|
|
Post by lakers4life on Jun 9, 2018 18:31:35 GMT -8
The only way I would even consider trading Ingram for Kawhi is if we aren't trading any other pieces besides maybe the 25th and if it was a package with Lebron and George signing. Problem is if we take on Kawhi's salary we would be sacrificing some cap flexibility. It could be like trading Ingram and a potential free agent for Kawhi. So, my other condition would be that we also unload Deng to the Spurs(not happening) or a third party. Which means we are giving up even more assets. If we do make the deal for Kawhi and try to keep flexibility, the only guy from our young core that might survive is Ball. I'm not too sure the Kawhi trade makes a ton of sense for us. It makes a ton of sense. If the spurs don't want Ingram and fillers then we say no thanks, good luck watching him walk next season for nothing. If we get LBJ and George we don't even need Leonard to compete for a championship. He's a luxury. But if we got him we'd be ruthless. |
|
|
|
Post by Lonzo'sBallMagic'sJohnson on Jun 9, 2018 20:26:21 GMT -8
The only way I would even consider trading Ingram for Kawhi is if we aren't trading any other pieces besides maybe the 25th and if it was a package with Lebron and George signing. Problem is if we take on Kawhi's salary we would be sacrificing some cap flexibility. It could be like trading Ingram and a potential free agent for Kawhi. So, my other condition would be that we also unload Deng to the Spurs(not happening) or a third party. Which means we are giving up even more assets. If we do make the deal for Kawhi and try to keep flexibility, the only guy from our young core that might survive is Ball. I'm not too sure the Kawhi trade makes a ton of sense for us. To be honest, if we're bringing on LeBron and another max guy then we are using up the rest of our cap space anyhow, so it doesn't really matter to us. It only matters to management as far as luxury tax and they'll pay it to retain any of our important pieces. So, i understand what you're saying about BI but the cap flexibility will be gone either way. If we had Kawhi, LeBron, and another max guy then it would all be worth it because it would be over. That is Houshmandzilla, mark it down, championship. I don't think you get what I'm saying. If we absorb Kawhi before free agency then we no longer have the cap space for two free agents. If we sign two free agents before the trade then we can no longer absorb Kawhi without matching salaries, which makes the Kawhi trade a lot more difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by Laker8LA24 on Jun 10, 2018 7:02:06 GMT -8
To be honest, if we're bringing on LeBron and another max guy then we are using up the rest of our cap space anyhow, so it doesn't really matter to us. It only matters to management as far as luxury tax and they'll pay it to retain any of our important pieces. So, i understand what you're saying about BI but the cap flexibility will be gone either way. If we had Kawhi, LeBron, and another max guy then it would all be worth it because it would be over. That is Houshmandzilla, mark it down, championship. I don't think you get what I'm saying. If we absorb Kawhi before free agency then we no longer have the cap space for two free agents. If we sign two free agents before the trade then we can no longer absorb Kawhi without matching salaries, which makes the Kawhi trade a lot more difficult. True. We could totally sign LeBron and trade for Kawhi this off-season without matching salaries. But if we didn't match salaries then we can't afford another max. In that scenario I wouldn't make the trade. BIngram is going to be a star so I would rather keep him with LeBron and have another max slot available. We could wait a year and then go after Kawhi in free agency. I only make the trade if we have LeBron and George signed first and then we send out enough salary to get Kawhi, which probably means we trade BI and Deng (+ draft picks, fillers). Because we are a championship team it is worth it. Any other scenario I'm keeping BI and saving the cap space. |
|
|
|
Post by domino247 on Jun 12, 2018 7:06:02 GMT -8
BI is going to be da shit, but Leonard already is. If it means we get LBJ & Leonard and keep Randle, do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by title17 on Jun 13, 2018 9:20:04 GMT -8
Honestly, I'd try and sign Lebron and PG13 (which I know is the plan) but then TRADE Lebron at the Feb 2019 deadline for Kawhi if his Spurs situation doesn't improve and 2019 free agency seems likely for him. Lebron and Pop can finally be together and we get PG13 and Kawhi. Hell, we'd probably have to take back Pau too in order to make the money work. Let's face it: Lebron isn't going to commit long term to us anyway. 3 years at most. Part of me wants him to taste a bit of his own medicine (stranding teams). For the record: I think Lebron has 3 more years of being a top 3 player and will still be All Star good until age 40. It's unprecedented. My point is that he will not be committing to any team for the rest of his career. I can even see him going back to the Cavs when he is 37-40. I realize it's insane to say he'll still be good at that age but this is unchartered territory already. He just played 82 games and carried a team to the Finals (granted, in the East) at age 33 with monster stats. I don't think he gets a no trade clause with us. Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laker8LA24 on Jun 13, 2018 10:35:09 GMT -8
Honestly, I'd try and sign Lebron and PG13 (which I know is the plan) but then TRADE Lebron at the Feb 2019 deadline for Kawhi if his Spurs situation doesn't improve and 2019 free agency seems likely for him. Lebron and Pop can finally be together and we get PG13 and Kawhi. Hell, we'd probably have to take back Pau too in order to make the money work. Let's face it: Lebron isn't going to commit long term to us anyway. 3 years at most. Part of me wants him to taste a bit of his own medicine (stranding teams). For the record: I think Lebron has 3 more years of being a top 3 player and will still be All Star good until age 40. It's unprecedented. My point is that he will not be committing to any team for the rest of his career. I can even see him going back to the Cavs when he is 37-40. I realize it's insane to say he'll still be good at that age but this is unchartered territory already. He just played 82 games and carried a team to the Finals (granted, in the East) at age 33 with monster stats. I don't think he gets a no trade clause with us. Food for thought. Gotta disagree with you their champ. LeBron will most definitely get a no trade clause wherever he goes. He wants to ensure his family is happy and would never leave it to chance that he could be traded somewhere he didn't want to go. Now you could argue that he might waive his no-trade clause to go to San Antonio, but that is very far-fetched IMO. If we sign LeBron, it's because we want LeBron for as long as he is willing to stay. He's the best player in the league and there is no no way the Lakers would entertain trading him, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by title17 on Jun 13, 2018 11:14:39 GMT -8
Honestly, I'd try and sign Lebron and PG13 (which I know is the plan) but then TRADE Lebron at the Feb 2019 deadline for Kawhi if his Spurs situation doesn't improve and 2019 free agency seems likely for him. Lebron and Pop can finally be together and we get PG13 and Kawhi. Hell, we'd probably have to take back Pau too in order to make the money work. Let's face it: Lebron isn't going to commit long term to us anyway. 3 years at most. Part of me wants him to taste a bit of his own medicine (stranding teams). For the record: I think Lebron has 3 more years of being a top 3 player and will still be All Star good until age 40. It's unprecedented. My point is that he will not be committing to any team for the rest of his career. I can even see him going back to the Cavs when he is 37-40. I realize it's insane to say he'll still be good at that age but this is unchartered territory already. He just played 82 games and carried a team to the Finals (granted, in the East) at age 33 with monster stats. I don't think he gets a no trade clause with us. Food for thought. Gotta disagree with you their champ. LeBron will most definitely get a no trade clause wherever he goes. He wants to ensure his family is happy and would never leave it to chance that he could be traded somewhere he didn't want to go. Now you could argue that he might waive his no-trade clause to go to San Antonio, but that is very far-fetched IMO. If we sign LeBron, it's because we want LeBron for as long as he is willing to stay. He's the best player in the league and there is no no way the Lakers would entertain trading him, IMO. Oh he'd most definitely get a no trade clause...if it's allowed...but I don't think you can get one if you go to a new team with a new contract. I could be wrong but I think it's to reward loyalty and free agents who re-sign with their teams. I read somewhere that if Lebron opts in to the last year of his deal and gets traded to us, THEN the no trade clause carries over. But who knows. I just know PG13 (soon to be PG12) and Kawhi line up with the young core the best, age-wise. But hey, there's always the deal that ESPN proposed today: Destination: Los Angeles Lakers Lakers get: Kawhi Leonard Spurs get: Lonzo Ball, Luol Deng, Kyle Kuzma Magic get: Joffrey Lauvergne, 2020 Lakers second-round pick, $1.7 million cash (from Lakers) Kevin Pelton: While the Lakers can't offer San Antonio the kind of future picks that other teams can in a Leonard trade, they could offer promising young talent. This deal would work with either Ball or Brandon Ingram, the most recent two No. 2 overall picks, depending on how the Spurs value the two prospects. Despite the focus on his poor shooting (42 percent on 2s, 30.5 percent on 3s), Ball rated well by advanced metrics as a rookie because of his versatile contributions. His elite court vision translated into a high assist rate and Ball was an outstanding rebounder for a point guard. He was also an active team defender who rated third among point guards in the defensive component of ESPN's real plus-minus. Spurs guard Dejounte Murray was one of the two point guards to rate better defensively than Ball, and a Murray-Ball backcourt would have the potential to be one of the NBA's best on defense. An All-Rookie first team pick, Kuzma averaged 18.6 points per 36 minutes as a rookie, proving a dangerous 3-point shooter with the ability to create off the dribble. As the price for getting both Ball and Kuzma, San Antonio would have to take on the final two seasons of Deng's contract, which would cut into the team's 2019 cap space. It's possible, however, that the Spurs could rehabilitate Deng into a rotation player and salvage some value from his deal. To make the trade work with Ball, the two teams would have to find a third partner to take on Lauvergne's salary (under the assumption he picks up his 2018-19 player option). The Magic are an ideal candidate because they currently have enough cap space to take on Lauvergne's contract but are unlikely to use cap space once the league year turns over after the July moratorium. So the only cost of adding Lauvergne would be his actual salary, which the Lakers would cover with cash. |
|
|
|
Post by Laker8LA24 on Jun 13, 2018 11:28:44 GMT -8
Gotta disagree with you their champ. LeBron will most definitely get a no trade clause wherever he goes. He wants to ensure his family is happy and would never leave it to chance that he could be traded somewhere he didn't want to go. Now you could argue that he might waive his no-trade clause to go to San Antonio, but that is very far-fetched IMO. If we sign LeBron, it's because we want LeBron for as long as he is willing to stay. He's the best player in the league and there is no no way the Lakers would entertain trading him, IMO. Oh he'd most definitely get a no trade clause...if it's allowed...but I don't think you can get one if you go to a new team with a new contract. I could be wrong but I think it's to reward loyalty and free agents who re-sign with their teams. I read somewhere that if Lebron opts in to the last year of his deal and gets traded to us, THEN the no trade clause carries over. But who knows. I just know PG13 (soon to be PG12) and Kawhi line up with the young core the best, age-wise. But hey, there's always the deal that ESPN proposed today: Destination: Los Angeles Lakers Lakers get: Kawhi Leonard Spurs get: Lonzo Ball, Luol Deng, Kyle Kuzma Magic get: Joffrey Lauvergne, 2020 Lakers second-round pick, $1.7 million cash (from Lakers) Kevin Pelton: While the Lakers can't offer San Antonio the kind of future picks that other teams can in a Leonard trade, they could offer promising young talent. This deal would work with either Ball or Brandon Ingram, the most recent two No. 2 overall picks, depending on how the Spurs value the two prospects. Despite the focus on his poor shooting (42 percent on 2s, 30.5 percent on 3s), Ball rated well by advanced metrics as a rookie because of his versatile contributions. His elite court vision translated into a high assist rate and Ball was an outstanding rebounder for a point guard. He was also an active team defender who rated third among point guards in the defensive component of ESPN's real plus-minus. Spurs guard Dejounte Murray was one of the two point guards to rate better defensively than Ball, and a Murray-Ball backcourt would have the potential to be one of the NBA's best on defense. An All-Rookie first team pick, Kuzma averaged 18.6 points per 36 minutes as a rookie, proving a dangerous 3-point shooter with the ability to create off the dribble. As the price for getting both Ball and Kuzma, San Antonio would have to take on the final two seasons of Deng's contract, which would cut into the team's 2019 cap space. It's possible, however, that the Spurs could rehabilitate Deng into a rotation player and salvage some value from his deal. To make the trade work with Ball, the two teams would have to find a third partner to take on Lauvergne's salary (under the assumption he picks up his 2018-19 player option). The Magic are an ideal candidate because they currently have enough cap space to take on Lauvergne's contract but are unlikely to use cap space once the league year turns over after the July moratorium. So the only cost of adding Lauvergne would be his actual salary, which the Lakers would cover with cash. Actually, you might be right on the no-trade clause thing. I think the player has to be on the same team for 4 years (or something like that) to even have that option. Still, though, I doubt the Lakers would trade him, but hey you never know! I kind of like that proposed deal too, as long as we are getting LBJ and George too. I just had a thought: perhaps the Cavs would want something instead of watching LeBron just walk and would engage in a sign-and-trade with the Lakers where we could send them back Deng, Zubac and/or Caruso and a few future first rounders in exchange? Then LeBron could negotiate in his no-trade clause, we could rid Deng, and Cleveland (who would be rebuilding now) would get a couple of future picks plus a young player or two. Am I crazy? |
|
|
|
Post by title17 on Jun 13, 2018 13:16:09 GMT -8
Oh he'd most definitely get a no trade clause...if it's allowed...but I don't think you can get one if you go to a new team with a new contract. I could be wrong but I think it's to reward loyalty and free agents who re-sign with their teams. I read somewhere that if Lebron opts in to the last year of his deal and gets traded to us, THEN the no trade clause carries over. But who knows. I just know PG13 (soon to be PG12) and Kawhi line up with the young core the best, age-wise. But hey, there's always the deal that ESPN proposed today: Destination: Los Angeles Lakers Lakers get: Kawhi Leonard Spurs get: Lonzo Ball, Luol Deng, Kyle Kuzma Magic get: Joffrey Lauvergne, 2020 Lakers second-round pick, $1.7 million cash (from Lakers) Kevin Pelton: While the Lakers can't offer San Antonio the kind of future picks that other teams can in a Leonard trade, they could offer promising young talent. This deal would work with either Ball or Brandon Ingram, the most recent two No. 2 overall picks, depending on how the Spurs value the two prospects. Despite the focus on his poor shooting (42 percent on 2s, 30.5 percent on 3s), Ball rated well by advanced metrics as a rookie because of his versatile contributions. His elite court vision translated into a high assist rate and Ball was an outstanding rebounder for a point guard. He was also an active team defender who rated third among point guards in the defensive component of ESPN's real plus-minus. Spurs guard Dejounte Murray was one of the two point guards to rate better defensively than Ball, and a Murray-Ball backcourt would have the potential to be one of the NBA's best on defense. An All-Rookie first team pick, Kuzma averaged 18.6 points per 36 minutes as a rookie, proving a dangerous 3-point shooter with the ability to create off the dribble. As the price for getting both Ball and Kuzma, San Antonio would have to take on the final two seasons of Deng's contract, which would cut into the team's 2019 cap space. It's possible, however, that the Spurs could rehabilitate Deng into a rotation player and salvage some value from his deal. To make the trade work with Ball, the two teams would have to find a third partner to take on Lauvergne's salary (under the assumption he picks up his 2018-19 player option). The Magic are an ideal candidate because they currently have enough cap space to take on Lauvergne's contract but are unlikely to use cap space once the league year turns over after the July moratorium. So the only cost of adding Lauvergne would be his actual salary, which the Lakers would cover with cash. Actually, you might be right on the no-trade clause thing. I think the player has to be on the same team for 4 years (or something like that) to even have that option. Still, though, I doubt the Lakers would trade him, but hey you never know! I kind of like that proposed deal too, as long as we are getting LBJ and George too. I just had a thought: perhaps the Cavs would want something instead of watching LeBron just walk and would engage in a sign-and-trade with the Lakers where we could send them back Deng, Zubac and/or Caruso and a few future first rounders in exchange? Then LeBron could negotiate in his no-trade clause, we could rid Deng, and Cleveland (who would be rebuilding now) would get a couple of future picks plus a young player or two. Am I crazy? Wishful thinking. Would you pay $36M for Deng in order to get Zubac, Caruso and some late 1st rounders? Note that the max amount of cash we can put into a trade is $5M. That would knock Deng's obligation to $31M. It might be what it takes to dump Deng on a team like the Hwaks or Bulls (in addition to picks). |
|
|
|
Post by Laker8LA24 on Jun 13, 2018 13:48:32 GMT -8
Actually, you might be right on the no-trade clause thing. I think the player has to be on the same team for 4 years (or something like that) to even have that option. Still, though, I doubt the Lakers would trade him, but hey you never know! I kind of like that proposed deal too, as long as we are getting LBJ and George too. I just had a thought: perhaps the Cavs would want something instead of watching LeBron just walk and would engage in a sign-and-trade with the Lakers where we could send them back Deng, Zubac and/or Caruso and a few future first rounders in exchange? Then LeBron could negotiate in his no-trade clause, we could rid Deng, and Cleveland (who would be rebuilding now) would get a couple of future picks plus a young player or two. Am I crazy? Wishful thinking. Would you pay $36M for Deng in order to get Zubac, Caruso and some late 1st rounders? Note that the max amount of cash we can put into a trade is $5M. That would knock Deng's obligation to $31M. It might be what it takes to dump Deng on a team like the Hwaks or Bulls (in addition to picks). I don't know, but why would any other team do it then? Wouldn't Cleveland be in the same boat as Atlanta or Chicago once LeBron is gone? |
|
|
|
Post by title17 on Jun 13, 2018 13:58:13 GMT -8
I don't know, but why would any other team do it then? Wouldn't Cleveland be in the same boat as Atlanta or Chicago once LeBron is gone? They are still over the cap if Lebron bails. It's brutal. Bulls and ATL are under and can absorb. Hell, they may even NEED Deng to hit the cap floor during their tanking. |
|
|
|
Post by Laker8LA24 on Jun 13, 2018 14:10:08 GMT -8
I don't know, but why would any other team do it then? Wouldn't Cleveland be in the same boat as Atlanta or Chicago once LeBron is gone? They are still over the cap if Lebron bails. It's brutal. Bulls and ATL are under and can absorb. Hell, they may even NEED Deng to hit the cap floor during their tanking. Ok, yeah that makes sense. I was thinking since Cleveland was over the cap, they wouldn't need cap space and would be MORE willing to take on Deng, since it wouldn't hurt them in the slightest (capwise). |
|
|
|
Post by title17 on Jun 13, 2018 14:13:16 GMT -8
They are still over the cap if Lebron bails. It's brutal. Bulls and ATL are under and can absorb. Hell, they may even NEED Deng to hit the cap floor during their tanking. Ok, yeah that makes sense. I was thinking since Cleveland was over the cap, they wouldn't need cap space and would be MORE willing to take on Deng, since it wouldn't hurt them in the slightest (capwise). It's like the Nets with Mozgov/Russell: you gotta find takers that need $$ on the books but are looking to stack draft assets. It's a bizarre win-win for the tankers/rebuilders. |
|
|
|
Post by Laker8LA24 on Jun 13, 2018 15:03:34 GMT -8
Ok, yeah that makes sense. I was thinking since Cleveland was over the cap, they wouldn't need cap space and would be MORE willing to take on Deng, since it wouldn't hurt them in the slightest (capwise). It's like the Nets with Mozgov/Russell: you gotta find takers that need $$ on the books but are looking to stack draft assets. It's a bizarre win-win for the tankers/rebuilders. But we had to give up Russell in that instance! To give up Deng, we might have to sacrifice more than just some draft picks. Two first rounders is probably not enough. |
|
|
|
Post by title17 on Jun 13, 2018 20:44:42 GMT -8
It's like the Nets with Mozgov/Russell: you gotta find takers that need $$ on the books but are looking to stack draft assets. It's a bizarre win-win for the tankers/rebuilders. But we had to give up Russell in that instance! To give up Deng, we might have to sacrifice more than just some draft picks. Two first rounders is probably not enough. Yes but now it’s only two years left of an absurd deal, not three like Mozgov. You only really pay for one bad year (and the Lakers can send $5M cash for part of it). The final year becomes an expiring asset. |
|
