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

I mainly lurk, but I enjoy the discussion in this forum. Pika and Elgin and others are making good arguments for their sides, and I think it's reasonable to lean in either direction, depending on what you value more.

I do lean towards the 'trading now' side, but that is because I think the 'saving picks' side discounts the present while overestimating how long trading away the future picks set us back.

For example, as currently constructed, we have little chance at the 2nd round, and almost zero chance at a title. If the Indiana trade or something equivalent or better worked out (health, fit, etc), then we would have a reasonable chance at the WCF and a small but non-zero chance at a title. Some may think that overestimates the chances after a trade, but there are no great teams in the West after Golden State. A bunch of good to very good teams, but the 2-8 picture is very murky and up for grabs. The Lakers could absolutely be in that mix after a trade.

Meanwhile, if we don't make a trade, we are terrible for years until we do make a trade, and by then, you've wasted LeBron and AD. So the 'savings picks' side is basically giving up on the '23, '24, & '25 seasons in order to maybe trade in '25 or beyond with 3 picks available. However, if we do make a trade that works out, then we are reasonably good in '23 & '24, maybe okay in '25, probably bad in '26 & '27, but again able to make a trade with 2 picks in '26 or 3 picks in '28, which pika notes:

Yes, but the 6 YEARS is an exaggeration, because we are probably good for 2-3 years, then probably bad for 2-3 years. Whereas if we don't trade, then we are bad for 2-3 years, then maybe or maybe not get a trade that might make us good. Basically, by not trading, we are almost certainly guaranteeing being bad and wasting LeBron and AD for a future hope in 2-3 years, while if we do make a trade that works, then we are reasonably good for 2-3 years, then bad for 2-3 years, then have the same chance to make a trade with 3 picks.

As explained above, the main difference between trading now vs saving picks, is just trading which 3 years we will be bad in, but saying it mortgages the WHOLE DECADE is not accurate because it makes us reasonably good through '24 or '25, then bad for 2-3 years, then we can trade 2 picks in '26 or 3 picks in '28.

The tradeoff is simply 2-3 years now vs 2-3 years in the future, and since we know we have LeBron and AD now, it makes more sense to me to trade now while you can add pieces around them, vs banking on a future trade, where even if you get that trade, even for a superstar, there likely wouldn't be good pieces around him.

 

AD's value is at an all time low. why would anyone give up a star for a guy who is almost 30 and can't stay on the court for even half the season?

 

good post, and i'm still on the other side, though. mainly, if it's about when you want to be bad, i want to be bad while i control my picks. if we move the picks for buddy/turner, we're (probably) not bad for the next two years. which is good, because we owe NO those picks anyway. but if you start moving future picks with no protections, you're talking about being in situations in which you may be in the tank AND not own your pick. lebron will be done as a superstar very soon, and AD isn't going to get healthier with age. i'm expecting we'll be bad as soon as next year and almost certainly the year after.

btw, my position has always been: take on salary in a russ trade and don't give out picks. you get marginally better in the short term (like with buddy/turner) and don't sacrifice the future. if we have to take on something rough, i say do it. our cap will be pretty clear once lebron's gone anyway, and i don't think tearing it down to the studs salary-wise even makes sense in 99% of cases.

if we can get hayward/rozier, we should do it. if we can get reddish or some player of use from the knicks, we should eat fournier (or even randle if they'll sweeten the pot).

just don't send picks out unless we're getting a clear star, conference-position changer.

 

because he's WAY better than our fans give him credit for? because other locales won't have such high expectations? because your star is demanding out and AD is the best player (attached to picks) that you can get? not everyone wants to suck when they trade. bkn wanted players for kd and kyrie, not just a boatload of picks and salary ballast.

 

I think this is fair and certainly agree that there are risks with moving to improve the roster now if it involves picks. I greatly prefer to keep at least one of them but am not completely opposed to dealing them. The Utah deal intrigued me because it was the only one that I can think of that mentioned a pick coming back to us as well in the deal.

But yeah, I think this is fair.

 

Great breakdown.

I'd only add that there's always the potential to work in some picks coming back our way in a trade we make.

 

it's not his skill level that's the problem. we all know how good he can be. it's his inability to stay on the court

literally every time he falls down there's a chance he's going to miss time

 

I also think I'm higher on LeBron and AD at this stage. I think they've got one more real run in them right now with the right supporting cast.

 

Watching old games of Pau, and he was often called "Gasoft" as many remember...Now go watch AD...Gasol seems like shaq in comparison lol

 

So he's not even "white swan", he's like butt white swan?

 

We've given recent consideration to signing Moe Harkless per Stein

Do it Rob! At 6-9... he's a giant!

 

that would be a game changer if we could sign him



/sarcasm

 

feel like harkless would crash and burn here. i'm actually not interested.

 

if any fans are hoping a guy who got cut from the 15th spot on any NBA roster is going to help us that much, then that's just desperate

 

I’d rather see if Matt Ryan can develop. His defense actually hasn’t been bad.

Ryan has a much better chance at improving his D and becoming a 3&D guy than Harkless does at suddenly developing a consistent three point shot.

 

Moe started 95 games over the past 3 seasons and plays 20ish minutes. That's a serviceable level rotation guy at a need of ours. It beats playing the 12 dwarves and gives us a different look. Not ideal but there's not going to be ideal on the FA market at this point.

I prefer not to cut Ryan until Russ is moved for a shooter, but Ryan was delivering dinners a year ago for a reason. He's a 12 or 13th man but since we have no shooting, he's playing double digit significant minutes. If you're going to miss 36 3s and only make 9. His one or two isn't going to do much.

 

I think he's washed

 

That's a relative term in relation to the current roster. Don't think a 29 year old is washed, but let's say the league says he is washed at 29. That doesn't mean he wouldn't automatically jump to cult status as a Laker because he can do things that a 6-2 PG masquerading as a SF cannot.

 

Shams on the Moe workout