2022-23 Team Developments: News / Trades / Free Agents / Rumors

Yeah, Giannis with Tatum would be game over.

 

@svzr too
Oh I thought you couldn't do it in the same deal. So that means that if we trade '27 and '29 now, we can only deal '26, '28 and '30 as swap picks later? If that's the case we can NEVER trade the 27/29 picks this year, until we use them in a superstar. I mean NEVER. There's not even a discussion about it.
Post-Lebron we have a 2 year window to go after a superstar, so we need all assets to do so.

Yeah it worked with Dwight/Javale but they only played in spurts. Kuz and Markieff were key at that stretch 4 position. We have no one similar in our roster. We also add the likes of KCP and Green that we also don't have now, giving us the spacing we needed with those 2 bigs on the floor.
I don't think Randle solves any of our needs. He has too long of a contract too. We would need to get picks for that and I don't even want them. If he was in a 2y contract, it could be argued to make that gamble, but for me is a big NO

I like Turner, Wood, Wiggins. Even Barnes, LeVert or Ross at a lower price would be more useful for our long term

He's too expensive to be our Lamar Odom, imo

 

Yeah this is how I feel. If we get rid of the 27 and 29. We don’t have a shot. There is a scenario where the Pelicans take our ‘24 pick and we get control back of the 2025 pick. This is the summer to strike because we could trade ‘25, ‘27 and ‘29 and it’s also the year that Lebron expires.

It also gives players like Doncic two more years of failures in the playoffs to demand a trade. And our picks are still valuable because there might still be question marks on AD’s health.

If we trade those picks now, we effectively close our window for the rest of the decade unless we get lucky in free agency. Which we haven’t been classically good at.

 

i hate picks (think they're incredibly overvalued and would trade almost all of them if i could), and i've been staunchly against moving both all summer. that should tell you something.

turner will cost as much or more, i fear. and at least randle plays. wood needs to prove he's a winner, and if he does, dallas will keep him. if not, give me randle. wiggins won't make it to FA, imo. no to barnes, lol to levert and ross being better.

keep in mind that any new FA will also have just as long a deal as randle does. except for ross, who should be a vet min anyway.

adjusting for inflation, he'd be paid something more like what odom was paid here. the third most expensive guy on your roster making 25 per (and being in their prime) is much better than having the third most expensive guy be a third max (at literally double the price!) who's past his prime.

i'm not crusading for randle at all, but if ny called with him, rose, and reddish for russ/nunn and no picks change hands...i'm listening intently. i'd want to make sure randle knew what his role was going to be and not have another schroder situation, though.

 

Hmm, do you think Randle/Rose/Reddish is better than Hield/Turner?

For me there's a clear disadvantage in getting Randle, as it pushes permanently AD to the 5 and I think it's not good for him. For 2 reasons: basketball-wise because I think AD is better at the 4 than 5, because there's no one who can defend him at the 4. And to protect his health, because it's not good for him to be fighting whole games against guys like Adams, Valencianas or Embiid. It tears him too much

 

Yeah if that's true, I'm completely with you. Anyway to confirm that? Haven't read it anywhere which if true then would be talked more no?
I mean, it's really DUMB to trade them if then we can't automatically use other 3 picks, if they're not swaps. It's like there's not even a discussion and it doesn't justify all this talk if we should or should not use them. I wouldn't even trade 1 pick. The next 5-10 years of this franchise most likely rely on a trade after LeBron leaves, there's not much question about it. With 3 picks you could still get a superstar but with no picks it's literally impossible. Most superstars are leaving in trades because now they have control even not being FA. It's a completely different league so you just can't lose those assets. Again, it baffles this isn't picked up by the TV analysts

I think if they get the 24 we can't trade the 25 because that would be consecutive years with no picks right?

 

my hypothetical deal involves zero picks. in either case, we're punting FA next year (which is fine by me). and after that, lebron's not on the books, so things could be wildly different.

hield and turner are a better fit for this year's roster, and if they could be had with zero picks, i'd obviously choose them. but they can't. not for us.

not if randle plays the 28mpg utility big role off the bench. you start a placeholder vet min center like jones/bryant, and randle plays backup c and some pf. everybody wins. but it requires randle accepting a role that maybe he doesn't like.

yes, it's true.

and even that's not entirely correct: you must have a first round pick at least every other year. nothing prevents you from trading that pick immediately after you make it, but you can't trade consecutive picks in the future (unless you already own others during that time period).

this is why several of us have been against 2 picks in all the russ deals. you're all the way sunk for 5 years. we could only move the 26 and 28 picks after we made them, which means they couldn't be part of packages for disgruntled stars, as we'd only have one at a time.

tv analysts are idiots, generally speaking. plus, everyone WANTS the lakers to give up these picks because they (appropriately) fear that they'll factor into our next big acquisition--which should be bigger than myles turner.

this is part of why i've been ok with rob's work this summer. he didn't cave--under immense pressure, probably internally and externally--to ainge and pritchard's insane demands that would have crippled the franchise long past lebron and AD's tenure.

 

Okok, I get you.

That's a steep price for a 6th man forward when our big 2 are forward huh? I see where you are getting at, but I pass

Thanks for sharing. I did some research too and that's pretty much it. Apart from the 2030 onwards picks, we get control of '26 pick after '24 draft. Until then we have our hands tied. Svzr summed it up nicely too above.

I think this is what we can do:
This year: we can offer '27 and '29 straight up and '26 and '28 swap picks too
2023: we can offer '27 and '29 straight up and '26, '28 and '30 swap picks
2024 (LeBron expires) if Pels take pick: '26, '28 and '30 straight up and '27, '29 and '31 swap picks
2024 if Pels don't take pick: '24 (after draft), '27, '29, '31 straight up and '28 swap pick.

If we trade '27 and '29 pick this year, these are the straight up (no swap picks) we have to trade next years:
2023: none
2024 if Pels take pick: '31 pick
2024 if Pels don't take pick: '24 pick and '31 pick
2025 if Pels take '24 pick: '25 pick, '31 pick or '32 pick
2025 if Pels take '25 pick: '31 pick or '32 pick
2026: '31 and '33 pick

Only in 2028 we would get 3 straight up picks to use. I guess I got this right.
We can also always change things if we get picks from other teams, allowing us to open up other years. It's unlikely we do a deal where we receive a pick though

I don't think many people had this understanding, at least I didn't. This is an absolute NO GO with using any of these picks for the next years for anyone not named Luka, Booker, Tatum and a handful of other stars that might want out in the future

 

There is a lot of great posters on this board that are super knowledgable, I just assumed this was common knowledge. That's why I've been so confused when people suggested trading 2 picks for some average players like Hield, Bogdanovic or Rozier. Those players are fine, maybe trading a pick for a decent player when you need to get over the hump is acceptable. But we aren't in that situation.

I'd hold on with the picks to that 2024 season where we'd have three consecutive picks in the form of '24, '26 and '28 or '25, '27 and '29. Also another comment; you can trade picks only 7 years out, but most teams don't like trading picks more than 3 or 4 years out. You just don't know what could happen, that's why the 2024 offseason is our moment to pounce.

So with that in mind, what do we do with this current team? My opinion has been just to let Westbrook expire, I'm not sure if there are any deals where we can turn him into 2-3 players on slightly longer salaries without any draft picks going out.

 

This and this.

Talking heads on twitter, tv and articles can be incredibly stupid or can be a bit disingenuous. Some desperately just want us to burn and make poor moves.

I too am happy that Rob held his ground.

 

if they take '24, we don't have 25 to trade because then we'd have two consecutive years with no pick. i think the rest of your scenarios are right, but my brain hurts.

to be clear: pretty much all my desired trades involved either one protected pick or no picks going out. for example, i'd take rozier or randle, but i wouldn't trade any picks to get them. i'm eating a ton of long-term salary there for a modest talent upgrade, you don't get a 1st on top of it).

conley/clarkson/beasley with no picks of any kind going out, i'd do.

richardson/mcdermott with no 1st round picks going out, i'd do (if they want a 1st, i'd consider it if poeltl came along).

randle/rose/reddish with no picks of any kind going out, i'd consider.

i would have done hayward/rozier before we acquired both bevs and schroder, but it makes less sense now.

as you indicated, maybe none of those deals are actually offered, but imo, they're all perfectly reasonable.

 

exactly as i expected

 

This is the most important reason to move on from Rob.

 

Yeah not much we can do. This year there won't be an opportunity to add a superstar, so I'm not trading both for anyone.

It's basically a trade-off. If we trade these picks, we are commiting to depend on FA at least until 2028. There's not much deals worth that and certainly not one available.

1 pick...can be argued but it has to be really thought through. The 27 pick is tradable, because it's likely the Pels take our pick in 25, making 26 untradable, thus 27 available. If I have to choose one now, it's that one because it will for sure get traded either now or later. The downside is that we lose one pick for a future package, so it needs to be a very good trade that justifies that

Would I do it for Hield/Turner? It's a tough one. It's the best deal I have seen so far that makes this team substantially better and give us a punchers' chance this year

But our best option overall is really to roll with Russ and hope for the market to open until the deadline. His value will go up and we may get a good trade for no picks.

With this context, I think we have really managed this Russ fiasco brilliantly from a communication perspective and when negotiating with GMs.

 

I would also demand a First coming our way.

 

i don't get why utah would be hesitant to take on a bad contract? they're nowhere near contending and are in the beginning of a rebuild