[HAYNES] Nets and Lakers actively talking Russ/Kyrie trade…

[G R E Y]

No I stated it in another post. But Dragic's contract was also significantly less than RW's. So the devil in the details still doesn't help LAL fans' case of saying a single first is more than fine compensation because cap space. Cap space or picks value is relative to the team that is to receive it. Seeing as how we don't have to use our cap space on RW and can keep it open for other deals if we wish, and how we can trade other players for picks, we have no need to acquiesce to anything that is less than what we seek. Multiple teams involved, multiple interests, more leverage.

I'd argue that it is/was intellectually dishonest to say that Thaddeus Young garnered a FRP without mentioning that the Raptors' salary dumped Goran Dragic onto the Spurs. But we're on the same page with regards to the cost of getting a 3rd (or 4th team). The problem is the Nets probably want significant cap relief and draft assets in return, which is unrealistic. You're not getting both. There's just no market for Kyrie Irving. If the Nets want cap relief, they're going to need to accept a lesser draft capital return.

LoL intellectually dishonest - that implies intent to deceive for advantage when clearly the taking on Dragic cap space was the better deal. It was neither a secret nor the same as taking on RW's as I explained to another subsequent poster and later to you. So it does make sense, then, why the one trade was better than another?

Spurs and Nets have the least to lose in this situation, I think, as we don't have to be involved at all unless we get what we seek and Nets can afford to wait longer than LAL can. Getting awkward with fans calling for Irving in SL with RW, LBJ, and Pelinka in the stands.

[baldur]

It's kind of funny, but I see various posters claiming that the "fair" price for taking on Westbrook's contract, is 2 first round draft picks, at minimum. My question to this would be, "Why?". Is it an expensive contract. Yes, it is. However, it's an EXPIRING contract. ONE YEAR. Any team with space to absorb the deal, and the incentive to do so, is most likely not aiming at being a good team this year. So, adding Westbrook, and either playing him, sending him home, or buying out his contract, does not hurt the team. But, a team should receive incentive to do this, right? Fair enough. A first round pick is MORE than enough compensation for a contract dump. But, that's not what's happening here. The reason why people are talking about multiple first round picks, is because they feel that facilitating a Kyrie to Lakers trade, potentially bumping them into contending status, should be worth more. So, the additional cost is added.

My personal stance? Bump all that. I'm not paying additional cost, for a "what if" scenario. If that "what if" scenario doesn't pan out, the Lakers are certainly looking missing out on first round draft picks, every other year, until 2030. Let me repeat that again. 2030. The Lakers are expected to mortgage their future, on an aging LeBron...an, oft-injured AD...and, an extremely fickle/mercurial Kyrie, for the next 8 YEARS (Pels included). No sir.

I don't know what's going to happen, if anything. But, imo, I would offer one first round pick (preferably protected), and that's it. If that's not good enough, then the Nets have an expiring contract in Kyrie to look forward to. The Lakers have a similar situation with Westbrook, if no other trades are out there. And, that's that.

Did lakers ever build a championship team through draft? You sound like lakers will miss the opportunity to be contender if they send away the picks of every second year.

If kyrie will extend, lebron might be still good enough 2 or 3 for years and if this is gonna get us even one ring, I'm happy to give 2027 and 2029 picks. Maybe 2029 pick would be top 5 protected if nets would agree.

People love to say this, all the time. "Did the Lakers ever build a championship team through the draft?" stuff. As if that is some kind of excuse for poor decisions, and bad management, in regards to valuing draft picks. Even IF you looked at draft picks, as nothing but coinage to trade for proven players, that argument doesn't make sense. The Lakers traded away YEARS worth of picks, for AD. Who is, at this point, a more injured, younger version of Pau Gasol. That's an overpay, when taken in a vacuum. The reason for that was not the "Laker tax". But, the "LeBron tax". LeBron wants to maximize his remaining years. LeBron wanted AD. So, Pels used that to their advantage (fair enough), and made out like a bandit. Some would say the one championship was worth the cost. I would probably agree...if the next two years weren't so egregiously horrible.

And, your point is built on "if Kyrie", and "LeBron might", and "if this is gonna get us a ring"... That's a lot to give up, for a bunch of "if's" and "might's", imo.

And you are saying "if lakers held their first round , they would be a contender"

Sorry but history and stats favour my Excuse, not yours, and this is a fact not an opinion.

[Pointgod]

Did lakers ever build a championship team through draft? You sound like lakers will miss the opportunity to be contender if they send away the picks of every second year.

If kyrie will extend, lebron might be still good enough 2 or 3 for years and if this is gonna get us even one ring, I'm happy to give 2027 and 2029 picks. Maybe 2029 pick would be top 5 protected if nets would agree.

People love to say this, all the time. "Did the Lakers ever build a championship team through the draft?" stuff. As if that is some kind of excuse for poor decisions, and bad management, in regards to valuing draft picks. Even IF you looked at draft picks, as nothing but coinage to trade for proven players, that argument doesn't make sense. The Lakers traded away YEARS worth of picks, for AD. Who is, at this point, a more injured, younger version of Pau Gasol. That's an overpay, when taken in a vacuum. The reason for that was not the "Laker tax". But, the "LeBron tax". LeBron wants to maximize his remaining years. LeBron wanted AD. So, Pels used that to their advantage (fair enough), and made out like a bandit. Some would say the one championship was worth the cost. I would probably agree...if the next two years weren't so egregiously horrible.

And, your point is built on "if Kyrie", and "LeBron might", and "if this is gonna get us a ring"... That's a lot to give up, for a bunch of "if's" and "might's", imo.

And you are saying "if lakers held their first round , they would be a contender"

Sorry but history and stats favour my Excuse, not yours, and this is a fact not an opinion.

No the argument is you don’t waste your draft assets on a headcase in Kyrie who:

1. Doesn’t put you anywhere near contending for a championship
2. You can literally just sign next off season.

Lakers are literally bidding against themselves trying to trade for Kyrie. Look I don’t think Kyrie is even worth trading a second rounder for but I wouldn’t be upset, but if we trade multiple number 1 picks for Kyrie just to please Lebron it’s the height of stupidity.

[sonic the laker]

Did lakers ever build a championship team through draft? You sound like lakers will miss the opportunity to be contender if they send away the picks of every second year.

If kyrie will extend, lebron might be still good enough 2 or 3 for years and if this is gonna get us even one ring, I'm happy to give 2027 and 2029 picks. Maybe 2029 pick would be top 5 protected if nets would agree.

People love to say this, all the time. "Did the Lakers ever build a championship team through the draft?" stuff. As if that is some kind of excuse for poor decisions, and bad management, in regards to valuing draft picks. Even IF you looked at draft picks, as nothing but coinage to trade for proven players, that argument doesn't make sense. The Lakers traded away YEARS worth of picks, for AD. Who is, at this point, a more injured, younger version of Pau Gasol. That's an overpay, when taken in a vacuum. The reason for that was not the "Laker tax". But, the "LeBron tax". LeBron wants to maximize his remaining years. LeBron wanted AD. So, Pels used that to their advantage (fair enough), and made out like a bandit. Some would say the one championship was worth the cost. I would probably agree...if the next two years weren't so egregiously horrible.

And, your point is built on "if Kyrie", and "LeBron might", and "if this is gonna get us a ring"... That's a lot to give up, for a bunch of "if's" and "might's", imo.

And you are saying "if lakers held their first round , they would be a contender"

Sorry but history and stats favour my Excuse, not yours, and this is a fact not an opinion.

False. Nowhere in my post(s) did I explicitly, or implicitly, state that the Lakers would be a contender, if they held on to their first round pick. Thus, with your position/excuse resting on a false assumption, and/or erroneous reasoning, it is rendered a fallacy.

[NO-KG-AI]

I don't think people are taking seriously the struggle between the front office wanting to not add assets, and the LeBron camp pushing to get the deal done as fast as possible and throwing everything at it. Literally the only reason the Pels got great value for Davis is because LeBron wasn't willing to wait a year for him to sign in the offseason, and didn't want to call the Pels bluff.

The Nets would be stupid if they think the Lakers have any leverage in thinking they have to accept garbage.

[FrodoFraggins]

It's kind of funny, but I see various posters claiming that the "fair" price for taking on Westbrook's contract, is 2 first round draft picks, at minimum. My question to this would be, "Why?". Is it an expensive contract. Yes, it is. However, it's an EXPIRING contract. ONE YEAR. Any team with space to absorb the deal, and the incentive to do so, is most likely not aiming at being a good team this year. So, adding Westbrook, and either playing him, sending him home, or buying out his contract, does not hurt the team. But, a team should receive incentive to do this, right? Fair enough. A first round pick is MORE than enough compensation for a contract dump. But, that's not what's happening here. The reason why people are talking about multiple first round picks, is because they feel that facilitating a Kyrie to Lakers trade, potentially bumping them into contending status, should be worth more. So, the additional cost is added.

My personal stance? Bump all that. I'm not paying additional cost, for a "what if" scenario. If that "what if" scenario doesn't pan out, the Lakers are certainly looking missing out on first round draft picks, every other year, until 2030. Let me repeat that again. 2030. The Lakers are expected to mortgage their future, on an aging LeBron...an, oft-injured AD...and, an extremely fickle/mercurial Kyrie, for the next 8 YEARS (Pels included). No sir.

I don't know what's going to happen, if anything. But, imo, I would offer one first round pick (preferably protected), and that's it. If that's not good enough, then the Nets have an expiring contract in Kyrie to look forward to. The Lakers have a similar situation with Westbrook, if no other trades are out there. And, that's that.

OK you seem agree that a fair price to dump him on SAS would be to include one pick? I think that's expected and fair for a trade where LAL get nothing back of value. pure filler if desired by SAS

So with that as a baseline, how much needs to be added to get Kyrie back? I think an additional pick is required myself.

[Schiltzenberger]

I don't think people are taking seriously the struggle between the front office wanting to not add assets, and the LeBron camp pushing to get the deal done as fast as possible and throwing everything at it. Literally the only reason the Pels got great value for Davis is because LeBron wasn't willing to wait a year for him to sign in the offseason, and didn't want to call the Pels bluff.

The Nets would be stupid if they think the Lakers have any leverage in thinking they have to accept garbage.

Exactly.

I don't know why people keep talking about the Lakers not bidding against themselves, because they are pretty much bidding against LeBron.
Same with the Westbrook contract thing, the Nets can refuse to take him because it'd work out cheaper keeping the Kyrie expiring contract over Westbrook's. So the Lakers need to find a home for Westbrook in all this and LeBron will pressure them into making a drastic move.

If I was Sean Marks I'd just tell them "get back to us once you have a deal where we don't take Westbrook back and we'll look it over". Then forget about Kyrie and concentrate on a KD trade in the meantime.

[sonic the laker]

It's kind of funny, but I see various posters claiming that the "fair" price for taking on Westbrook's contract, is 2 first round draft picks, at minimum. My question to this would be, "Why?". Is it an expensive contract. Yes, it is. However, it's an EXPIRING contract. ONE YEAR. Any team with space to absorb the deal, and the incentive to do so, is most likely not aiming at being a good team this year. So, adding Westbrook, and either playing him, sending him home, or buying out his contract, does not hurt the team. But, a team should receive incentive to do this, right? Fair enough. A first round pick is MORE than enough compensation for a contract dump. But, that's not what's happening here. The reason why people are talking about multiple first round picks, is because they feel that facilitating a Kyrie to Lakers trade, potentially bumping them into contending status, should be worth more. So, the additional cost is added.

My personal stance? Bump all that. I'm not paying additional cost, for a "what if" scenario. If that "what if" scenario doesn't pan out, the Lakers are certainly looking missing out on first round draft picks, every other year, until 2030. Let me repeat that again. 2030. The Lakers are expected to mortgage their future, on an aging LeBron...an, oft-injured AD...and, an extremely fickle/mercurial Kyrie, for the next 8 YEARS (Pels included). No sir.

I don't know what's going to happen, if anything. But, imo, I would offer one first round pick (preferably protected), and that's it. If that's not good enough, then the Nets have an expiring contract in Kyrie to look forward to. The Lakers have a similar situation with Westbrook, if no other trades are out there. And, that's that.

OK you seem agree that a fair price to dump him on SAS would be to include one pick? I think that's expected and fair for a trade where LAL get nothing back of value. pure filler if desired by SAS

So with that as a baseline, how much needs to be added to get Kyrie back? I think an additional pick is required myself.

In the hypothetical case of this three team trade, if the Lakers are handing out picks, then one would have to go to San Antonio, as incentive. And, one would have to go to Brooklyn, as compensation. Now, this is talking purely about picks. We're not including players, salaries, and/or monies that would also need to be involved. Of course, this is in the context of the process of obtaining Kyrie.

If this were just a salary dump on the Spurs, in a vacuum, then absolutely not. A first round pick, to dump an expiring contract onto a non-contending team, is NOT worth a first round pick. Second round, sure.

[Yuri Vaultin]

Do the Lakers have anything considered an "asset"?

Anthony Davis is an enormous asset if they put him on the market. I don't think it is completely impossible. LA, while it tries to protect its stars, that only applies to the highest end stars. LA shipped Gasol constantly and traded him once.

Is LA willing to include stem cells and his state of the art stretcher?

[jbk1234]

I don't think people are taking seriously the struggle between the front office wanting to not add assets, and the LeBron camp pushing to get the deal done as fast as possible and throwing everything at it. Literally the only reason the Pels got great value for Davis is because LeBron wasn't willing to wait a year for him to sign in the offseason, and didn't want to call the Pels bluff.

The Nets would be stupid if they think the Lakers have any leverage in thinking they have to accept garbage.

Ever since Windhorst went out and started screaming it from the rafters, I think people get it. But, that doesn't mean the Lakers have to say yes. I promise you that if the new thing LBJ is insisting on doesn't work out, he's not sticking around to help pick up the pieces.

[sp6r=underrated]

Do the Lakers have anything considered an "asset"?

Anthony Davis is an enormous asset if they put him on the market. I don't think it is completely impossible. LA, while it tries to protect its stars, that only applies to the highest end stars. LA shipped Gasol constantly and traded him once.

Is LA willing to include stem cells and his state of the art stretcher?

I get the Day to Davis joke but if you don't think he still has trade value you're not thinking clearly

[DNP-Old]

Lakers receive: Kyrie and McDermott
Nets receive: Nunn and a 30mTPE
Spurs receive: Westbrook, '27 LAL 1st and '28 1st swap

[FrodoFraggins]

It's kind of funny, but I see various posters claiming that the "fair" price for taking on Westbrook's contract, is 2 first round draft picks, at minimum. My question to this would be, "Why?". Is it an expensive contract. Yes, it is. However, it's an EXPIRING contract. ONE YEAR. Any team with space to absorb the deal, and the incentive to do so, is most likely not aiming at being a good team this year. So, adding Westbrook, and either playing him, sending him home, or buying out his contract, does not hurt the team. But, a team should receive incentive to do this, right? Fair enough. A first round pick is MORE than enough compensation for a contract dump. But, that's not what's happening here. The reason why people are talking about multiple first round picks, is because they feel that facilitating a Kyrie to Lakers trade, potentially bumping them into contending status, should be worth more. So, the additional cost is added.

My personal stance? Bump all that. I'm not paying additional cost, for a "what if" scenario. If that "what if" scenario doesn't pan out, the Lakers are certainly looking missing out on first round draft picks, every other year, until 2030. Let me repeat that again. 2030. The Lakers are expected to mortgage their future, on an aging LeBron...an, oft-injured AD...and, an extremely fickle/mercurial Kyrie, for the next 8 YEARS (Pels included). No sir.

I don't know what's going to happen, if anything. But, imo, I would offer one first round pick (preferably protected), and that's it. If that's not good enough, then the Nets have an expiring contract in Kyrie to look forward to. The Lakers have a similar situation with Westbrook, if no other trades are out there. And, that's that.

OK you seem agree that a fair price to dump him on SAS would be to include one pick? I think that's expected and fair for a trade where LAL get nothing back of value. pure filler if desired by SAS

So with that as a baseline, how much needs to be added to get Kyrie back? I think an additional pick is required myself.

In the hypothetical case of this three team trade, if the Lakers are handing out picks, then one would have to go to San Antonio, as incentive. And, one would have to go to Brooklyn, as compensation. Now, this is talking purely about picks. We're not including players, salaries, and/or monies that would also need to be involved. Of course, this is in the context of the process of obtaining Kyrie.

If this were just a salary dump on the Spurs, in a vacuum, then absolutely not. A first round pick, to dump an expiring contract onto a non-contending team, is NOT worth a first round pick. Second round, sure.

Then why would SA make the trade at all when SA isn't really in the habit of helping them?

[sonic the laker]

OK you seem agree that a fair price to dump him on SAS would be to include one pick? I think that's expected and fair for a trade where LAL get nothing back of value. pure filler if desired by SAS

So with that as a baseline, how much needs to be added to get Kyrie back? I think an additional pick is required myself.

In the hypothetical case of this three team trade, if the Lakers are handing out picks, then one would have to go to San Antonio, as incentive. And, one would have to go to Brooklyn, as compensation. Now, this is talking purely about picks. We're not including players, salaries, and/or monies that would also need to be involved. Of course, this is in the context of the process of obtaining Kyrie.

If this were just a salary dump on the Spurs, in a vacuum, then absolutely not. A first round pick, to dump an expiring contract onto a non-contending team, is NOT worth a first round pick. Second round, sure.

Then why would SA make the trade at all when SA isn't really in the habit of helping them?

lol And, that was the thrust of my post. The Lakers don't have a lot of assets, in their coffer. The Nets are looking to gain assets, for Kyrie, not give them away. So, taking all that into account, what incentive is there for a third team to get involved? Not much. That's why I didn't put much stock in those rumors about a three team trade scenario. The only other incentive would be if the Lakers, or Nets, were interested in taking back onerous, long term contracts. Which, they are not. So...

[OriginalRed]

Lakers receive: Kyrie and McDermott
Nets receive: Nunn and a 30mTPE
Spurs receive: Westbrook, '27 LAL 1st and '28 1st swap

Lakers and Spurs do this but why would the Nets? They want picks and wouldn't be interested in just getting back Nunn and a 30 million TPE.

[trickshot]

I don't think people are taking seriously the struggle between the front office wanting to not add assets, and the LeBron camp pushing to get the deal done as fast as possible and throwing everything at it. Literally the only reason the Pels got great value for Davis is because LeBron wasn't willing to wait a year for him to sign in the offseason, and didn't want to call the Pels bluff.

The Nets would be stupid if they think the Lakers have any leverage in thinking they have to accept garbage.

Agree with the overall take, Lebron should be patient, they'll get him either way but that AD thing isn't the best example. Doing that deal a year early made all the difference in winning that title. Having him a year early in what would become a bubble environment playoff paid off. If you can do it this year for something reasonable you do it this year.

[DNP-Old]

Lakers receive: Kyrie and McDermott
Nets receive: Nunn and a 30mTPE
Spurs receive: Westbrook, '27 LAL 1st and '28 1st swap

Lakers and Spurs do this but why would the Nets? They want picks and wouldn't be interested in just getting back Nunn and a 30 million TPE.

It gets rid of Kyrie and gets them out of the tax.

[Jfh20]

I don't think people are taking seriously the struggle between the front office wanting to not add assets, and the LeBron camp pushing to get the deal done as fast as possible and throwing everything at it. Literally the only reason the Pels got great value for Davis is because LeBron wasn't willing to wait a year for him to sign in the offseason, and didn't want to call the Pels bluff.

The Nets would be stupid if they think the Lakers have any leverage in thinking they have to accept garbage.

Ever since Windhorst went out and started screaming it from the rafters, I think people get it. But, that doesn't mean the Lakers have to say yes. I promise you that if the new thing LBJ is insisting on doesn't work out, he's not sticking around to help pick up the pieces.

another hot take for you : Lebron will be traded at the deadline to another team. maybe philly/mia/beantown...
he is not retiring without at the least gettin 5.

[hoosierdaddy34]

Lakers writer Trevor Lane: “The general consensus with everyone I’ve spoke to at Summer League, and I’ve spoke to a lot of people, is that soon Kyrie Irving will end up with the Los Angeles Lakers.”

[John Murdoch]

Lakers writer Trevor Lane: “The general consensus with everyone I’ve spoke to at Summer League, and I’ve spoke to a lot of people, is that soon Kyrie Irving will end up with the Los Angeles Lakers.”

KD deal has to go down 1st...Kyrie is secondary to them