RealGM

Ill offer this idea for Lakers to upgrade backcourt by adding Brogdon

To Washington (release Bagley)
-Gabe Vincent (2 years, $22.5 million)
-Jared Vanderbilt (4 years, $48 million)
-Christian Wood (1 year, $3 million)
-2030 1st round pick (Lottery protected; 2031 Top 10 protected or 2031 2nd)

To Los Angeles
-Malcolm Brogdon (1 year, $22.5 million)
-Anthony Gill (1 year, $2 million)

Why?
-The Wizards cash out on Brogdon by getting a long term 1st

Carrington/Vincent
Poole/Davis/George
Coulibaly/Bey/KIspert/Baldwin
Kuzma/Sarr/Vanderbilt
Valinciunas/Holmes/Wood

-The Lakers upgrade their backcourt as Brogdon can start and they open up a roster spot to add a big

Brogdon/Russell/Schifino/James
Reaves/Christie
Knecht/Reddish/Lewis
James/Hachimura/Gill
Davis/Hayes/Koloko?

This is pretty awful for Washington. They can do much better.

That's way too much bad money for a lotto protected 1st. I would hope the Wizards learned their lesson eating Poole's deal for cheap.

jbk1234 wrote:That's way too much bad money for a lotto protected 1st. I would hope the Wizards learned their lesson eating Poole's deal for cheap.

Meh, the Poole deal was fine. With the 90% rule, they had to pay someone. By all accounts, Poole has been a complete pro. They gambled on a youngish scorer. The Wizards weren't going to sign anyone worth of consequence with that cap space instead considering they just began the rebuild process. Poole fits a role perfectly as a contract signed for multiple years that helps satisfy the 90% rule while allowing for PT for young players.

mhd wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:That's way too much bad money for a lotto protected 1st. I would hope the Wizards learned their lesson eating Poole's deal for cheap.

Meh, the Poole deal was fine. With the 90% rule, they had to pay someone. By all accounts, Poole has been a complete pro. They gambled on a youngish scorer. The Wizards weren't going to sign anyone worth of consequence with that cap space instead considering they just began the rebuild process. Poole fits a role perfectly as a contract signed for multiple years that helps satisfy the 90% rule while allowing for PT for young players.

I don't want to go all in, but it was not fine. They already had CP3 whom they could've traded as a one-year rental for shorter contracts and at least a lotto protected 1st. Any rebuilding team should be cycling through 25-35% of the cap for the first three years and trading cap space for additional draft capital so they can get multiple bites at the apple. When you take on a contract that is that long, for that little, there's an opportunity cost. A top-20 protected distant 1st doesn't begin to cover it.

JJ_PR wrote:This is pretty awful for Washington. They can do much better.

Agreed. The Wiz are taking on two long/bad contracts.

Brogdon isn't going to return a high variability pick like a 2030 1st without taking on a ton of bad money. That part is fair here. But protecting the pick all the way to 10 is too much. You're removing too much of the upside.

If you adjusted this to top 1 or maybe even top 3 protected I think it could have legs, but I'll admit that I'm biased because Vincent and Vandy are two guys who I've liked and still think they could rebuild themselves into marginal value trade pieces in time. If WAS views those guys as total deadweight then that changes things.