RealGM

Lakers trade Russell, Reaves, Vincent, and Hayes to CHI for:

LaVine, two protected first round picks and a second round pick:

Russell - 18.5
Reaves - 13
Vincent - 11
Hayes - 2̲.̲5̲
45m for LaVine's 43m

Good for CHI because they get to rid themselves of LaVine and his horrendous contract, while also receiving salary cap relief, a tremendous value contract in Reaves, and a large expiring (Russell) to make more deals.

Bad for CHI because they must attach multiple picks to both jettison LaVine and receive Reaves in return.

Good for LAL because they receive a dynamic, athletic, pure-shooting guard with potential to become their closer and some picks to go with him.

Bad for LAL because it costs them Reaves and taking on LaVine's contract with it's size and his injury history is a tremendous risk.

Anderson Hunt wrote:Lakers trade Russell, Reaves, Vincent, and Hayes to CHI for:

LaVine, two protected first round picks and a second round pick:

Russell - 18.5
Reaves - 13
Vincent - 11
Hayes - 2̲.̲5̲
45m for LaVine's 43m

Good for CHI because they get to rid themselves of LaVine and his horrendous contract, while also receiving salary cap relief, a tremendous value contract in Reaves, and a large expiring (Russell) to make more deals.

Bad for CHI because they must attach multiple picks to both jettison LaVine and receive Reaves in return.

Good for LAL because they receive a dynamic, athletic, pure-shooting guard with potential to become their closer and some picks to go with him.

Bad for LAL because it costs them Reaves and taking on LaVine's contract with it's size and his injury history is a tremendous risk.

I love the idea of LaVine to the Lakers as a Warriors fan, which means the Lakers should probably pass.

Also, hard to really assess the value here without some detail on which picks and what the protections are.

Lakers would want to keep Reaves even with LaVine. Swap in Vanderbilt for Reaves and take out a first from the Bulls

Anderson Hunt wrote:Lakers trade Russell, Reaves, Vincent, and Hayes to CHI for:

LaVine, two protected first round picks and a second round pick:

Russell - 18.5
Reaves - 13
Vincent - 11
Hayes - 2̲.̲5̲
45m for LaVine's 43m

Good for CHI because they get to rid themselves of LaVine and his horrendous contract, while also receiving salary cap relief, a tremendous value contract in Reaves, and a large expiring (Russell) to make more deals.

Bad for CHI because they must attach multiple picks to both jettison LaVine and receive Reaves in return.

Good for LAL because they receive a dynamic, athletic, pure-shooting guard with potential to become their closer and some picks to go with him.

Bad for LAL because it costs them Reaves and taking on LaVine's contract with it's size and his injury history is a tremendous risk.

LaVine has one of the worst contract in the league and based on last year hes' not even an upgrade over D'Lo. And he's struggling with health. Not sure why Lakers would give up anything to get him.

DLo+Rui+Vincent
For
LaVine+FRP

That's really the only deal.

More likely is a DeMar for a DLo deal

Who lakers bidding against here?

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Who lakers bidding against here?

Jerry Reinsdorf

Yeah I don't see any reason for LA to do this when there is a more attractive guard on the same team that would take fewer players to acquire.

Take Reeves out and LA gets DeRozan back, no picks.

The Lakers need LaVine. Specifically, they need "a splash".

I define "a splash" here as:

(A) to acquire a talented player who has the skill set to become their go-to score, especially if that guy is an above-average three-point shooter.

(B) to acquire a big-name to appease James into taking a massive paycut.

and
(C) to increase their overall team speed, athleticism, and quickness.

Sure, LaVine had a poor season and he has a history of injuries. These are undebatable facts. What is also an undebatable facts is that players bounce back from bad seasons all the time and LaVine has a history of being a great scorer and jumpshooter.

LaVine and Booker were looked at as comparable players less than a handful of years ago. Both were universally seen as non-winning players whose playing styles don't win games ... then Chris Paul crossed Booker's path, and no one mentions him as a "losing" player anymore.

I'd argue that LaVine, if healthy (admittedly a big if) isn't done as an All-Star player. I'd argue that the perception of him is at an all-time low, his contract is insane, and he needs his point guard leader (one LeBron James) the same way Booker needed his.

It's a huge risk, and it'd be unfortunate for them to lose Austin Reaves, but such is life. Ultimate success requires risk. The inclusion of Reaves is absolutely necessary to make Chicago "feel" good about sending multiple firsts out while also sending out the likely best player.

If Reaves value is so high (because of his play and contract), maybe the Lakers should ask for three firsts instead of two and a second, but regardless, the Lakers need LaVine's skillset, and with James in the post-nut afterglow of playing with his son, willing to leave 20 million on the table, you gotta strike while the iron is hot.

I just don't understand the rationale for Chicago trading Lavine with picks. Trading Lavine ==> CHI is rebuilding, and if they are rebuilding (they should) the last thing they want to do is trade picks.

CHI would be better off paying Lavine to sit at home than taking this deal.

Anderson Hunt wrote:Lakers trade Russell, Reaves, Vincent, and Hayes to CHI for:

LaVine, two protected first round picks and a second round pick:

Russell - 18.5
Reaves - 13
Vincent - 11
Hayes - 2̲.̲5̲
45m for LaVine's 43m

Good for CHI because they get to rid themselves of LaVine and his horrendous contract, while also receiving salary cap relief, a tremendous value contract in Reaves, and a large expiring (Russell) to make more deals.

Bad for CHI because they must attach multiple picks to both jettison LaVine and receive Reaves in return.

Good for LAL because they receive a dynamic, athletic, pure-shooting guard with potential to become their closer and some picks to go with him.

Bad for LAL because it costs them Reaves and taking on LaVine's contract with it's size and his injury history is a tremendous risk.

I disagree with the notion the Bulls have to attach picks. If the Lakers are interested, they have specific reasons why. Chicago should exploit that.

It all depends on who is initiating the talks. If Chicago is simply wanting to dump LaVine, sure they pay. If the Lakers value LaVine for his scoring, they have to buy.

louc1970 wrote:

Anderson Hunt wrote:Lakers trade Russell, Reaves, Vincent, and Hayes to CHI for:

LaVine, two protected first round picks and a second round pick:

Russell - 18.5
Reaves - 13
Vincent - 11
Hayes - 2̲.̲5̲
45m for LaVine's 43m

Good for CHI because they get to rid themselves of LaVine and his horrendous contract, while also receiving salary cap relief, a tremendous value contract in Reaves, and a large expiring (Russell) to make more deals.

Bad for CHI because they must attach multiple picks to both jettison LaVine and receive Reaves in return.

Good for LAL because they receive a dynamic, athletic, pure-shooting guard with potential to become their closer and some picks to go with him.

Bad for LAL because it costs them Reaves and taking on LaVine's contract with it's size and his injury history is a tremendous risk.

I disagree with the notion the Bulls have to attach picks. If the Lakers are interested, they have specific reasons why. Chicago should exploit that.

It all depends on who is initiating the talks. If Chicago is simply wanting to dump LaVine, sure they pay. If the Lakers value LaVine for his scoring, they have to buy.

You're essentially saying that both sides must agree, which I agree. If CHI doesn't pony up the picks, no deal.

I question your judgement (and Chicago's) if you think LaVine can be traded without attaching assets.

Anderson Hunt wrote:

louc1970 wrote:

Anderson Hunt wrote:Lakers trade Russell, Reaves, Vincent, and Hayes to CHI for:

LaVine, two protected first round picks and a second round pick:

Russell - 18.5
Reaves - 13
Vincent - 11
Hayes - 2̲.̲5̲
45m for LaVine's 43m

Good for CHI because they get to rid themselves of LaVine and his horrendous contract, while also receiving salary cap relief, a tremendous value contract in Reaves, and a large expiring (Russell) to make more deals.

Bad for CHI because they must attach multiple picks to both jettison LaVine and receive Reaves in return.

Good for LAL because they receive a dynamic, athletic, pure-shooting guard with potential to become their closer and some picks to go with him.

Bad for LAL because it costs them Reaves and taking on LaVine's contract with it's size and his injury history is a tremendous risk.

I disagree with the notion the Bulls have to attach picks. If the Lakers are interested, they have specific reasons why. Chicago should exploit that.

It all depends on who is initiating the talks. If Chicago is simply wanting to dump LaVine, sure they pay. If the Lakers value LaVine for his scoring, they have to buy.

You're essentially saying that both sides must agree, which I agree. If CHI doesn't pony up the picks, no deal.

I question your judgement (and Chicago's) if you think LaVine can be traded without attaching assets.

It's a reasonable debate how much, if any, draft compensation is needed to move Lavine. As a DET fan, I wanted a single lotto-protected FRP to take him for pure cap space, and CHI fans thought that was too much.

But if CHI is trading Lavine, they are better off trading him for pure cap space than this trade, which has CHI adding value to get players who don't fit well with a rebuild situation

Anderson Hunt wrote:

louc1970 wrote:

Anderson Hunt wrote:Lakers trade Russell, Reaves, Vincent, and Hayes to CHI for:

LaVine, two protected first round picks and a second round pick:

Russell - 18.5
Reaves - 13
Vincent - 11
Hayes - 2̲.̲5̲
45m for LaVine's 43m

Good for CHI because they get to rid themselves of LaVine and his horrendous contract, while also receiving salary cap relief, a tremendous value contract in Reaves, and a large expiring (Russell) to make more deals.

Bad for CHI because they must attach multiple picks to both jettison LaVine and receive Reaves in return.

Good for LAL because they receive a dynamic, athletic, pure-shooting guard with potential to become their closer and some picks to go with him.

Bad for LAL because it costs them Reaves and taking on LaVine's contract with it's size and his injury history is a tremendous risk.

I disagree with the notion the Bulls have to attach picks. If the Lakers are interested, they have specific reasons why. Chicago should exploit that.

It all depends on who is initiating the talks. If Chicago is simply wanting to dump LaVine, sure they pay. If the Lakers value LaVine for his scoring, they have to buy.

You're essentially saying that both sides must agree, which I agree. If CHI doesn't pony up the picks, no deal.

I question your judgement (and Chicago's) if you think LaVine can be traded without attaching assets.

First, yes both sides must agree.
But if I am Chicago I am not offering any picks. If the Lakers are contacting the Bulls, the Lakers are coming to buy the player. It is up to the Lakers to make the Bulls want to deal.
If the Lakers approach is "We will take LaVine if you give us a pick and we can give you this stuff over here back", the answer is no. What value do the Bulls get out of this? Not paying LaVine is not prize enough.

However if the Bulls are trying to get out of the LaVine deal as cleanly (cheaply) as possible, I am sure a team somewhere has deal worth offering that better serves the Bulls (Nets for Simmons) just to get the cost off in 1 year, Phoenix might even offer up picks if Chicago takes Beal, with Orlando to give the Magic a backcourt scorer (Harris/Isaacs). Just spit-balling but there are better options than giving away a pick.

When you're playing trade machine, why is it so difficult to look at the lineup for the teams that you're including in your never going to happen trades

Bulls

SG White Dosunmu Reeves Vincent Terry maybe Javonte Green
PG Giddey Russell Carter maybe Lonzo Ball

do you see the flaw in your thinking? Those are just the guards under contract, some for more than one year except for Green

If CHI has to pay to move Lavine they may as well keep him.

JRoy wrote:If CHI has to pay to move Lavine they may as well keep him.

Yeah. At most I'd consider is moving the protected Portland 1st that could easily end up a 2nd. I don't see any deal where Chicago should consider sending out any of their own 1sts.

Take out Reaves and unprotect the picks or at a very minimal lightly protect them to get LA to the table.

Chicago isn't attaching **** to LaVine.

Hell no.

Just as a general note, the Bulls are getting close to the tax limit. They have put themselves in a position where they can't sign and trade Derozan for much $$$$.

Clips will take LaVine if he is available. How about LaVine for Mann + Powell + Tucker?