RealGM

usually when you owned a BIG expiring you would actually squeeze some team in need of shedding salary of some pick/s.

so why the f is suddenly a given that the lakers have to send 1 ( or even two or three....im amazed at the audacity) in order to trade westbrook?
wtf?

or is it just people that HATE the lakers talking out of their arses trying to harm them ( yes Gms aorund the league are also laker haters .......and talk out of their arses).

the logical thing would be to get Jordan to surrender a pick or two attached to unloading haywards disaster contract.

I think it turned around when you tried to make 4 eggs over easy at the same time.

I haven't eaten an egg since May 2015

Hellcrooner wrote:usually when you owned a BIG expiring you would actually squeeze some team in need of shedding salary of some pick/s.

Big expiring contracts in the past have been used to land guys like the non-Donovan Utah remnant core: good but expensive players on rebuilding clubs.

The Lakers aren't trying to acquire that with Russ. The lakers are trying to land Kyrie Irving with that contract. I dislike Kyrie. I think he's overrated and unprofessional. But it is overwhelmingly likely he's a better player than Russ next year. If he misbehaves the Nets can just John Wall him. There is no reason to trade him for Russ sans picks.

Because of this you have to pay an extra tax..

There is an abundance of expiring contracts this season and not a lot of bad multi season contracts. I'm not certain the Lakers are willing to take on a few over paid role players on multi year deals. This might change through the season as new guys get injured/ under perform.

It’s not just Hayward, it’s who else has to be added to match salaries. Most rumors I’ve seen have been for both Hayward and Rozier, so yeah at some point Charlotte should be asking for sweeteners. I’ve not ever read that they are desperate to unload contracts for free agency market anyway. Whereas the Lakers are trying to win or contend for a title next year. I agree that if the right scenario materializes, it shouldn’t take a Laker 1st to make a deal. Or maybe there’s a deal where they do throw in a 1st, but it’s for a guy clearly worth it.

But who cares what RealGM’ers think anyway, the bottom line will be if and when there’s really a trade, then all the “I told you so’s” can begin.

I would be more sympathetic about ‘Laker hate’ if there weren’t so many Laker posters with persecution complexes here. I think the Kings get way more hate than the Lakers and Clippers (who get their fair share) combined.

Monky15 wrote:There is an abundance of expiring contracts this season and not a lot of bad multi season contracts. I'm not certain the Lakers are willing to take on a few over paid role players on multi year deals. This might change through the season as new guys get injured/ under perform.

I think preserving cap flexibility has been a priority for them, with so much money coming off the books soon. It’s smart for them to take that into account, but it does make finding the right deal harder.

They didn’t have the right contract/assets to swing the trade the Clippers made with Portland, which was a great opportunity for a playoff level team to add significant help. The Clippers lucked out (hopefully Keon pans out for Portland too), sometimes you just gotta be in the right place at the right time.

Hellcrooner wrote:usually when you owned a BIG expiring you would actually squeeze some team in need of shedding salary of some pick/s.

so why the f is suddenly a given that the lakers have to send 1 ( or even two or three....im amazed at the audacity) in order to trade westbrook?
wtf?

or is it just people that HATE the lakers talking out of their arses trying to harm them ( yes Gms aorund the league are also laker haters .......and talk out of their arses).

the logical thing would be to get Jordan to surrender a pick or two attached to unloading haywards disaster contract.

Westbrook is expiring, but it’s a giant contract that will require multiple players to get a guy who refused to adjust his game for LeBron James. He won’t do that for anyone else either.

He cannot play off the ball; his high usage, low iq, low efficiency game is all he knows.

LAL can pony up to move him or enjoy a repeat of last year.

madmaxmedia wrote:It’s not just Hayward, it’s who else has to be added to match salaries. Most rumors I’ve seen have been for both Hayward and Rozier, so yeah at some point Charlotte should be asking for sweeteners. I’ve not ever read that they are desperate to unload contracts for free agency market anyway. Whereas the Lakers are trying to win or contend for a title next year. I agree that if the right scenario materializes, it shouldn’t take a Laker 1st to make a deal. Or maybe there’s a deal where they do throw in a 1st, but it’s for a guy clearly worth it.

But who cares what RealGM’ers think anyway, the bottom line will be if and when there’s really a trade, then all the “I told you so’s” can begin.

I would be more sympathetic about ‘Laker hate’ if there weren’t so many Laker posters with persecution complexes here. I think the Kings get way more hate than the Lakers and Clippers (who get their fair share) combined.

remember when the lakers signed a bunch of old guys and everyone said they signed a bunch of old guys and then you had mass laker karens screeching in unison and turning threads into copium echo chambers

just like it was yesterday!

Hellcrooner wrote:usually when you owned a BIG expiring you would actually squeeze some team in need of shedding salary of some pick/s.

so why the f is suddenly a given that the lakers have to send 1 ( or even two or three....im amazed at the audacity) in order to trade westbrook?
wtf?

or is it just people that HATE the lakers talking out of their arses trying to harm them ( yes Gms aorund the league are also laker haters .......and talk out of their arses).

the logical thing would be to get Jordan to surrender a pick or two attached to unloading haywards disaster contract.

What team out there is looking to shed salary? Teams usually do that if there is a free agent they want to target and there aren't any difference makers that teams are lining up for. The Lakers put all of their eggs in one basket when they went after Westbrook and it is not on other teams to find that omelette appetizing.

You don't understand why teams aren't willing to give up several useful players (even if they're on bloated contracts) for a completely useless player with one of the largest salaries in the league? Any team looking to dump multiple useful players on longer contracts in exchange for that ninja turtle doesn't have plans of competing any time soon. Therefore it's highly unlikely that cap space is going to land them anyone of significance. You'd need a team that BLOWS who is facing the repeater tax for it to make sense without draft compensation.

JimmyPlopper wrote:I haven't eaten an egg since May 2015

How come?

People have been overvaluing expiring contracts for a while now... It shouldn't need to be said but... NEWSFLASH contracts nowadays are shorter than in the past. Role players / average-ish stars aren't getting large (relative to the cap) 5-7 year deals anymore.

Seemingly everyone has expiring contracts...

Hellcrooner wrote:usually when you owned a BIG expiring you would actually squeeze some team in need of shedding salary of some pick/s.

so why the f is suddenly a given that the lakers have to send 1 ( or even two or three....im amazed at the audacity) in order to trade westbrook?
wtf?

or is it just people that HATE the lakers talking out of their arses trying to harm them ( yes Gms aorund the league are also laker haters .......and talk out of their arses).

the logical thing would be to get Jordan to surrender a pick or two attached to unloading haywards disaster contract.

It never turned around you can trade WBs expiring to get worse money for longer + some draft compensation. I just doubt that LA fandom of FO would want to have an even worse roster and some distant picks.

Hellcrooner wrote:usually when you owned a BIG expiring you would actually squeeze some team in need of shedding salary of some pick/s.

so why the f is suddenly a given that the lakers have to send 1 ( or even two or three....im amazed at the audacity) in order to trade westbrook?
wtf?

or is it just people that HATE the lakers talking out of their arses trying to harm them ( yes Gms aorund the league are also laker haters .......and talk out of their arses).

the logical thing would be to get Jordan to surrender a pick or two attached to unloading haywards disaster contract.

Hayward has two seasons, why would the Hornets give up picks to get out of one extra season of Hayward for a player that doesn't fit their roster?

The way it works though is that you trade the expiring for a contract they don't like which is longer. It's usually not a contract that is just one year longer though. If the Lakers can find a team concerned about money with a contract they don't like, it could work.

If you want to trade the player to a team that's not particularly concerned about a contract, then you will have to give them incentive to help you via picks.

Teams definitely used to fight harder to find their way to cap space in the next offseason. But that hasn't been a thing for a pretty long while now. Front offices have become smarter at finding their way to cap space if an opportunity comes up (they'll line up a deal to trade away another player to create room, orchestrate sign and trades, use CBA provisions etc.). Gone are the days when teams like Dallas would punt a season just to line up a huge roster slot for player x. Basically teams are finding ways to stay flexible rather than going all in on a free agency plan that could boom or bust. I don't want to rag on the Mavs but I think they were the team that showed us why the cap space root is too dangerous. Dirk played with a revolving door of mediocre players after winning the championship, as Dallas waited at the altar for Dwight Howard and/or Deron Williams.

Can a big expiring still be valuable? Definitely in the right circumstance. But it is no longer default considered a plus asset. If there was a team that was desperate to open up cap space for next season, they could value Russ higher than other teams. But like I've said, teams have smarter ways now to open up cap space that don't involve gutting their roster a year in advance.

Hellcrooner wrote:usually when you owned a BIG expiring you would actually squeeze some team in need of shedding salary of some pick/s.

so why the f is suddenly a given that the lakers have to send 1 ( or even two or three....im amazed at the audacity) in order to trade westbrook?
wtf?

or is it just people that HATE the lakers talking out of their arses trying to harm them ( yes Gms aorund the league are also laker haters .......and talk out of their arses).

the logical thing would be to get Jordan to surrender a pick or two attached to unloading haywards disaster contract.

The cap is rising so fast there are far fewer bad contracts, yet tons of expiring salaries. Every team is capped out except two. They are going to have to pay in picks to trade Westbrook and to get the hornets players.

Because Russ by himself isn't going to get assets to help the Lakers?