RealGM

DFS (SNT)

for

Clarke
GG Jackson
FRP (via MEM or ORL)

LAL gets a backup centre and a couple of good assets to trade for the starting one.

MEM gets their big wing.

Dfs is not worth a 1st imo

Godaddycurse wrote:Dfs is not worth a 1st imo

Don’t think they can get rid of Clarke for free.

Lakers decline. They need to add rotation players. Not get rid of them.

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:Dfs is not worth a 1st imo

Don’t think they can get rid of Clarke for free.

Jackson = cost of getting rid of clarke

This is a no for me. I think if our front office really valued DFS like this would have outbid the lakers.

Godaddycurse wrote:

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:Dfs is not worth a 1st imo

Don’t think they can get rid of Clarke for free.

Jackson = cost of getting rid of clarke

What’s Jackson value? Not a shooter. Not an Efficient scorer. So so defender More turnovers than asssists. Injury prone. I don’t see it.

Unless you saying gg is worth 15 million a year the next two seasons.

psman2 wrote:This is a no for me. I think if our front office really valued DFS like this would have outbid the lakers.

Seem like nets didn’t want the ugly money.

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:Don’t think they can get rid of Clarke for free.

Jackson = cost of getting rid of clarke

What’s Jackson value? Not a shooter. Not an Efficient scorer. So so defender More turnovers than asssists. Injury prone. I don’t see it.

Unless you saying gg is worth 15 million a year the next two seasons.

He is younger than half of this draft. 4 years younger than Knecht.

Setting aside arguments over the value of the Clarke/GG package for a second, I'm curious why the Lakers aren't trying to retain DFS? He fits like a glove and he's got a great relationship with your superstar. Got to still be trying to win when you have Luka and Lebron and DFS helps more than what you get back.

Now if DFS says I'm not interested in staying okay then we start arguing value and fit for LA. But I'd be looking to retain him.

If LAL was doing this, I’d assume it would be part of a bigger trade. With their trade restrictions, I’m not sure they want to trade for Clarke then wait to package him and Maxi for a starting center.

But if Memphis does the OP and LAL can add some to get Claxton.. Say Claxton for Clarke/Maxi/protected Memphis first/minor value from LAL? (Could use Vincent instead of Maxi if you think Maxi can get back to being our Maxi)

Might be a decent way to fill a big hole while not messing with the 2031 draft pick.. Fast forward a year and they can offer 2026/2031/2033 picks in an attempt to add to Claxton/Reaves/Luka

esvl wrote:

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:
Jackson = cost of getting rid of clarke

What’s Jackson value? Not a shooter. Not an Efficient scorer. So so defender More turnovers than asssists. Injury prone. I don’t see it.

Unless you saying gg is worth 15 million a year the next two seasons.

He is younger than half of this draft. 4 years younger than Knecht.

Lakers fans use to same the same thing about Talen Horton Tucker lol

He has time to grow but i don’t him just being young improves his value enough to clear Clarke money and get DFS.

Texas Chuck wrote:Setting aside arguments over the value of the Clarke/GG package for a second, I'm curious why the Lakers aren't trying to retain DFS? He fits like a glove and he's got a great relationship with your superstar. Got to still be trying to win when you have Luka and Lebron and DFS helps more than what you get back.

Now if DFS says I'm not interested in staying okay then we start arguing value and fit for LA. But I'd be looking to retain him.

Think lakers keep him but there is scenarios where is get offered a short term deal that makes it hard for the lakers to afford.