a lot as long as you are not giving up assets. This is subtle but assets are the key here with a Lavine trade because of what can happen next

Ifs he's good great but if not you need the assets so his contract allows you to setup the next AD trade

 

Are you just throwing this together thinking this is what the Lakers will do, or this is what they SHOULD do?

So we send no picks but we're sending both DLO and Rui for Lavine? No thanks man. I'm not sending 2 starters for Lavine who is not a guy that moves the needle for us, not a great defender, and was not healthy last year. We'll have to rebuild chemistry too.

I would rather stand pat.

 

100% standing pat

 

Contracts can be officially signed tomorrow, and I assume Lebron will want to sign his deal ASAP before starting workouts with Team USA.

Lebron at the max, and Christie on his new deal, would take us slightly over the second apron.

Would be pretty awesome if we pulled the trigger on a good consolidation trade within the next 24 hours and/or Lebron took a slight paycut to get us under the second apron. (Would be extra awesome if Lebron took enough of a paycut to comfortably get enough under the apron to be able to use the TPMLE if/when we clear a roster spot).

But I don’t see any of that happening at this point. I could see a scenario where here we simply stretch/waive one of the minimum guys (Reddish, Hayes, Wood). I think that would reduce salary just barely enough to get under the second apron even with Lebron taking his full max. And then at that point the FO patiently waits for the trade market to soften over the next several weeks/months

 

I wonder if Lebron consider the acquisition of LaVine "worthy" of taking a significant pay cut for? Also, maybe if it opens up some money for Trent, who like LaVine is another Klutch client? IDK it's looking kind of rough. But Lakers could low key load up on a first to build for future, while simultaneously appeasing Lebron.

 

I do think LeGM gets blinded by “star power” and helping his Klutch acquaintances, so I think he would be pretty satisfied by a Lavine trade.

But other than getting under the second apron so that we can aggregate salaries in a trade (would only require a paycut of about $1 million), there isn’t really any incentive for Lebron to take a more significant paycut when it comes to trying to get Lavine. I guess in theory if he takes a massive enough paycut to get under the first apron, that could make a trade easier to cobble together because we would no longer have to send out more salary than we acquire, but I don’t think that’s a huge factor in our prospective trades

If he takes ~$6 million paycut, I think that would get us under the second apron to potentially trade for Lavine or someone else AND allow us to use the TPMLE (~$5 million) to try to sign Trent (don’t quote me on my math here, these are rough numbers estimate). But really not sure where Trent fits in the rotation.

But yeah if there is truly a Lavine trade out there that nets us an extra first round pick, starting to like that route more than any of the rumored trades that are demanding even more draft capital from us (Grant, Kuzma, Cam/DFS, etc)

 

Oh wow I forgot about that nifty little trick if we absolutely need a spot later we can't free up by trade now. Of course when we had to use it on this guy it was a HUGE PITA salary wise for years.

 

True, Trent really wouldn't be a great fit per say in terms of the rotation. He would compete with Max and Knecht for playing time, and he would likely have to be promised something for him to sign with us. So it would be like the Reddish/Max situation last season, which is not good. But if he just agreed to sign with us, you could never have too many shooters and he has shown decent capabilities as a defender in the past too.