RealGM

I think that's about as good of a deal as New Orleans was going to get. Boston might have offered Tatum and the Memphis pick, but with the uncertain Kyrie situation, that deal may not have been forthcoming.

I wonder if those future LA picks are the 2021 and 2023 picks, or if they're the 2020 and 2022 picks? The 2023 pick has the potential of being pretty valuable because it's the season after Lebron's contract is over.

Let's see:

Lebron costs $37.4M
Davis costs $27.1M
Kuzma costs $2.0M
Wagner costs $2.1M
Bonga costs $1.7M
6 vet minimum filler slots will cost $5M

That's a payroll of $70.3M

They'll have $39M in cap room, plus another $4.5M Room Exception to use after they fill up their cap.

Kemba is a 9-year vet so he will cost 30% of the cap, or 33M or so. That leaves them $6M to spend on a wing, then another $4.5M to spend on another wing. That will leave them with a lineup looking something like this:

PG Kemba/vet min
SG $6M vet/vet min
SF 4.5M vet
PF Lebron/Kuzma
C Davis/vet min

They're really going to have to get lucky with those $6M and $4.5M signings and land a couple of good defensive wings with acceptable 3-point shooting.

I like the trade more for the Lakers than I do for the Pelicans. Lonzo can't shoot, Ingram can't shoot and Hart's at best a serviceable player. I think they should use #4 to draft Garland and then if I'm them I look to flip Lonzo and Ingram for 1st round picks or future first round picks.

Celtics are in an interesting place. Assuming that Kyrie leaves, it'll be interesting to see how that team performs. By refusing to include Tatum in any potential deal they are making a huge statement about his future ability. Well, the future is now. Time for Tatum to put up an elite season.

Boston wouldn't give-up Tatum, the Lakers wouldn't give-up Kuzma, but the Pelican's made-out nicely in the trade...now who do they take at 4?

prime1time wrote:I like the trade more for the Lakers than I do for the Pelicans. Lonzo can't shoot, Ingram can't shoot and Hart's at best a serviceable player. I think they should use #4 to draft Garland and then if I'm them I look to flip Lonzo and Ingram for 1st round picks or future first round picks.

Celtics are in an interesting place. Assuming that Kyrie leaves, it'll be interesting to see how that team performs. By refusing to include Tatum in any potential deal they are making a huge statement about his future ability. Well, the future is now. Time for Tatum to put up an elite season.

I think I'd keep Ingram. He's shown enough flashes before Lebron that I'd want to give him another chance with the ball in his hands again. I agree about Ball. I don't think you can win with non-shooting PG's anymore - particularly when you are trying to provide spacing for a guy like Zion. If Phoenix will do it, I'd trade Ball for the #6.

If they really do like Ball, then Garland doesn't seem like the right pick. They ought to consider trading up or down.

what does this mean for Kawhi though. if he was going to the Clippera for his own shine. there is no way he out shines those 2 in a Lakers uniform. he'll be anafterthought unless hes able to take somepne with him.

New Orleans might want to shop Jrue Holiday around as well. Would it make sense to trade him for someone like Capela?

nate33 wrote:

Read on Twitter

I think that's about as good of a deal as New Orleans was going to get. Boston might have offered Tatum and the Memphis pick, but with the uncertain Kyrie situation, that deal may not have been forthcoming.

I wonder if those future LA picks are the 2021 and 2023 picks, or if they're the 2020 and 2022 picks? The 2023 pick has the potential of being pretty valuable because it's the season after Lebron's contract is over.

Can they have traded their 2020 R1 pick? Trading their R1 pick two years in a row, isn't that prohibited?

nate33 wrote:

prime1time wrote:I like the trade more for the Lakers than I do for the Pelicans. Lonzo can't shoot, Ingram can't shoot and Hart's at best a serviceable player. I think they should use #4 to draft Garland and then if I'm them I look to flip Lonzo and Ingram for 1st round picks or future first round picks.

Celtics are in an interesting place. Assuming that Kyrie leaves, it'll be interesting to see how that team performs. By refusing to include Tatum in any potential deal they are making a huge statement about his future ability. Well, the future is now. Time for Tatum to put up an elite season.

I think I'd keep Ingram. He's shown enough flashes before Lebron that I'd want to give him another chance with the ball in his hands again. I agree about Ball. I don't think you can win with non-shooting PG's anymore - particularly when you are trying to provide spacing for a guy like Zion. If Phoenix will do it, I'd trade Ball for the #6.

If they really do like Ball, then Garland doesn't seem like the right pick. They ought to consider trading up or down.

True, I definitely think they should give Ingram a chance. Unless he takes a massive step forward in terms of his shooting (33% from 3 on 1.8 shots a game and 67.5% from the ft line) it's going to be tough to fit him in with Zion and Randle.

Certainly makes things interesting out West!

payitforward wrote:

nate33 wrote:

Read on Twitter

I think that's about as good of a deal as New Orleans was going to get. Boston might have offered Tatum and the Memphis pick, but with the uncertain Kyrie situation, that deal may not have been forthcoming.

I wonder if those future LA picks are the 2021 and 2023 picks, or if they're the 2020 and 2022 picks? The 2023 pick has the potential of being pretty valuable because it's the season after Lebron's contract is over.

Can they have traded their 2020 R1 pick? Trading their R1 pick two years in a row, isn't that prohibited?

If they postpone the deal until after the draft picks are made, they can. You can trade two picks in a row. You just can't trade two future picks in a row. If they wait until the pick is made, it is no longer a future pick.

IOW, they make the pick, then trade rights to the player who was picked? Got it.

I guess my numbers were off. Not sure why.

The minimum salary cap holds and such cut into your numbers a significant amount which is likely thr biggest reason for Marks' differing numbers. They can max one guy, have the room exception and then it's minimums. They need some really reliable vets overall. They aren't going to win much in the regular season but might be much more dangerous in the playoffs with the right vets.

Makes no sense. Ball/Ingram/Hart are owed $18m; Davis $27m. So, they added $9m but subtracted 2 players overall.

After the trade, they have only LeBron, Davis, Wagner, Kuzma & Bonga under contract for a total of just over $75m (including a stretch payment of $5m on Deng -- you did leave that out, nate). They also have a $1.4m option on J. Jones, putting them at $76.5m for a total of six players.

There is no way they can fill out that roster w/ veteran minimum players & hope to compete in the West. Davis & LeBron can play @25% of their minutes. Kuzma... I don't know? Is he a good player yet? I can't see it in the numbers, that's for sure -- rather the opposite. Shooting a lot & at a low % while rebounding poorly, he's a problem not a solution.

AD alone changes a lot, but... count me as skeptical.

payitforward wrote:Makes no sense. Ball/Ingram/Hart are owed $18m; Davis $27m. So, they added $9m but subtracted 2 players overall.

After the trade, they have only LeBron, Davis, Wagner, Kuzma & Bonga under contract for a total of just over $75m (including a stretch payment of $5m on Deng -- you did leave that out, nate). They also have a $1.4m option on J. Jones, putting them at $76.5m for a total of six players.

There is no way they can fill out that roster w/ veteran minimum players & hope to compete in the West. Davis & LeBron can play @25% of their minutes. Kuzma... I don't know? Is he a good player yet? I can't see it in the numbers, that's for sure -- rather the opposite. Shooting a lot & at a low % while rebounding poorly, he's a problem not a solution.

AD alone changes a lot, but... count me as skeptical.

I dunno PIF. Add Kemba and you’ve got a pretty good start.

Kemba
A guy
Kuzma
LBJ
Davis

Not at all shabby.

payitforward wrote: (including a stretch payment of $5m on Deng -- you did leave that out, nate).

Thanks. That explains the discrepancy.

payitforward wrote:There is no way they can fill out that roster w/ veteran minimum players & hope to compete in the West. Davis & LeBron can play @25% of their minutes. Kuzma... I don't know? Is he a good player yet? I can't see it in the numbers, that's for sure -- rather the opposite. Shooting a lot & at a low % while rebounding poorly, he's a problem not a solution.

AD alone changes a lot, but... count me as skeptical.

Kemba Walker and a room minimum guy for $4.5M (maybe Trevor Ariza?) should flesh out the starting lineup. They'll need some luck with vet minimum guys after that. How about Joakim Noah, Wesley Matthews, Thabo Sefolosha, and Trey Burke?

PG Walker/Burke
SG Matthews/Wagner
SF Ariza/Sefolosha
PF Lebron/Kuzma
C Davis/Noah

AD has a history of being injury prone and Lebron is also more likely to get injured as he gets older. Pelis might make out as bandits if this goes south for the Lakers.

Very nice move by New Orleans. Lebron is a 38-year-old free agent in 2022. Maybe he'll still be really good by then, maybe not. But that 2023 pick swap looks like it will be promising as the Lakers fade into mediocrity and the Zion-led Pelicans find their footing. And the 2024 unprotected pick could be a lotto pick. (Davis will probably be pretty injury prone by then after multiple runs deep in the playoffs on a team lacking depth.) That pick swap in 2025 is almost sure to be beneficial to New Orleans.