RealGM

I've got to admit - I'm developing an irrational hate for Kyle Lowry. thought I should declare that.

Now, what do you think about :

Lowry + Robinson
For
Westbrook


Lakers get 2 shooters (big need) and get rid of the Westbrook headache.

Miami dumps off some future money and also get rid of 2 ok players that annoy the hell out of me.

Your thoughts on Value? picks involved?

My take is Miami should be really good. And thus they should keep players who might be useful over trading them for one they know would not be with their roster just to reduce future payroll, but not actually gain enough space to do anything with.

My take for LA is they are likely going to be not so very good. Thus they should spend no assets to take on players unless they are convinced those players help change their fortunes. Not sold Lowry can still do that.

And value wise I have Miami owing LA incentive considering the amount of money they take on. I don't see Miami spending assets to get worse and I don't have the Lakers preferring to receive rather than pay assets but getting less helpful players as a result.

I just don't see this one for either side really.

Get Miami a pick going back for 2 players who are far better fits on their team and reroute Westbrooks expiring and 3-4 1sts for the next disgruntled star (KD) at the deadline

The Lakers won’t both take back bad long term money AND give up picks. That’s a non-starter for them.

I'd love to get Duncan Robinson on the Lakers if it was a protected pick but to my understanding the Lakers aren't able to trade protected picks at this point due to the Pelicans AD trade. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

3ammy3uck3ts wrote:Get Miami a pick going back for 2 players who are far better fits on their team and reroute Westbrooks expiring and 3-4 1sts for the next disgruntled star (KD) at the deadline

Get Indy involved and have Turner and Hield going to Miami.

Hoppy1 wrote:

3ammy3uck3ts wrote:Get Miami a pick going back for 2 players who are far better fits on their team and reroute Westbrooks expiring and 3-4 1sts for the next disgruntled star (KD) at the deadline

Get Indy involved and have Turner and Hield going to Miami.

LA would want those guys instead, though, which likely means Miami is cut out.

Texas Chuck wrote:My take is Miami should be really good. And thus they should keep players who might be useful over trading them for one they know would not be with their roster just to reduce future payroll, but not actually gain enough space to do anything with.

My take for LA is they are likely going to be not so very good. Thus they should spend no assets to take on players unless they are convinced those players help change their fortunes. Not sold Lowry can still do that.

And value wise I have Miami owing LA incentive considering the amount of money they take on. I don't see Miami spending assets to get worse and I don't have the Lakers preferring to receive rather than pay assets but getting less helpful players as a result.

I just don't see this one for either side really.

I agree with your Lakers position TC, which is why I like the idea of taking on an extra year of Lowry without adding draft capital to better improve the team short term. The issue is Duncan Robinson's contract. If Miami was sending back say Oladipo and Dwayne Dedmond to make the math work I could see the Lakers going for it.

This is one of the few Russ scenarios in which the Lakers should be receiving an asset or a draft pick not giving one up.

R-DAWG wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:My take is Miami should be really good. And thus they should keep players who might be useful over trading them for one they know would not be with their roster just to reduce future payroll, but not actually gain enough space to do anything with.

My take for LA is they are likely going to be not so very good. Thus they should spend no assets to take on players unless they are convinced those players help change their fortunes. Not sold Lowry can still do that.

And value wise I have Miami owing LA incentive considering the amount of money they take on. I don't see Miami spending assets to get worse and I don't have the Lakers preferring to receive rather than pay assets but getting less helpful players as a result.

I just don't see this one for either side really.

I agree with your Lakers position TC, which is why I like the idea of taking on an extra year of Lowry without adding draft capital to better improve the team short term. The issue is Duncan Robinson's contract. If Miami was sending back say Oladipo and Dwayne Dedmond to make the math work I could see the Lakers going for it.

Absolutely no reason for Miami to do that. It's not really palatable with Robinson, but when you swap him out for rotation pieces? Yuck.

I don't believe we should call Dipo a rotation player until he shows he can actually play. I mean at this point, his availability should always be considered in doubt, no? And Dedmon is a spare to fair backup center and we are constantly being told Yurt just needs minutes.

I don't like the deal for Miami with them in it and its clearly worse value wise than dumping Robinson, but I have Robinson as a favorite to contribute more to the Heat this year than Dipo/Dedmon.

The lakers are better off with westbrook, While this trade may make them slighly better this year, it kills them in the future. I like lowry but the 2nd year hurts when you already have Beverely, Nunn and Schroder it makes no sense.

Texas Chuck wrote:I don't believe we should call Dipo a rotation player until he shows he can actually play. I mean at this point, his availability should always be considered in doubt, no? And Dedmon is a spare to fair backup center and we are constantly being told Yurt just needs minutes.

I don't like the deal for Miami with them in it and its clearly worse value wise than dumping Robinson, but I have Robinson as a favorite to contribute more to the Heat this year than Dipo/Dedmon.

I mean, you're welcome to your opinion but contract aside, even given injuries, I think most would prefer to have Oladipo over Robinson. Just on the player, alone. I have more faith that Oladipo will contribute than Robinson at this point.

And Dedmon is criminally underrated. He's a solid intangible player. I love that we brought him back. Yurt can sit until he learns to play defense.

The trade is a pure salary dump for Miami. The trade weakens the Heat. The only way this trade might happen is if there is no other deal to improve the team and Miami is out of the playoff race, which I doubt.

Irrational hate of a player (one who has helped Miami a lot for what it's worth) is no reason to execute a trade that makes the team worse, and this is a really bad trade for Miami. The idea of attaching picks is outrageous. You really should stick to starting your annual tank threads. The rest of us want to be in the postseason and pick in the late 20s. That you are doing this before the third game of the season illustrates that you don't get how Spoelstra works. He'll make the team better over the course of this VERY long season, and you can't expect players who must play more than a dozen games after the close of the regular season to bust their asses every game. They know what they are doing.

That is all.

Heat owes Lakers value here

Heat fans: we don’t want to make the team worse, and aren’t paying picks/assets to do so.
RealGM: Heat owe Lakers picks/assets, because eXpIriNg cOnTraCts.

Heat aren’t salary dumping Lowry or Robinson. We’ll add pick(s) to get useful players, even if no one else thinks they’re useful they will be to us.

puppa bear wrote:Heat fans: we don’t want to make the team worse, and aren’t paying picks/assets to do so.
RealGM: Heat owe Lakers picks/assets, because eXpIriNg cOnTraCts.

.

This seems like you are just angry because its the Heat.

Because two things can be (and are here) true:

Miami should not make a trade like this because it makes them worse.
From a value standpoint Miami could owe value in a deal like this.

But no hur dur RealGM is dumb

Texas Chuck wrote:

puppa bear wrote:Heat fans: we don’t want to make the team worse, and aren’t paying picks/assets to do so.
RealGM: Heat owe Lakers picks/assets, because eXpIriNg cOnTraCts.

.

This seems like you are just angry because its the Heat.

Because two things can be (and are here) true:

Miami should not make a trade like this because it makes them worse.
From a value standpoint Miami could owe value in a deal like this.

But no hur dur RealGM is dumb

I’m triggered to replying to posts because it’s the Heat. No anger, just frustration at people blindly adding to conversations, without listening to fans of the teams. It happens on many threads, I don’t get triggered by other teams trades, but do get annoyed when I see them.

Don’t take it personally Chuck (this isn’t aimed at you), it’s the general trend. Westbrook needs to have a pick or two attached for every deal he gets proposed in. Lakers fans are adamant that it should only be with a deal that actually changes the landscape for them. This is true, but they get hammered on how bad his contract is and how worthless he is.

Then, when it’s for Heat players that would fit on-court with the rest of the roster, but have deals that are longer than ideal (really only Robinson’s), all of a sudden the expiring nature of his deal means he’s worth a pick.

Heat fans do struggle with this board, though Freak & gom to an amazing job of replying in a level-headed way. More often than not to have infrequent posters (not ones like yourself and a core dozen or so that do a great job keeping this board from oscillating between psychotically hot takes) post replies like the one above mine. It is disheartening to see things like this at times and I felt that replying the vernacular may have had an impact. Instead it’s just drawn the attention of one of the better poster on this sub


Let me address your response sensibly:
I do not believe the value between the two side is disparate. I believe that Robinson playing next to Lebron & AD would have a rebound season and also make life easier for both of them, offensively.

Lowry is overkill with them having PatBev, but his deal lines up perfectly with Bron & AD. They’re plan of trying to sign Kyrie and fill around that big-3 is nuts and pretty short-sighted. They could be left with Kyrie, cap space and poisoned well Bron leaves behind him.

I think for them the Hield/Turner deal is better, but will cost them a pick (because Indy will just buy-out Westbrook if they can’t forward him elsewhere at the deadline). Indy are sellers in this deal, rather the Lakers/Heat where both are buyers in some fashion.

I can see them asking for a pick, and getting rebuffed pretty quickly. Which should then turn to an offer of swapping vet min players (Yurt for Bryant perhaps), which then leaves Heat with a decision - likely still a no. Leaving Lakers with the decision of trading future flexibility for wins now, but not the certainty of wins that many fans want. It becomes a trade-off - funny thing to happen in a trade, huh?

I have to agree with puppa. It does get rather frustrating when the direction the team is taking is obvious, the needs of the team are obvious, and both get ignored for a narrative of value that we don't share. That's not to say that those values aren't right. As Chuck said, both things can be true at the same time. That's to say that if you ignore the needs of one team to fit only the other team's definition of value, you're doing a disservice.

A flippant "Heat owe value" lacks nuance and consideration for the the actual situation.

No, we don't owe value. We don't care about the contract situation so that part of the trade holds no interest to us. Why would we be required to add value for something we don't want? And if we don't want the contract, the value for us is non-existent. Would you pay money for food you hate? Would you buy a Fiat to deal with the harsh winters in Alaska? Would you pay cash to see a movie starring an actor you can't stand? Of course, not! Nor should you. While that food you hate might be someone else's favorite, the Fiat might be perfect for Florida, and that actor might be someone else's favorite, if they don't fit you, they have no value to you.


Value is a perception that both teams have to share in order to make it work. If one team tells you that they don't value a player because or his expiring contract, where is the logic in saying "You owe more value"?

That leaves us with Westbrook, the player. We wouldn't participate in this trade even if the Lakers added value because we are literally too good for Westbrook, the player. Dude refuses to accept his role, plays no defense, and these days can and will shoot you right out of a game. Why would we give up Lowry, who actually runs the offense the way we want it run, and Robinson who we know will gain value, either through his play or by the natural passage of time, for Russell Westbrook, the player? Does he make us better than Lowry? Clearly not. At this point, I'm not sure he makes us better than Duncan. At least teams have to account for him on the perimeter, thus creating space.

This is just a no go for us, at this point. And that's not something that I expect will be listened to by RealGM posters. That's not a hur de dur RealGM thing, that's just a human thing. Everyone seems to think they know what's best for others. Just a point of fact...