RealGM

UTA sends:LAL 27 1st, 2 future 2nds
UTA receive: LAL 26 1st, top 4 protected 27 swap with the best 2 picks out of UTA/MIN/CLE (worst pick is going to PHX), Powell into TPE
UTA eats 4 million in salary add a 1st in a year they don't have 1sts, and turn the 27 into swap

DAL sends: Hardy, Powell, LAL 29
DAL receive: LAL 28
Mavs dump salary, push back Lakers 1st 1 year.
This creates enough space below the 2nd Apron to use TPMLE and sign 2 vet mins.

BK sends: Claxton, 3 future 2nds
BK receive: Vando, Hardy, Maxi, Milton, LAL 30 1st unprotected.
Brooklyn can use their late 1sts this year to flip Vando/Hardy for expiring.

LAL sends: Vando, Maxi, Milton, 30 1st
LAL receive: Claxton, 5 2nds.
Lakers dump Vando, lose control of 1 more draft year, but still 32 to trade, stock up on 2nds, get their starting center.

Not sure I understand why switching from 2029 to 2028 1st allows Dallas to dump 16M?

Lakers goes from owing 27/29 to now 26/28/30 and a 27 swap for Claxton? Seem like an overpay considering on Brooklyn side claxton only cost one 1st. Why wouldnt lakers just trade with them directly?

The 27 1st Utah has is currently 1-4 protected, so I'd be thrilled to move it forward a year AND get a swap out of it for eating Powell's small contract. I like it for Dallas ... but Brooklyn feels like the problem. I really don't think Claxton is worth his contract but they aren't going to trade him for a pick 5 years out AND take on Vanderbilt + Hardy, I'd imagine (especially if it takes adding additional draft capital to move them).

babyjax13 wrote:The 27 1st Utah has is currently 1-4 protected, so I'd be thrilled to move it forward a year AND get a swap out of it for eating Powell's small contract. I like it for Dallas ... but Brooklyn feels like the problem. I really don't think Claxton is worth his contract but they aren't going to trade him for a pick 5 years out AND take on Vanderbilt + Hardy, I'd imagine (especially if it takes adding additional draft capital to move them).

It's unprotected 1st, it's pretty valuable, they can use #26 or #27 to dump Vando and Hardy and still end up with with unprotected future 1st.
I think they are getting the best deal here, but I like unprotected 1sts.

Mavrelous wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:The 27 1st Utah has is currently 1-4 protected, so I'd be thrilled to move it forward a year AND get a swap out of it for eating Powell's small contract. I like it for Dallas ... but Brooklyn feels like the problem. I really don't think Claxton is worth his contract but they aren't going to trade him for a pick 5 years out AND take on Vanderbilt + Hardy, I'd imagine (especially if it takes adding additional draft capital to move them).

It's unprotected 1st, it's pretty valuable, they can use #26 or #27 to dump Vando and Hardy and still end up with with unprotected future 1st.
I think they are getting the best deal here, but I like unprotected 1sts.

I like them too, I just think teams are rarely willing to trade young starters for picks that far in the future. I think they *should* be open to doing that, but they can probably find something with a shorter time horizon.

Godaddycurse wrote:Not sure I understand why switching from 2029 to 2028 1st allows Dallas to dump 16M?

Lakers goes from owing 27/29 to now 26/28/30 and a 27 swap for Claxton? Seem like an overpay considering on Brooklyn side claxton only cost one 1st. Why wouldnt lakers just trade with them directly?

Limit their draft debt to 2030 instead of 3031 + ability to dump Vando in the deal instead of using expirings.
29 1st > 28 1st in value, no? Dallas is owed for this IMO

Godaddycurse wrote:Not sure I understand why switching from 2029 to 2028 1st allows Dallas to dump 16M?

Lakers goes from owing 27/29 to now 26/28/30 and a 27 swap for Claxton? Seem like an overpay considering on Brooklyn side claxton only cost one 1st. Why wouldnt lakers just trade with them directly?

Yeah Dallas seems to be getting free value and LA seems to be badly overpaying for no real reason at all. Feels way too unnecessarily complicated and the values well off.

no idea how we randomly decided one of these years picks is more valuable than the other 3 years in advance. That's not how this works. If anything getting the asset sooner should cost something.

Mavrelous wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:Not sure I understand why switching from 2029 to 2028 1st allows Dallas to dump 16M?

Lakers goes from owing 27/29 to now 26/28/30 and a 27 swap for Claxton? Seem like an overpay considering on Brooklyn side claxton only cost one 1st. Why wouldnt
lakers just trade with them directly?

Limit their draft debt to 2030 instead of 3031 + ability to dump Vando in the deal instead of using expirings.
29 1st > 28 1st in value, no? Dallas is owed for this IMO

Why does 29 1st > 28 1st? Lebron is retired either way by then.

Brooklyn in OP is still receiving Vando though for 1 unprotected 1st. It seems they are willing to accept vando and fillers and a 1st for Claxton so lakers should just do that directly

Texas Chuck wrote:no idea how we randomly decided one of these years picks is more valuable than the other 3 years in advance. That's not how this works. If anything getting the asset sooner should cost something.

Yea that part escapes me. 26 vs 27 sure you can convince me lebron is gone by 27 but 28 and 29 the bones of the roster should be the same?

Godaddycurse wrote:

Mavrelous wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:Not sure I understand why switching from 2029 to 2028 1st allows Dallas to dump 16M?

Lakers goes from owing 27/29 to now 26/28/30 and a 27 swap for Claxton? Seem like an overpay considering on Brooklyn side claxton only cost one 1st. Why wouldnt
lakers just trade with them directly?

Limit their draft debt to 2030 instead of 3031 + ability to dump Vando in the deal instead of using expirings.
29 1st > 28 1st in value, no? Dallas is owed for this IMO

Why does 29 1st > 28 1st? Lebron is retired either way by then.

Brooklyn in OP is still receiving Vando though for 1 unprotected 1st. It seems they are willing to accept vando and fillers and a 1st for Claxton so lakers should just do that directly

The farther it's pushed, the bigger the uncertainty.
Luka will sign 2+1 most likely, 28 will be Luka's last guaranteed year he can leave after 28, so 29 is more valuable.

Godaddycurse wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:no idea how we randomly decided one of these years picks is more valuable than the other 3 years in advance. That's not how this works. If anything getting the asset sooner should cost something.

Yea that part escapes me. 26 vs 27 sure you can convince me lebron is gone by 27 but 28 and 29 the bones of the roster should be the same?

Not about LeBron, it's about Luka.

Now we are just inventing contracts for Luka to justify this? Cmon now. This is just free value for Dallas they don't warrant.

It's not inventing, it's the most likely contract he'll sign to maximize his earnings.

BKN can get a better deal for Claxton

Mavrelous wrote:It's not inventing, it's the most likely contract he'll sign to maximize his earnings.

Dont know why u think luka cares more about maximize earnings then winning? Nothing ever showed that. And he obviously got no loyalty to lakers after they helped backstab him. I would actually be really dissapointed in him if he extended with lakers this summer. And people say he should learn from lebron. Well, first thing is to not extend without putting pressure on team with the po, just like lebron done for many years

I like the creativity, but I do think Dallas/Utah are both getting too good a deal.

I think my valuation off the OP would be like..

2026 first to Brooklyn (unprotected but lower variance since it’s just Claxton going out - still a really good deal for Brooklyn)

2028 first to Utah (unprotected and make them eat some salary or throw in 2nds if Brooklyn prefers that. But delaying the first and unprotecting it are both wins for Utah)

2030 protected first to Dallas (say top 6 2030 and 2031 then unprotected 2032?)

Dallas still guarantees themselves a first but LAL gets to guarantee themselves a first for two years if they are rebuilding at that point?

Apz wrote:

Mavrelous wrote:It's not inventing, it's the most likely contract he'll sign to maximize his earnings.

Dont know why u think luka cares more about maximize earnings then winning? Nothing ever showed that. And he obviously got no loyalty to lakers after they helped backstab him. I would actually be really dissapointed in him if he extended with lakers this summer. And people say he should learn from lebron. Well, first thing is to not extend without putting pressure on team with the po, just like lebron done for many years

Yes, all players do, I don't have it as controversial or "inventing" to say Luka will do 2+1, this is also what Bobby Marks suggested, this gives the Lakers the assurance they have time with him to go and spend, and Luka the option to opt out and sign a bigger deal or go somewhere else if things don't work out.

jayjaysee wrote:I like the creativity, but I do think Dallas/Utah are both getting too good a deal.

I think my valuation off the OP would be like..

2026 first to Brooklyn (unprotected but lower variance since it’s just Claxton going out - still a really good deal for Brooklyn)

2028 first to Utah (unprotected and make them eat some salary or throw in 2nds if Brooklyn prefers that. But delaying the first and unprotecting it are both wins for Utah)

2030 protected first to Dallas (say top 6 2030 and 2031 then unprotected 2032?)

Dallas still guarantees themselves a first but LAL gets to guarantee themselves a first for two years if they are rebuilding at that point?

I think Calxton value is expiring + protected 1st, Lakers don't have that, that's why I tried to manuever.
Here are my few thoughts:
1. Dallas deserve payment for facilitating the deal, we can haggle over what the payment is, but not the fact they deserve it.
2. For Brooklyn to get a high variance future asset, they need to give more than just Calxton for expiring, so they take Vando's bad deal + Hardy dump from DAL.

I like your deal also, but I think DAL pick should be unprotected, and Utah shoud eat the bad money as they are the ones getting the upgraded pick.

Why do people think the Laker's 2030 first rounder is a high value asset when they have Luka and the NBA keeps fixing things to give them all stars in exchange for the number one overall draft pick?

If I am the Nets I am expecting that pick to be in the 20-30 range.