#1 pick + Luol Deng otb

[Knickfan1982]

you can debate this until north korea becomes a democracy, the lakers aren't paying the #1 to get melo regardless of whatever bad contracts are involved in the deal on either side

Lakers aren't getting anything for Deng. He is negative value and a huge Cap hit. Yes, a team would take his deal if they added a high Lottery 1st...but not much. Certainly not Paul George or Jimmy Butler or anyone like that. Lakers will be stuck with him for another 2 years at the least.

[bondom34]

Joakim Noah is simply the worst contract in basketball right now.

Timofy Mozgov 54 Games Played 20.4 MPG 20.4 7.4 PPG 4.9 RPG 0.6 BLKPG 4 yr $64,000,000
Loul Deng 56 Games Played 26.5 MPG 7.6 PPG 5.3 RPG 4 yr $72,000,000

Joakim Noah 46 Games played 22.1 MPG 5.0 PPG 8.8 RPG 0.8 BlkPG 4 yr $72,590,000


If Noah has the worst contract in Basketball (I would agree) Deng and Mozgov are a very close #2 and #3.

Parsons is probably up there too.

I'd say he's worst right now, but Noah before those other 2 probably. Noah is shut down because of injury. The other 2 are just shut down.

[Knickfan1982]

Which teams are expected to be good candidates for a Deng or Mozgov salary dump that would rely mainly on other players as inducements to take on that much future salary?

If the Nets won't have much competition, then the logical move is to demand more to justify eating that much salary.

If they were just huge expiring contracts there would probably be a fair amount of teams who'd be willing to do the deal. Someone like the 76ers would be the first option since they always need to add salaries to hit the salary floor. But considering they both have roughly 3 years and 50+ million left on their deals the answer is no one.

Now if you were willing to take back some long term salary to offset their long term deals then your options open up a bit.

For instance, I would be more than happy to trade Deng's contract for Lance Thomas' contract (Thomas has 3 more years as well but the last is only guaranteed for a million) if we got D'Angelo Russell in return. The Lakers would save a little over 10.5 million the first year, roughly 10.9 the second and 17.81 million the third. They would get even further away from the cap once you factor in Russell's lost salary. I don't see that as a real benefit for the Lakers but if you want to factor that in towards their ability to sign a max free agent or two then there you go.

Would that be enough savings to justify losing someone with Russell's potential. I wouldn't think so if I were the Lakers. But once again, the Lakers options would be limited because of the huge expense and multi-year commitment belonging to two guys (Deng and Mozgov) who have produced so little.

[Boneman2]

PG's #1 concern is winning. The Lakers better get busy if they want to sign him.

[HotelVitale]

It is what it is and what it is is that you're wrong. You're not being reasonable. The Lakers are already chock full of young talent especially at the point guard spot. The top pick in the draft is going to be another point guard. The Lakers clearly want to build a winning team ASAP otherwise they wouldn't have signed Deng and Mozgov to the obscene contracts they have. But both deals are disasters. Melo would allow the team to continue on its desired path while shedding 102 million dollars worth of contracts belonging to bench players.

Take a step back, seems like you've convinced yourself that a really really bad offer is the picture of reason. First, the Lakers aren't 'chock full' of young talent at the PG spot: Clarkson continues to be shaky and isn't looking like future starter material (and he turns 25 in a few months), and Russell is also not ready for stardom and plays well off the ball (and has the size and shooting to play the 2). A player like Ball, for example, would be a tremendous fit for them, hard to imagine a better PG archetype than his to help what they have now.

Second and more importantly, Carmelo Anthony is old and at least modestly declining. This isn't my opinion and I'm not a Melo hater, it's just something that everyone agrees on at this point. He's still useful in a lot of ways but his numbers suggest he's just a pretty good player now and, even if you dispute that, he's clearly too old to be of use to a non-contender. Turns 33 in a few months, and he's also extremely expensive the next couple of years (over $50m). Given that combo of circumstances, you shouldn't be thinking about him as the major piece in a deal that brings back a mega-elite asset. That ship sailed a year or two ago.

Third, no reasonable person has ever remotely considered trading a top-3 pick as a salary dump. The only way that might possible be considered is if a contender happened to have a top pick (like the Celtics this year) and needed to dump massive amounts of salary to sign a superstar FA whom they know wanted to go there. Even then they would probably trade off some other assets and hang on to that pick. A top-3 pick in a very good draft is an absolutely elite asset, and it's not going out unless the team is getting back a real. The fact that you have the Lakers--a team without any great building blocks for their rebuild--doing that seems almost like you're trolling. I get why you might have thought it was worth floating for a minute, it's just not a reasonable thing to consider when you think it through. (Signed, someone who's the furthest thing from a Lakers' fan).

[Knickfan1982]

Take a step back, seems like you've convinced yourself that a really really bad offer is the picture of reason. First, the Lakers aren't 'chock full' of young talent at the PG spot: Clarkson continues to be shaky and isn't looking like future starter material (and he turns 25 in a few months), and Russell is also not ready for stardom and plays well off the ball (and has the size and shooting to play the 2). A player like Ball, for example, would be a tremendous fit for them, hard to imagine a better PG archetype than his to help what they have now.

Second and more importantly, Carmelo Anthony is old and at least modestly declining. This isn't my opinion and I'm not a Melo hater, it's just something that everyone agrees on at this point. He's still useful in a lot of ways but his numbers suggest he's just a pretty good player now and, even if you dispute that, he's clearly too old to be of use to a non-contender. Turns 33 in a few months, and he's also extremely expensive the next couple of years (over $50m). Given that combo of circumstances, you shouldn't be thinking about him as the major piece in a deal that brings back a mega-elite asset. That ship sailed a year or two ago.

Third, no reasonable person has ever remotely considered trading a top-3 pick as a salary dump. The only way that might possible be considered is if a contender happened to have a top pick (like the Celtics this year) and needed to dump massive amounts of salary to sign a superstar FA whom they know wanted to go there. Even then they would probably trade off some other assets and hang on to that pick. A top-3 pick in a very good draft is an absolutely elite asset, and it's not going out unless the team is getting back a real. The fact that you have the Lakers--a team without any great building blocks for their rebuild--doing that seems almost like you're trolling. I get why you might have thought it was worth floating for a minute, it's just not a reasonable thing to consider when you think it through. (Signed, someone who's the furthest thing from a Lakers' fan).

Take a step back, seems like you've convinced yourself that a reasonable offer is the equivalent of an insult. First, a combination of Russell and Clarkson at point is better than many teams have. Don't be greedy. Both guys are young and full of promise. I would happily bring either to the Knicks. Also, the assumption here is that the Lakers get the #1 which means the pick will be Fultz and not Ball.

Secondly, Melo has a player option after the upcoming season. If he's not on a contender by the end of the season he's likely to opt out to sign a deal to join one of his friends in Cleveland or the Clippers etc. As such he'd only put the Lakers on the hook for one year instead of two. If that were the case the Knicks would be suck with an old and at least mediocre Deng for 2 extra years at around 36 million. You better believe the Knicks deserve adequate compensation for both the talent downgrade and additional long term costs. What form that compensation takes is something worth debating but it should be significant.

Thirdly, that is why neither of my proposals were pure salary dumps. One of them had a salary dump as a portion of the deal and another shaved a year off of the Lakers long term cap commitment. (The less said of admittedly horribly thought out 3rd proposal the better). Those first two proposals involved giving the Lakers an upgrade. Even the most jaded Melo hater would admit that talent and production wise Melo is a huge upgrade over Deng. Now, I never suggested these proposals would be ideal for the Lakers. But the OP wanted proposals to use the hypothetical #1 pick to acquire some talent that would push forward the rebuilding process. Unfortunately, he figured to include Deng in the deal as salary ballast. Deng is not salary ballast. He's a salary albatross weighing down another team's long term finances while not producing nearly enough to justify the cost. As such, the Melo proposal is probably the closest he can get to getting what he wanted under the constraints he put in place.

[Resistance]

Which teams are expected to be good candidates for a Deng or Mozgov salary dump that would rely mainly on other players as inducements to take on that much future salary?

If the Nets won't have much competition, then the logical move is to demand more to justify eating that much salary.

If they were just huge expiring contracts there would probably be a fair amount of teams who'd be willing to do the deal. Someone like the 76ers would be the first option since they always need to add salaries to hit the salary floor. But considering they both have roughly 3 years and 50+ million left on their deals the answer is no one.

Now if you were willing to take back some long term salary to offset their long term deals then your options open up a bit.

For instance, I would be more than happy to trade Deng's contract for Lance Thomas' contract (Thomas has 3 more years as well but the last is only guaranteed for a million) if we got D'Angelo Russell in return. The Lakers would save a little over 10.5 million the first year, roughly 10.9 the second and 17.81 million the third. They would get even further away from the cap once you factor in Russell's lost salary. I don't see that as a real benefit for the Lakers but if you want to factor that in towards their ability to sign a max free agent or two then there you go.

Would that be enough savings to justify losing someone with Russell's potential. I wouldn't think so if I were the Lakers. But once again, the Lakers options would be limited because of the huge expense and multi-year commitment belonging to two guys (Deng and Mozgov) who have produced so little.

Scroll back in this thread to see a mention of using Clarkson and possibly Randle to move the contract of Mozgov or Deng.

I am trying to think of a salary dump in recent years that happened similar to that and can't remember any.
Trades of

Lin
Calderon
Biedrins and Jefferson
Pleiss
McGee
Anderson V

all had draft picks used as compensation for the team disposing of the unwanted contract


Stauskas was included when the Kings dumped Landry and Thompson, but Nik had multiple years left on a rookie contract while Clarkson and Randle don't. The Kings also included a first round pick and the option for a pick swap.

Clarkson is
$11.6 million
$12.5 million
$13.4 million

over the next three seasons.

Randle is
$4.1 million next season
RFA in summer 2018


Deng is
$17.2 million
$18.0 million
$18.8 million

Mozgov is
$15.3 million
$16.0 million
$16.7 million

The salary cap is expected to be around $102 million next season and $103 million for the 2018 - 19 season.

Mozgov + Clarkson would be over 25% of the salary cap next season and neither can be considered in high demand by other teams at those salaries.

It shall be interesting to see what happens when Pelinka and Magic attempt to trade Mozgov or Deng.

[daoneandonly]

Timofy Mozgov 54 Games Played 20.4 MPG 20.4 7.4 PPG 4.9 RPG 0.6 BLKPG 4 yr $64,000,000
Loul Deng 56 Games Played 26.5 MPG 7.6 PPG 5.3 RPG 4 yr $72,000,000

Joakim Noah 46 Games played 22.1 MPG 5.0 PPG 8.8 RPG 0.8 BlkPG 4 yr $72,590,000


If Noah has the worst contract in Basketball (I would agree) Deng and Mozgov are a very close #2 and #3.

And one could make the argument that Carmelo Anthony would be fighting for #4 with Parsons, Turner, Plumlee, etc.

Only haters would. Unless Melo suffers a catastrophic injury next year he's probably going to opt out after this upcoming season. I.E: He'd be an expiring contract belonging to someone whose a borderline all star even on a down year (I consider him borderline even though he was an injury replacement because Beals still deserved it over him).

Curious, what makes you think he'll opt out? he clearly gave NY no wiggle room on a trade, so I think he (or LaLa) loves NY and has no desire to leave. Plus. no one is paying him what he makes now.

[Knickfan1982]

And one could make the argument that Carmelo Anthony would be fighting for #4 with Parsons, Turner, Plumlee, etc.

Only haters would. Unless Melo suffers a catastrophic injury next year he's probably going to opt out after this upcoming season. I.E: He'd be an expiring contract belonging to someone whose a borderline all star even on a down year (I consider him borderline even though he was an injury replacement because Beals still deserved it over him).

Curious, what makes you think he'll opt out? he clearly gave NY no wiggle room on a trade, so I think he (or LaLa) loves NY and has no desire to leave. Plus. no one is paying him what he makes now.

First of all, there is very little concrete information known about the trade scenarios involved with Melo at the deadline. The only thing that is clear to anyone who follows basketball is that the Knicks have a much better chance of getting a decent return for Melo in the offseason when teams have more roster and financial flexibility. As for why I think Melo will opt out. Melo wants to win and probably feels like his best chance to win is to join one of his friends on a superteam. If the Knicks aren't able to move him to one of those teams and Phil keeps throwing him under the bus he'll take matters into his own hands and look to sign a Rondo type deal with one of those teams. Moreover, if he has a bounce back season next year (even though 95% of the players in the league would be happy to match his production) he'll opt out to secure one last long term deal for good money. For guys the level of Melo, player options exist as insurance against a season ending injury. Because if that happens he can pick up his option and be guaranteed another 27 million. But if he's healthy and his production is consistent he should be able to pull in big money. Maybe not max money but I think he can probably aim for a Mozgov or Deng kind of contract.

[Knickfan1982]

Scroll back in this thread to see a mention of using Clarkson and possibly Randle to move the contract of Mozgov or Deng.

I am trying to think of a salary dump in recent years that happened similar to that and can't remember any.
Trades of

Lin
Calderon
Biedrins and Jefferson
Pleiss
McGee
Anderson V

all had draft picks used as compensation for the team disposing of the unwanted contract


Stauskas was included when the Kings dumped Landry and Thompson, but Nik had multiple years left on a rookie contract while Clarkson and Randle don't. The Kings also included a first round pick and the option for a pick swap.

Clarkson is
$11.6 million
$12.5 million
$13.4 million

over the next three seasons.

Randle is
$4.1 million next season
RFA in summer 2018


Deng is
$17.2 million
$18.0 million
$18.8 million

Mozgov is
$15.3 million
$16.0 million
$16.7 million

The salary cap is expected to be around $102 million next season and $103 million for the 2018 - 19 season.

Mozgov + Clarkson would be over 25% of the salary cap next season and neither can be considered in high demand by other teams at those salaries.

It shall be interesting to see what happens when Pelinka and Magic attempt to trade Mozgov or Deng.

Yea, Clarkson makes too much to be used as a sweetner when it comes to guys like Mozgov and Deng. At least for the Knicks anyway. But I think Randle wouldn't be an awful fit next to KP. I would just prefer a point guard since we really like Hernangomez.

[Karmaloop]

We've already gone over a dozen times that Melo for #1 isn't happening, can we just let it die?

[Knickfan1982]

We've already gone over a dozen times that Melo for #1 isn't happening, can we just let it die?

Melo for a #1 was never offered.

[Karmaloop]

Melo for a #1 was never offered.

Or any other variation of any other kind.

[Knickfan1982]

Melo for a #1 was never offered.

Or any other variation of any other kind.

That is different. I don't have a problem with this position but just be accurate with your descriptions.

[HotelVitale]

Take a step back, seems like you've convinced yourself that a reasonable offer is the equivalent of an insult. First, a combination of Russell and Clarkson at point is better than many teams have. Don't be greedy. Both guys are young and full of promise. I would happily bring either to the Knicks. Also, the assumption here is that the Lakers get the #1 which means the pick will be Fultz and not Ball. Secondly, Melo has a player option after the upcoming season. If he's not on a contender by the end of the season he's likely to opt out to sign a deal to join one of his friends in Cleveland or the Clippers etc. As such he'd only put the Lakers on the hook for one year instead of two. If that were the case the Knicks would be suck with an old and at least mediocre Deng for 2 extra years at around 36 million. You better believe the Knicks deserve adequate compensation for both the talent downgrade and additional long term costs. What form that compensation takes is something worth debating but it should be significant. Thirdly, that is why neither of my proposals were pure salary dumps. One of them had a salary dump as a portion of the deal and another shaved a year off of the Lakers long term cap commitment. (The less said of admittedly horribly thought out 3rd proposal the better). Those first two proposals involved giving the Lakers an upgrade. Even the most jaded Melo hater would admit that talent and production wise Melo is a huge upgrade over Deng...

1. Clarkson/Russell is currently a bad backcourt, and even if you believe in them a ton there's no reason to take a poor offer in order to avoid some sort of overlap. Either could be traded, either could be your 3rd guard depending on what happens with their development. You're creating a false crisis--making something that's a minor and circumventable problem into a deal-breaker--and that's often a hallmark of dumb trade proposals here.
Also Ball is a legit candidate for the #1 pick in pretty much everyone's book; most folks who are researching the draft will tell you that, and your eyes will tell you that if you watch the two of them. Chad Ford (yes I know he's a bad analyst) also reported recently that half the teams in the bottom 6 would likely take him at #1 this point.
2. Since Melo is the main value piece coming back in a trade--one involving a #1 overall pick--then him likely leaving after this year is not a good point in your favor.
3. Deng is a bad contract, but upgrading from a really bad contract to a 33 year-old declining scorer has nowhere close to the price tag of a #1 overall pick. It's not worth your while to bother defending that, no one thinks it's remotely reasonable.

(EDIT: just reread your post and noticed you said 'don't be greedy' in a proposal in which your team is receiving one of the best 5 assets in the entire league. You're right, I am insulted by you passing off heist logic as an enlightened, humble offering.)

[Knickfan1982]

1. Clarkson/Russell is currently a bad backcourt, and even if you believe in them a ton there's no reason to take a poor offer in order to avoid some sort of overlap. Either could be traded, either could be your 3rd guard depending on what happens with their development. You're creating a false crisis--making something that's a minor and circumventable problem into a deal-breaker--and that's often a hallmark of dumb trade proposals here.

I did not create a false problem I followed the OP's request for proposals to the letter. In case you missed it the guy posted this. "Lakers land #1 in lotto and immediately put it on the block.

The catch: we want someone who'd accelerate the rebuild process. Since mostly everyone who would do that is paid north of 15M, the Lakers make known that any deal sending out the #1 overall pick is attached to Luol Deng.

Who do you think is the most-likely target?"

Deng's addition to the deal was meant to be as salary ballast. That isn't what Deng is. He is an value albatross that weighs down the Lakers hypothetical #1 pick.

2. Since Melo is the main value piece coming back in a trade--one involving a #1 overall pick--then him likely leaving after this year is not a good point in your favor.

I disagree. If he leaves then at the very worst you get one good year with Melo and gotten rid of an albatross. It isn't Melo's fault if the Lakers can't entice him to stay if they want to keep him.

(EDIT: just reread your post and noticed you said 'don't be greedy' in a proposal in which your team is receiving one of the best 5 assets in the entire league. You're right, I am insulted by you passing off heist logic as an enlightened, humble offering.)

Don't worry. I won't hold it against you.

[LakersLegacy]

PG's #1 concern is winning. The Lakers better get busy if they want to sign him.

It all comes down to the draft and player development.