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

[Ballerhogger]

RealGM users now: "THT sucks! No way the Spurs or Nets take him in a Kyrie deal."

RealGM users after the trade: "I like THT! Plus he's so young!"

Remember BI and AD trade

Except BI was better when he was traded (and only gotten better) than THT is now or will ever be

At the time of the trade everyone was close calling BI a trade . There were several people saying it was like Pau trade .

[CS707]

Because you get cap space next year by doing so.

They’ll get cap space next year anyway if they do nothing. If they’re just salvaging for a pick, where’s the benefit if they have to include Joe Harris to get it? They could get a better deal somewhere else for those two.

Exactly.

WB isn't valuable as an expiring to the Nets, who already have an expiring contract in Irving. I don't get the 'positive expiring contract' logic being pushed by some Laker fans.

He could be valuable as a guy that just goes out and drags them far enough out of the bottom to spoil the draft for Houston. I think Russ has one more borderline play in level season in him. Everyone is posturing right now but a draft pick and the satisfaction of not handing the Rockets a primo pick might be enough at the end of the day. As a fan, it works perfectly for me.

[Bornstellar]

Remember BI and AD trade

Except BI was better when he was traded (and only gotten better) than THT is now or will ever be

At the time of the trade everyone was close calling BI a trade . There were several people saying it was like Pau trade .

It kinda was though. The Pels winning the #1 pick and nabbing Zion along with the Lakers being gifted the #4 pick to trade really softened the blow otherwise it would have been still a pretty lopsided trade.

[JShuttlesworth]

They’ll get cap space next year anyway if they do nothing. If they’re just salvaging for a pick, where’s the benefit if they have to include Joe Harris to get it? They could get a better deal somewhere else for those two.

Exactly.

WB isn't valuable as an expiring to the Nets, who already have an expiring contract in Irving. I don't get the 'positive expiring contract' logic being pushed by some Laker fans.

He could be valuable as a guy that just goes out and drags them far enough out of the bottom to spoil the draft for Houston. I think Russ has one more borderline play in level season in him. Everyone is posturing right now but a draft pick and the satisfaction of not handing Houston a primo pick might be enough at the end of the day.

I suppose my counter argument would be that Durant + Irving (even for half the season up to the deadline) would do a better job than Westbrook at accomplishing that. I don't envision Westbrook and Simmons playing winning basketball together.

As an unbiased spectator, I think the urgency is going to amplify for the Lakers once the season starts, unless of course they don't care about throwing away the season. The Lakers are going to sign Kyrie regardless (or so it seems), it's just a matter of whether or not they want to waste this season or try to get a ring.

[Hello Brooklyn]

Not to sound arrogant, but imo if there was really any urgency on the Lakers part then this deal would have been done. It's no secret the nets had a problem with kyrie not getting vaccinated and missing all that time. Do folks really think the nets want to pay him $36 million just to send him home? Taking the Lakers out of it completely, the nets either bring him back knowing he'll be a distraction whether it's his attitude cause he doesn't want to be there. Some silly reporter asking the same questions after every game. The other option is pay max money for a guy to sit at home, or hope he doesn't get injured.

No it wouldn't. Because the Nets dpn't want Westbrick.

Nets have nothing to lose. Lakers have LeBron to please or he might bolt in FA this summer.

Nets paying Kyrie is no worse than paying Westbrick. They probably send him home too.

They can save luxury tax by trading harris , they won’t have circus show all season which is going outcome if this deal doesn’t get done.

They won't have a circus all season with Westbrick. Ok

Again Nets don't care about dumping Harris. That report was just BS.

[Hello Brooklyn]

Not to sound arrogant, but imo if there was really any urgency on the Lakers part then this deal would have been done. It's no secret the nets had a problem with kyrie not getting vaccinated and missing all that time. Do folks really think the nets want to pay him $36 million just to send him home? Taking the Lakers out of it completely, the nets either bring him back knowing he'll be a distraction whether it's his attitude cause he doesn't want to be there. Some silly reporter asking the same questions after every game. The other option is pay max money for a guy to sit at home, or hope he doesn't get injured.

No it wouldn't. Because the Nets dpn't want Westbrick.

Nets have nothing to lose. Lakers have LeBron to please or he might bolt in FA this summer.

Nets paying Kyrie is no worse than paying Westbrick. They probably send him home too.

This summer as in the summer we are currently in? Nah.. he is under contract. It's next season ( 23/24 ) where LBJ plays is currently up in the air.

I mean next summer.

[jus a fan]

Westbrook is gonna get bought out by either team that trades for him.

Please stop with the HE HAS 1 MORE GOOD SEASON IN HIM HE COULD DRAG A TEAM TO THE PLAY IN NONSENSE.

Lakers wouldn't trade him if he could have dragged them to a play in

BKN is looking to save money Westbrook for Kyrie adds 50 million to there tax penalty. That's why they want to add Harris.

They don't want additional players like THT how does that save on tax bill.

San Antonio is willing to help for draft picks.

Lakers will have to give 1st round pick(s) to make this trade happen.

Lakers should just wait for a Kyrie buy out. Sign him for minimum and then buyout westbrook.

[CS707]

Exactly.

WB isn't valuable as an expiring to the Nets, who already have an expiring contract in Irving. I don't get the 'positive expiring contract' logic being pushed by some Laker fans.

He could be valuable as a guy that just goes out and drags them far enough out of the bottom to spoil the draft for Houston. I think Russ has one more borderline play in level season in him. Everyone is posturing right now but a draft pick and the satisfaction of not handing Houston a primo pick might be enough at the end of the day.

I suppose my counter argument would be that Durant + Irving (even for half the season up to the deadline) would do a better job than Westbrook at accomplishing that. I don't envision Westbrook and Simmons playing winning basketball together.

As an unbiased spectator, I think the urgency is going to amplify for the Lakers once the season starts, unless of course they don't care about throwing away the season. The Lakers are going to sign Kyrie regardless (or so it seems), it's just a matter of whether or not they want to waste this season or try to get a ring.

Fair points for sure. The expiring part of the equation only holds value if Brooklyn can turn it into another asset by the deadline. And I don't disagree that Durant/Irving is a better option, it just doesn't seem like a realistic option right now. But the urgency is still on the Lakers. Assuming the Nets don't want Westbrook there's no reason they wouldn't rather pay Kyrie $36m not to play rather the WB $47m to do the same. I doubt they want to wait until 23/24.

[sonic the laker]

I believe there are other franchises/fans that are salty because the Lakers are among the premier places for FREE AGENTS, and incorrectly conflating that into the trading sphere. Also, the Lakers are consistently used by agents/players as a pawn, to pressure teams to up their offers, to retain/sign said player. I think this also adds to the Lakers reputation, which is outside their control.

I agree a lot of fans are salty about the Lakers free agency advantage, which is real. You see that same saltiness in the other sport I follow for the NY Yankees.

But I don't think you can separate the trade sphere from free agency all together. As an example, New Orleans didn't want to trade Davis. If they had been the Los Angeles Pelican, Davis never would have asked for a trade to the New Orleans Lakers. The fact the LA Lakers have access to trades like that, even if team succeed in playing a bad hand well, is a very real advantage and over decades that matters. Now you can squander that advantage like my Knicks have but it is a real advantage in free agency and trades.

Now I'm someone who doesn't care about that advantage. Easy for me to say being from NY, critics would say. I care deeply that a small market team with (i) good management, (ii) and luck can compete. the NBA system provides that. Utah is basically screwed on the free agency front. No one wants to play there. But they've still fielded very good teams for decades playing in a crappy market. I understand the resentment of Jazz fans but it really doesn't bother me.

A completely level playing field were there is no advantage to playing in NY over Salt Lake City is unreasonable in a sport were a substantial amount of revenue is local. That is only viable in sports without local revenue streams and even then you need very weak unions. I see no reason players should leave $$$ on table for rich owners.

I see where you're coming from. But, I don't think that the AD trade scenario is a justifiable example. I say this, because that opportunity came about, not because the Lakers were the Lakers. That was all orchestrated by LeBron/Klutch. If LeBron had still been playing in Cleveland, he would have found a way to get AD, to Cleveland. I'll even give more examples. LeMarcus Aldridge had a chance to sign with the Lakers in free agency. He ultimately chose the Spurs. Kawaii Leonard, and Paul George? Both had chances to sign with the Lakers, and were even linked to them, in rumors. But, we saw how that turned out.

Having said all that, do teams like the Lakers, NY, and other teams with nice weather, and/or a nig market, have an inherent advantage? Absolutely. But, in this highly digital age, some of that advantage has diminished. And, the biggest factors over all those I previously listed, are usually going to be winning, and money.

[Ruma85]

No it wouldn't. Because the Nets dpn't want Westbrick.

Nets have nothing to lose. Lakers have LeBron to please or he might bolt in FA this summer.

Nets paying Kyrie is no worse than paying Westbrick. They probably send him home too.

This summer as in the summer we are currently in? Nah.. he is under contract. It's next season ( 23/24 ) where LBJ plays is currently up in the air.

I mean next summer.

If he isn't happy, goodbye then lebron.

[levon]

Yeah I think both parties would be fine moving on. He'll move on even if he is happy to play with Bronny. And the Lakers can still work on a sign-and-trade.

[sonic the laker]

I believe the Lakers should do, exactly what they're doing now. Staring Brooklyn down, and not blinking, while exploring other viable options. Honestly, with all the variables inherent, this boils down to one thing. IF the Nets want to trade Kyrie, and get something back for him, as opposed to losing him for nothing, the Lakers are the only game in town. Period. The only way this changes is if Kyrie changes it. He has not. And, unless/until he does...*shrug* The Lakers would be fools, and more, to essentially get into a bidding war, with their own damn selves. That doesn't make sense, on any level, imo. The only factors that the Nets have to rely on, at present, are LeBron James putting pressure on the Lakers. And, waiting for the regular season, which is what I think they're gambling on.

That gamble, however, is a double-edged sword. If the Lakers play as poorly this upcoming season, as they did last season, then the Nets gain the advantage they seek. If the Lakers play well, not great, then as time goes on, I don't see either side gaining a distinct advantage, but the Lakers could use it as a sign that they don't need to get Kyrie to improve the team to contending status, and "threaten" alternate moves (i.e. Hield, or others). If the team does great, beyond anyone's expectations, the Nets would be at a huge disadvantage in negotiations, if any. I, as a Lakers fan, would love to see our team rise beyond people's expectations, and surprise the league. But, more than anything, I just want to see good, competitive, engaged, energetic basketball, from the Purple and Gold.

And, please remember, this whole situation was not started by the Lakers, or LeBron/Klutch. Everybody was expecting some deal to be worked out between Kyrie, and the Nets. The Nets mismanaged the situation, and this is the result. It is, what it is. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[Pointgod]

This summer as in the summer we are currently in? Nah.. he is under contract. It's next season ( 23/24 ) where LBJ plays is currently up in the air.

I mean next summer.

If he isn't happy, goodbye then lebron.

It’s literally the definition of insanity for the Lakers to spend any draft picks to trade for Kyrie. I don’t trust Kyrie at all, but if it’s just a trade for Kyrie and salary filler with no picks then sure. Who cares. But next offseason is the best opportunity for the Lakers to actually put together championship team. They have the 2023 pick, 2026 swap, 2027 pick onwards plus the only player signed are Davis and THT. There’s a lot of flexibility to sign Kyrie, trade for a superstar and resign Lebron. You trade for Kyrie now, congrats you’ve ruined your best chance to get Kyrie AND trade for more help that would get you a championship.

[sp6r=underrated]

I believe there are other franchises/fans that are salty because the Lakers are among the premier places for FREE AGENTS, and incorrectly conflating that into the trading sphere. Also, the Lakers are consistently used by agents/players as a pawn, to pressure teams to up their offers, to retain/sign said player. I think this also adds to the Lakers reputation, which is outside their control.

I agree a lot of fans are salty about the Lakers free agency advantage, which is real. You see that same saltiness in the other sport I follow for the NY Yankees.

But I don't think you can separate the trade sphere from free agency all together. As an example, New Orleans didn't want to trade Davis. If they had been the Los Angeles Pelican, Davis never would have asked for a trade to the New Orleans Lakers. The fact the LA Lakers have access to trades like that, even if team succeed in playing a bad hand well, is a very real advantage and over decades that matters. Now you can squander that advantage like my Knicks have but it is a real advantage in free agency and trades.

Now I'm someone who doesn't care about that advantage. Easy for me to say being from NY, critics would say. I care deeply that a small market team with (i) good management, (ii) and luck can compete. the NBA system provides that. Utah is basically screwed on the free agency front. No one wants to play there. But they've still fielded very good teams for decades playing in a crappy market. I understand the resentment of Jazz fans but it really doesn't bother me.

A completely level playing field were there is no advantage to playing in NY over Salt Lake City is unreasonable in a sport were a substantial amount of revenue is local. That is only viable in sports without local revenue streams and even then you need very weak unions. I see no reason players should leave $$$ on table for rich owners.

I see where you're coming from. But, I don't think that the AD trade scenario is a justifiable example. I say this, because that opportunity came about, not because the Lakers were the Lakers. That was all orchestrated by LeBron/Klutch. If LeBron had still been playing in Cleveland, he would have found a way to get AD, to Cleveland. I'll even give more examples. LeMarcus Aldridge had a chance to sign with the Lakers in free agency. He ultimately chose the Spurs. Kawaii Leonard, and Paul George? Both had chances to sign with the Lakers, and were even linked to them, in rumors. But, we saw how that turned out.

Having said all that, do teams like the Lakers, NY, and other teams with nice weather, and/or a nig market, have an inherent advantage? Absolutely. But, in this highly digital age, some of that advantage has diminished. And, the biggest factors over all those I previously listed, are usually going to be winning, and money.

I don't see the Davis situation the same way you do but who cares? Reading a one off situation is always hard and people interpret ambiguous evidence different ways. And the Davis situation is very ambiguous.

On the big picture I think we are in pretty much alignment.

And I'll say this if small market owners wanted to help themselves instead of whine all the time they'd push to keep the soft cap but get rid of maximum individual contracts. With maximum individual contracts, the top players make the same living in Minneapolis as LA. I've lived in Minneapolis. It was probably the happiest years of my life.

Vast majority of people prefer LA. So with maximum individual contracts, teams in the really small markets just can't sign the top free agents unless they draft em. If you got rid of max individual contracts you could.

[sp6r=underrated]

I believe the Lakers should do, exactly what they're doing now. Staring Brooklyn down, and not blinking, while exploring other viable options. Honestly, with all the variables inherent, this boils down to one thing. IF the Nets want to trade Kyrie, and get something back for him, as opposed to losing him for nothing, the Lakers are the only game in town. Period. The only way this changes is if Kyrie changes it. He has not. And, unless/until he does...*shrug* The Lakers would be fools, and more, to essentially get into a bidding war, with their own damn selves. That doesn't make sense, on any level, imo. The only factors that the Nets have to rely on, at present, are LeBron James putting pressure on the Lakers. And, waiting for the regular season, which is what I think they're gambling on.

That gamble, however, is a double-edged sword. If the Lakers play as poorly this upcoming season, as they did last season, then the Nets gain the advantage they seek. If the Lakers play well, not great, then as time goes on, I don't see either side gaining a distinct advantage, but the Lakers could use it as a sign that they don't need to get Kyrie to improve the team to contending status, and "threaten" alternate moves (i.e. Hield, or others). If the team does great, beyond anyone's expectations, the Nets would be at a huge disadvantage in negotiations, if any. I, as a Lakers fan, would love to see our team rise beyond people's expectations, and surprise the league. But, more than anything, I just want to see good, competitive, engaged, energetic basketball, from the Purple and Gold.

And, please remember, this whole situation was not started the Lakers, or LeBron/Klutch. Everybody was expecting some deal to be worked out between Kyrie, and the Nets. The Nets mismanaged the situation, and this is the result. It is, what it is. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

I agree with almost all of this but the Nets mismanaging the situation. Kyrie being a full blown jackass is on him. And no sensible team would give him a max. And there was no way to keep a jackass like Kyrie happy is with a max.

[sonic the laker]

I agree a lot of fans are salty about the Lakers free agency advantage, which is real. You see that same saltiness in the other sport I follow for the NY Yankees.

But I don't think you can separate the trade sphere from free agency all together. As an example, New Orleans didn't want to trade Davis. If they had been the Los Angeles Pelican, Davis never would have asked for a trade to the New Orleans Lakers. The fact the LA Lakers have access to trades like that, even if team succeed in playing a bad hand well, is a very real advantage and over decades that matters. Now you can squander that advantage like my Knicks have but it is a real advantage in free agency and trades.

Now I'm someone who doesn't care about that advantage. Easy for me to say being from NY, critics would say. I care deeply that a small market team with (i) good management, (ii) and luck can compete. the NBA system provides that. Utah is basically screwed on the free agency front. No one wants to play there. But they've still fielded very good teams for decades playing in a crappy market. I understand the resentment of Jazz fans but it really doesn't bother me.

A completely level playing field were there is no advantage to playing in NY over Salt Lake City is unreasonable in a sport were a substantial amount of revenue is local. That is only viable in sports without local revenue streams and even then you need very weak unions. I see no reason players should leave $$$ on table for rich owners.

I see where you're coming from. But, I don't think that the AD trade scenario is a justifiable example. I say this, because that opportunity came about, not because the Lakers were the Lakers. That was all orchestrated by LeBron/Klutch. If LeBron had still been playing in Cleveland, he would have found a way to get AD, to Cleveland. I'll even give more examples. LeMarcus Aldridge had a chance to sign with the Lakers in free agency. He ultimately chose the Spurs. Kawaii Leonard, and Paul George? Both had chances to sign with the Lakers, and were even linked to them, in rumors. But, we saw how that turned out.

Having said all that, do teams like the Lakers, NY, and other teams with nice weather, and/or a nig market, have an inherent advantage? Absolutely. But, in this highly digital age, some of that advantage has diminished. And, the biggest factors over all those I previously listed, are usually going to be winning, and money.

I don't see the Davis situation the same way you do but who cares? Reading a one off situation is always hard and people interpret ambiguous evidence different ways. And the Davis situation is very ambiguous.

On the big picture I think we are in pretty much alignment.

And I'll say this if small market owners wanted to help themselves instead of whine all the time they'd push to keep the soft cap but get rid of maximum individual contracts. With maximum individual contracts, the top players make the same living in Minneapolis as LA. I've lived in Minneapolis. It was probably the happiest years of my life.

Vast majority of people prefer LA. So with maximum individual contracts, teams in the really small markets just can't sign the top free agents unless they draft em. If you got rid of max individual contracts you could.

Fair enough, on the Anthony Davis front. As for the getting rid of maximum individual contracts...are we getting rid of the hard cap/tax apron, as well? Also, with this potential increase in individual spending, how is that going to effect revenue sharing? I get the gist, but the reason why the league has implemented all these salary rules, is to make it easier for small market teams to compete, financially, with the bigger markets. As well as making it easier, not guaranteed, to keep their drafted players.

[MagicMamba88]

Read on Twitter

[Ballerhogger]

Read on Twitter

Excellent

[SelfishPlayer]

I would hate for Kyrie to be traded at the deadline preventing LA from establishing chemistry.

[HotRocks34]

Woj from tonight (July 9) during halftime of ESPN (or ESPN2?) carrying the summer league games:

Read on Twitter

My guess is Kyrie still will find a way to LA, but it might take some time.