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

https://theathletic.com/4006849/202...estbrook-beverley/?source=user_shared_article

Jovan’s take on the Westbrook situation is a bit more reassuring than Amick reporting yesterday about how it looks like we’ll be keeping Westbrook. Good to hear the organization still has concerns about the fit in late game situations.

Also good to hear we value Reaves and are unlikely to throw him into a trade (which should have been a no-brainer, but you never know with this team)

No new reporting on the potential players we’re targeting, but Jovan does throw KD into the mix with Beal/Lillard as pipe dream superstar scenarios.

I know this is frustrating, but nobody should have expected the 12/15 date meant a trade would happen right away. Overall, this makes sense; we WANT to make a trade as soon as possible, but realistically the sellers on the market aren’t in a rush so we don’t want to overpay.

 

again, it's just posturing that doesn't warrant this reaction. every front office has interest in beal, lillard, and durant. literally no one said they're not moving because they think those guys are coming.

what was said (and what i've said repeatedly for months) is that they're not moving because none of their trade partners are ready to move. as the article states, 12/15 has never been some big trade moment. the real give-ups don't happen until later. there are only a handful of teams that know they're out of it now (charlotte, detroit, houston, SA, orlando), and none of them gets real urgency until january (at earliest for salary dumps) anyway. my guess is the fournier/reddish deal is there ready to be made, but both ny and we are looking for something better. you'll know we got antsy if that deal goes down and we send out more draft compensation than we take in, imo.

and yes, the russ thing is definitely about the luxury tax, too. notice mcdermott's name on that list. moving russ for mcdermott and richardon gets close to getting us under the tax THIS year, if my calculations are right (i'd have to re-check).

 

this is my hope. if it were my, i'd cut my losses and try to get the fournier/reddish deal done ASAP, even if it means foregoing some other options that might be more attractive. i wouldn't do the same with a russ deal. it's too big. that one has to be the right one and is worth waiting on.

i'd just like to be free from the cap space fantasy.

 

If Russ stays, at least bench him at the end of games. Especially when the opposition puts their center on him.

 

you and kam both injecting your speculation as fact. the parts in red are your ideas, not things we know. and those are what you're mad about.

that IF to start the second part of that tweet is doing HEAVY lifting just so the brothers can be mad, i guess.


the things we actually know are that teams tried to bend us over all summer, and there's been no indication that has changed.

we also know that we've been after rozier since the summer, but you discount the idea that maybe, i don't know, charlotte is also trying to squeeze us? or that they don't think getting off his money is worth alienating fans by being the team that eats westbrook?

also, i'm pretty sure there's no mythical cap space player (ok, maybe draymond, yuck). contrary to popular belief, the front office (now that magic's gone) is staffed by competent professionals who know that we have a) no path to a max FA and b) there's nobody really worth that on the market this summer anyway.

the only negative take of yours that i definitely agree with is that the russ stuff is partly driven by luxury tax concerns. i do think those matter, but that can't be what stands in the way of a good deal that helps us compete this year. my guess (speculation) is that it's a combination of that holding back a russ trade--they don't want to be in tax hell for a pupu platter of expensive bad players.

i guess i also agree that giving up good players on good contracts for one s***ty star was atrocious, but i'm still on the "that wasn't rob and our FO is not currently functioning like that" train. the reason i think we aren't is that if we were, we'd be a first rounder lighter and paying john wall 47 million right now instead of russ.

 

One of those three names is not like the others. KD is one of the 15 or so greatest players of all time and one of the handful of best scorers of all time. He's also 7 feet tall, can provide some supplementary rim protection and can fit into any lineup or any system. Lillard is one of the best volume shooters of all time and is maybe the perfect fit with AD and LeBron.

I'm not really sure what Beal is anymore. He's a very good player, but the situation in Washington has been so weird around him its hard to get a good read on him. He was a good 3 point shooter when Wall was handling the ball more often but his percentages have dropped off, is it just because he's getting tougher looks? He's been an awful defender in recent years but never had that reputation previously, is it just an effort issue?

All that to say, we 100% do not have the ammo for KD or Lillard unless they go nuclear and demand to only be here (thats not really in either of their personalities it seems like). Beal, though, could maybe be had for Russ's expiring (they really liked him in Washington) + both FRPs. I don't think teams would be lining up to pay him $50 million. I can't think of another team that would spend more draft capital just to pay him $50 million a year, that is also a location Beal would want to be in.

 

agree. i don't think beal is on that tier anymore (if he ever was). his defense has never been good. i could see him being very good offensively next to AD and lebron, though, even now. he's also the most gettable, based on his insane salary and the fact that washington isn't good whilst paying it.

but once again, nobody knows that the lakers are waiting on those and passing up great deals for that purpose.

they probably throw it out there to reporters because it is true that you never know. nobody thought pau gasol was going for what he did at the 2008 deadline. i'm sure many (probably including me, i can't remember) were begging the FO to make other moves before that one went down, too.

so, it's about opportunity cost (same with the firsts). to me, we've seen zero deals floated that i would have done for russ. we've floated plenty of good ones, but every single one reported has been pretty lopsided in favor of whoever takes russ.

 

I like Lillard a lot more than Beal, but I think some of the same reasons you’re suggesting Beal might be gettable also apply to Lillard.

They have essentially the same contract, but it looks like Lillard’s even larger. Lillard is set for $63 million in the last year of his deal in 2026/2027, Beal is at $58 million.

The key that I think makes up for the difference in the gap between their talent, is that Lillard is already a full 3 years older than Beal. So he’ll be making $60+ million when he’s 36 years old

Lillard is great, but I really don’t see that many other teams lining up to send Portland a treasure chest of assets for that contract.

But I also DON’T get the sense that we’re dragging our feet on trading Russ in the desperate hope that one of these stars shake loose.

I think it’s just the same old story where we’re not getting realistic offers for Russ. Even if he’s playing slightly better for us, that doesn’t really matter to the teams we might be able to trade him to. They still just see him as a massive contract that would probably get in the way of their rebuilding plans, and so they’re still demanding too much draft capital that isn’t worth the players that would be coming our way.

I think we’ll trade Russ if either of these situations occur: a star becomes available for Russ and 2 picks OR a combination of good role players become available for Russ and 1 pick

Right now none of those situations have emerged, and it’s possible they never do.

But I also feel like we’ve all had these same exact discussions countless times already

 

To me, it was obvious the Dec 15 deadline was just a date. They would always kick the can down the road. The problem I see is still star hunting when I feel there's an obvious shift in the NBA. The model to sustained success and championship contention is 2 star + depth instead of 3 star + minimum signings.

 

Yup, the star chasing is my biggest issue with this FO. It’s almost as if none of them were around to witness our last Chip. This would make more sense than the foolishness that has gone down ever since.

 

The model is having a really good team, whether its 1 star, 2 stars, 3 stars or 4 stars. You try to acquire the most talent possible that fits well together. If Steph, Tatum and Embiid were all on the same team they'd be just fine with minimum signings. If we could get KD or Lillard for what we have to trade you 1000% do it without even having a meeting. It's a no-brainer. Tethering yourself to a 3 star approach is the problem.

 

I totally get why you don’t have faith in the FO and believe they’re delusional. I don’t entirely disagree. But so many of these “rumors” feel like pure clickbait. Harrison Faigen references the Buha article that lists some of the realistic options that at least includes the phrase “according to sources.”

The part about Durant, Lillard, and Beal says it’s a “pie-in-the-sky scenario.” It feels like somebody asked a FO contact if they were pursuing those guys and that person said, “if they become available, sure.” Now these guys are running with it for clicks.

Again, not entirely disagreeing with your sentiment and not here to completely defend the FO, but most of these articles feel like writers crying wolf because it adds to the almighty click rate.

 

This is a much more likely scenario, this talk about the FO being delusional and stupid is not earned. This board has thrown around player names for trades that are worthy of those adjectives though. If there is even a whisper of superstar player movement what would be delusional and stupid is if the FO did not throw our hat into the ring because anything can happen (Pau). And of course the media will run with any Laker action and criticize us. What would the media have said about our offer for Pau prior to it going down? You make yourself available for anything and don't make assumptions. We aren't in the best negotiating position but we aren't out of it, we have almost 68 million worth of contracts to deal, expiring, and the 2 picks + 2nds. If a Lillard or Beal suddenly want to be moved and their team wants to rebuild we can accommodate. There isn't many teams sitting on a bunch of FRPs that can atm. Question is do you want them?

 

i can respect this. and it's not my team-building preference. but what trade out there is laying that foundation? i like the fournier/reddish deal because you're buying low on a proven vet scorer and an unproven but highly talented wing in the exact mold we need.

see, but they were. at least rob was. and i think he does get it. the russ trade is really the only thing that went against that. letting caruso walk was clearly an ownership/tax issue, imo.

my rebuttal would be that if an AD mvp season gets us 12th, we need to be thinking post-lebron, not current lebron. which means not trading picks and maybe getting under the tax so we're not repeaters on the off chance we have AD and luka in a couple years.

i get why people are cynical on that particular hypothetical, but man, you're the lakers...don't cut off big opportunities. nobody thought we'd have lebron or AD, either.

 

It’s LeBum who wants these third stars just like he did Brick, he wants to coast in the regular season and try to ramp it up in the playoffs except they aren’t making the playoffs because of lack of depth