If you were the Lakers, would you go for the star or the role players?

[zimpy27]

Let's say they have 2 trades they can make:


Rui+JHS+LAL27FRP(unprotect existing top 4 protection)+LAL29FRP(unp)+LAL31FRP(unp)+2xswaps(unp in 28 and 30)
For
Lauri
DLo, Reaves, LeBron, Lauri, Davis -- Vincent, Christie, Knecht, Vando, Wood


OR

DLo+Rui+JHS+LAL29FRP(unp)
For
CamJ+DFS+Sharpe
Reaves, DFS, CamJ, LeBron, Davis -- Vincent, Christie, Knecht, Vando, Sharpe



If both were on offer, which would you choose?



This is really a question about giving up your future to improve the 3rd star or sticking to the path of improving multiple players in your playoff 8.

[Lunartic]

As a non-lakers fan that doesn't care about their long term flexibility or future, I'd take the Lauri trade.

A combo of AD/Lauri/Bron would be very intriguing, but they'd prob turn Lauri into a corner 3 spammer averaging 14ppg. It would be a huge starting lineup with great spacing though.

[DanishLakerFan]

Depends on the star..

Hell no, if it's Trae.
Lauri, maybe.
I'd prefer roleplayers though.

[OxAndFox]

That Lauri trade wouldn't be hard to beat. 2 x 1sts for Lauri.
Teams would have already beaten that offer with 3 or 4 firsts and he hasn't been traded.

[zimpy27]

That Lauri trade wouldn't be hard to beat. 2 x 1sts for Lauri.
Teams would have already beaten that offer with 3 or 4 firsts and he hasn't been traded.

I think it would be a lot to best that. Not all firsts are equal. Lakers don't have any burgeoning young talent.

2 Lakers unprotected FRPs and 2 unprotected swaps after LeBron and Davis
Unprotecting an existing Lakers FRP after LeBron


It's beatable but who is giving more than that? Can you give an example?

[OxAndFox]

That Lauri trade wouldn't be hard to beat. 2 x 1sts for Lauri.
Teams would have already beaten that offer with 3 or 4 firsts and he hasn't been traded.

I think it would be a lot to best that. Not all firsts are equal. Lakers don't have any burgeoning young talent.

2 Lakers unprotected FRPs and 2 unprotected swaps after LeBron and Davis
Unprotecting an existing Lakers FRP after LeBron


It's beatable but who is giving more than that? Can you give an example?

Well I would think the Kings for one would have put all their 1sts available and swaps along with Barnes prior to his trade, but now it would be Huerter and Colby Jones, or if it needs to be, Keon Ellis.
That's an extra 1st right there and if you're watching the other thread talking about Kings' firsts there are a lot of posters who believe the Kings' firsts are in the top tier of the NBA. I don't buy into that theory, but hey, the Kings weren't great for a long period.

I think San Antonio would beat that offer and still have enough draft capital to put another all star player around Wemby.

Houston can put more young players than all of them combined and have more draft capital so it wouldn't be tough to beat that offer.
Houston fans probably wouldn't do this, but I would Amen/1st/1st is much better than the Lakers and Sacramento can offer.

[zimpy27]

That Lauri trade wouldn't be hard to beat. 2 x 1sts for Lauri.
Teams would have already beaten that offer with 3 or 4 firsts and he hasn't been traded.

I think it would be a lot to best that. Not all firsts are equal. Lakers don't have any burgeoning young talent.

2 Lakers unprotected FRPs and 2 unprotected swaps after LeBron and Davis
Unprotecting an existing Lakers FRP after LeBron


It's beatable but who is giving more than that? Can you give an example?

Well I would think the Kings for one would have put all their 1sts available and swaps along with Barnes prior to his trade, but now it would be Huerter and Colby Jones, or if it needs to be, Keon Ellis.
That's an extra 1st right there and if you're watching the other thread talking about Kings' firsts there are a lot of posters who believe the Kings' firsts are in the top tier of the NBA. I don't buy into that theory, but hey, the Kings weren't great for a long period.

I think San Antonio would beat that offer and still have enough draft capital to put another all star player around Wemby.

Houston can put more young players than all of them combined and have more draft capital so it wouldn't be tough to beat that offer.
Houston fans probably wouldn't do this, but I would Amen/1st/1st is much better than the Lakers and Sacramento can offer.

Kings have young players and depth in place. Long-term contracts Also they have a pick owing to Hawks that is top 12 protected, no guarantee it conveys either which pushes picks out.

So kings picks are maybe 27, 29, 31.. but no guarantee. And the team has Murray hanging around for all of those picks. Likely Fox and Monk too. Sabonis maybe.

I don't see how that is better than Lakers picks. Kings would need to give up Murray for Lauri to beat Lakers.

Spurs have Wemby locked in for next 7 years honestly, their 4 unprotected are not worth more than Lakers 29 and 31.

Houston could with their young players, I agree with that for sure.

[OxAndFox]

I think it would be a lot to best that. Not all firsts are equal. Lakers don't have any burgeoning young talent.

2 Lakers unprotected FRPs and 2 unprotected swaps after LeBron and Davis
Unprotecting an existing Lakers FRP after LeBron


It's beatable but who is giving more than that? Can you give an example?

Well I would think the Kings for one would have put all their 1sts available and swaps along with Barnes prior to his trade, but now it would be Huerter and Colby Jones, or if it needs to be, Keon Ellis.
That's an extra 1st right there and if you're watching the other thread talking about Kings' firsts there are a lot of posters who believe the Kings' firsts are in the top tier of the NBA. I don't buy into that theory, but hey, the Kings weren't great for a long period.

I think San Antonio would beat that offer and still have enough draft capital to put another all star player around Wemby.

Houston can put more young players than all of them combined and have more draft capital so it wouldn't be tough to beat that offer.
Houston fans probably wouldn't do this, but I would Amen/1st/1st is much better than the Lakers and Sacramento can offer.

Kings have young players and depth in place. Long-term contracts Also they have a pick owing to Hawks that is top 12 protected, no guarantee it conveys either which pushes picks out.

So kings picks are maybe 27, 29, 31.. but no guarantee. And the team has Murray hanging around for all of those picks. Likely Fox and Monk too. Sabonis maybe.

I don't see how that is better than Lakers picks. Kings would need to give up Murray for Lauri to beat Lakers.

Spurs have Wemby locked in for next 7 years honestly, their 4 unprotected are not worth more than Lakers 29 and 31.

Houston could with their young players, I agree with that for sure.

Agree to disagree. The Kings shouldn't need to put Keegan in any Lauri trade. He is on a trajectory that is on a similar line as Lauri himself. Will he get there? Maybe not as a scorer, but as a two way guy? I think he will.
There hasn't been one player, save maybe Jabari Smith (who Houston would be crazy to trade for Lauri), that's been talked about in trade that is even close to Keegan Murray, including any player the Lakers can put up.
The Warriors have said they won't give up Kuminga even, but yeah, Kings need to include Keegan Murray.

That Lakers package isn't even decent, it's 2 far out 1sts that give the Lakers time to build again after LeBron retires. They look likely to have max cap space in 2 seasons at minimum, or enough for 2 all star type players to join AD in year 3 from now which takes them past all of these picks.

[zimpy27]

Well I would think the Kings for one would have put all their 1sts available and swaps along with Barnes prior to his trade, but now it would be Huerter and Colby Jones, or if it needs to be, Keon Ellis.
That's an extra 1st right there and if you're watching the other thread talking about Kings' firsts there are a lot of posters who believe the Kings' firsts are in the top tier of the NBA. I don't buy into that theory, but hey, the Kings weren't great for a long period.

I think San Antonio would beat that offer and still have enough draft capital to put another all star player around Wemby.

Houston can put more young players than all of them combined and have more draft capital so it wouldn't be tough to beat that offer.
Houston fans probably wouldn't do this, but I would Amen/1st/1st is much better than the Lakers and Sacramento can offer.

Kings have young players and depth in place. Long-term contracts Also they have a pick owing to Hawks that is top 12 protected, no guarantee it conveys either which pushes picks out.

So kings picks are maybe 27, 29, 31.. but no guarantee. And the team has Murray hanging around for all of those picks. Likely Fox and Monk too. Sabonis maybe.

I don't see how that is better than Lakers picks. Kings would need to give up Murray for Lauri to beat Lakers.

Spurs have Wemby locked in for next 7 years honestly, their 4 unprotected are not worth more than Lakers 29 and 31.

Houston could with their young players, I agree with that for sure.

Agree to disagree. The Kings shouldn't need to put Keegan in any Lauri trade. He is on a trajectory that is on a similar line as Lauri himself. Will he get there? Maybe not as a scorer, but as a two way guy? I think he will.
There hasn't been one player, save maybe Jabari Smith (who Houston would be crazy to trade for Lauri), that's been talked about in trade that is even close to Keegan Murray, including any player the Lakers can put up.
The Warriors have said they won't give up Kuminga even, but yeah, Kings need to include Keegan Murray.

That Lakers package isn't even decent, it's 2 far out 1sts that give the Lakers time to build again after LeBron retires. They look likely to have max cap space in 2 seasons at minimum, or enough for 2 all star type players to join AD in year 3 from now which takes them past all of these picks.

So you think Lakers will be better than Kings from years 4 to 7?

That seems unlikely since they are only just a bit better than the Kings now and they have a LeBron and Davis.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Fair points by OxAndFox regarding the relative quality of hypothetical Lauri packages, but in truth we never know what the best offer made is unless a trade happens. Maybe nobody beats that offer. It's hard to guess.

So, accepting the premise and the examples provided... you go for Lauri. He may be great next to LeBron, and he may still be peaking, which makes him a worthwhile building block for the Bronny era.

You picked three good role players for the comparison, but that post-trade roster is still woefully lacking in offensive dynamism. I think it would depend entirely too much on another-year-older LeBron to carry it.

Lauri doesn't provide much in the way of creation, either, but he's become a credible scorer off the bounce in addition to being deadly off the catch. He's good enough from all locations to stretch defenses. The ball doesn't stick with him. He doesn't turn it over. All the reasons any team trying to get better should want him. He'll just fit and score within the flow of the game. It's not like Utah handed him the keys to the franchise, such that you can call his success a result of inordinate usage on a bad team or whatever. He's not a (contender's) #1 and maybe not even a #2. But the Lakers have LeBron and AD...

I dunno, I feel like Lauri is extremely portable, such that you could plausibly sell his fit just about anywhere. I'm bullish on trading for him from most teams' perspectives. But, to return to where I started, my hunch is that nobody would beat that Lakers offer. Do it LeGM.

[babyjax13]

In this scenario the star bc it concurrently helps their depth by replacing all of Rui's minutes with a better player + some minutes currently allocated elsewhere. We can debate what Utaj should/could actually accept, obviously we can't know unless something happens and/or we know what other teams offered. So, ignoring whether the value is right, in terms of on-cpirt impact I think it's a better deal. It's more interesting if the player returned has a larger salary because then you introduce depth issues (e.g., Ingram, LaVine, to a lesser extent, Grant).

[OxAndFox]

Kings have young players and depth in place. Long-term contracts Also they have a pick owing to Hawks that is top 12 protected, no guarantee it conveys either which pushes picks out.

So kings picks are maybe 27, 29, 31.. but no guarantee. And the team has Murray hanging around for all of those picks. Likely Fox and Monk too. Sabonis maybe.

I don't see how that is better than Lakers picks. Kings would need to give up Murray for Lauri to beat Lakers.

Spurs have Wemby locked in for next 7 years honestly, their 4 unprotected are not worth more than Lakers 29 and 31.

Houston could with their young players, I agree with that for sure.

Agree to disagree. The Kings shouldn't need to put Keegan in any Lauri trade. He is on a trajectory that is on a similar line as Lauri himself. Will he get there? Maybe not as a scorer, but as a two way guy? I think he will.
There hasn't been one player, save maybe Jabari Smith (who Houston would be crazy to trade for Lauri), that's been talked about in trade that is even close to Keegan Murray, including any player the Lakers can put up.
The Warriors have said they won't give up Kuminga even, but yeah, Kings need to include Keegan Murray.

That Lakers package isn't even decent, it's 2 far out 1sts that give the Lakers time to build again after LeBron retires. They look likely to have max cap space in 2 seasons at minimum, or enough for 2 all star type players to join AD in year 3 from now which takes them past all of these picks.

So you think Lakers will be better than Kings from years 4 to 7?

That seems unlikely since they are only just a bit better than the Kings now and they have a LeBron and Davis.

They might be. Who knows.
In 2 years Embiid and Luka could be UFA. I think if the Lakers signed one of them along with AD, Reaves (has a small cap hold) and then fill out the roster with smaller contracts and/or rookie contracts they have between now and then, they would be happy.

AD might be a shell of his former self by then. We don't know, the Lakers might turn around and trade him as soon as LeBron retires for a young player and picks.
They might also have a player demand a trade to the Lakers at any stage in the next 4-5-6-7 years. That's the destination and Lakers factor.

[jayjaysee]

I’d go all in if Utah took that offer..

But I think SAS tops that.. and depending on the value Kuminga has around the league, I think GSW tops it. If Kuminga has the value I think he does, then GSW’s two first and Kuminga is better. (I’d be really happy if Dallas got him for the 2025 and 2031 Dallas firsts for him).. Sac could still offer 3 first same 3 swaps with a prospect..

Presti could still decide that a three big line up of Chet/Lauri/Hartenstein is worth starting the tax in 2025-2026 instead of 2026-2027 (it is)

I know it’s not a Lauri thread, but I’d also think Atlanta should top it if they are keeping Trae. They can top it with/without one of Jalen/Zac, though using one obviously is a better option.. And Utah can use their cap space taking back Capela, which does more than half the work for cap space for Lauri’s renegotiation..

[zimpy27]

Agree to disagree. The Kings shouldn't need to put Keegan in any Lauri trade. He is on a trajectory that is on a similar line as Lauri himself. Will he get there? Maybe not as a scorer, but as a two way guy? I think he will.
There hasn't been one player, save maybe Jabari Smith (who Houston would be crazy to trade for Lauri), that's been talked about in trade that is even close to Keegan Murray, including any player the Lakers can put up.
The Warriors have said they won't give up Kuminga even, but yeah, Kings need to include Keegan Murray.

That Lakers package isn't even decent, it's 2 far out 1sts that give the Lakers time to build again after LeBron retires. They look likely to have max cap space in 2 seasons at minimum, or enough for 2 all star type players to join AD in year 3 from now which takes them past all of these picks.

So you think Lakers will be better than Kings from years 4 to 7?

That seems unlikely since they are only just a bit better than the Kings now and they have a LeBron and Davis.

They might be. Who knows.
In 2 years Embiid and Luka could be UFA. I think if the Lakers signed one of them along with AD, Reaves (has a small cap hold) and then fill out the roster with smaller contracts and/or rookie contracts they have between now and then, they would be happy.

AD might be a shell of his former self by then. We don't know, the Lakers might turn around and trade him as soon as LeBron retires for a young player and picks.
They might also have a player demand a trade to the Lakers at any stage in the next 4-5-6-7 years. That's the destination and Lakers factor.

Lakers have had LeBron, Shaq and Ron Artest come to them in FA. LeBron is the only one close in time.

Lakers pulling power is extremely overrated on here I'd say. I mean kings have pulled Monk after he blossomed on Lakers and they pulled DeMar. Lakers haven't had anything close to that in the past 5 years.

[Tim Lehrbach]

I’d go all in if Utah took that offer..

But I think SAS tops that.. and depending on the value Kuminga has around the league, I think GSW tops it. If Kuminga has the value I think he does, then GSW’s two first and Kuminga is better. (I’d be really happy if Dallas got him for the 2025 and 2031 Dallas firsts for him).. Sac could still offer 3 first same 3 swaps with a prospect..

Presti could still decide that a three big line up of Chet/Lauri/Hartenstein is worth starting the tax in 2025-2026 instead of 2026-2027 (it is)

I know it’s not a Lauri thread, but I’d also think Atlanta should top it if they are keeping Trae. They can top it with/without one of Jalen/Zac, though using one obviously is a better option.. And Utah can use their cap space taking back Capela, which does more than half the work for cap space for Lauri’s renegotiation..

You and OxAndFox are right: other teams can offer more. And you might be right that they should, too. As I said above, I'm a big fan of Lauri in nearly all team situations and roster fits. My hunch is teams won't match the bid in the OP, but I could be totally off.

[R-DAWG]

To be honest, I don’t think it’s worth investing future draft capital around Lebron/AD right now. What role player are you getting that takes this team from play-in team to title contender?

I would use the chips if I could get a #2 star to team with Davis for the next 3-5 years, allowing Lebron to be the #3.

But if that second option isn’t available, and it most likely isn’t, I think the lakers are closer to trading AD and tearing it down then going all in.

[louc1970]

Let's say they have 2 trades they can make:


Rui+JHS+LAL27FRP(unprotect existing top 4 protection)+LAL29FRP(unp)+LAL31FRP(unp)+2xswaps(unp in 28 and 30)
For
Lauri
DLo, Reaves, LeBron, Lauri, Davis -- Vincent, Christie, Knecht, Vando, Wood[/i

OR

DLo+Rui+JHS+LAL29FRP(unp)
For
CamJ+DFS+Sharpe
[i]Reaves, DFS, CamJ, LeBron, Davis -- Vincent, Christie, Knecht, Vando, Sharpe



If both were on offer, which would you choose?



This is really a question about giving up your future to improve the 3rd star or sticking to the path of improving multiple players in your playoff 8.

If I had to choose one it would be the second. However you would need to add more FRPs. Everyone knows the Lakers are willing to swing hard so the teams are waiting to be offered enough to move.
Why would any team simply be willing to help the Lakers win?
Russell is a negative return. Hachimura might get a FRP if traded alone to a desperate team. JHS is just a cut contract. So to me that trade boils down to Nets giving up 3 role players (2 who could potentially start) for a 29 FRP and whatever Hachimura can return.

Bottom line - Lakers have to persuade a team to take their yard sale stuff for a real return.

[louc1970]

To be honest, I don’t think it’s worth investing future draft capital around Lebron/AD right now. What role player are you getting that takes this team from play-in team to title contender?

I would use the chips if I could get a #2 star to team with Davis for the next 3-5 years, allowing Lebron to be the #3.

But if that second option isn’t available, and it most likely isn’t, I think the lakers are closer to trading AD and tearing it down then going all in.

I agree. Davis being 31 and injury prone leaves a lot of questions.

[Ball4life32]

Depends on the star..

Hell no, if it's Trae.
Lauri, maybe.
I'd prefer roleplayers though.

Doubt Trae was ever getting moved but hawks already have lakers unprotected 2025 pick so it certainly wouldn’t be them anyway + their picks are too far out.

[Whole Truth]

The regular season is about depth & the PO's, top end talent. The Lakers are a PI team the last 3yrs but have made a deep PO run losing to the eventual champs, Denver in the WCF's. IMO Lakers lack quality depth, which the regular season requires. I think James & Davis is enough top end talent if surrounded by the right supporting cast. Not factoring the cap management of 3 max contracts.

I think Lauri is over-rated AF. More than 90% of his made buckets are assisted, he's not a strong rebounder or defender. He's basically a catch & shoot 7 footer where teams value spacing which comes with a huge asking price, which would gut a contenders depth & future, especially one that's already lacking in depth & FRP's.

#2 Depth, would be my choice. As stated, I don't think top end talent is a Lakers issue. Cam may not be 7' but can be an elite catch & shoot player. DFS is a 2 way wing/forward. IMO improving the depth helps to ensure an ageing Lebron & injury prone Davis is not heavy usage during a long season just to squeak in & or get worn down if they make a deep PO run.

Your best player is dealing with a lot of mileage = depth >
Your 2nd best player is prone to getting banged up = depth >