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

[Blame Rasho]

The spurs aren’t getting just a 1st rounder for a dogcrap contract that no team wants or can put on their payroll.


The spurs can request as many picks as they want as they hold the leverage in the situation. Not Kyrie, not Lebron, not the nets, not the lakers.

The fact is that the spurs can stand pat, hold Richardson and Mcbuckets until the trade deadline and there will likely be better offers than the one that was posted esp for teams that are in the lux tax that want to avoid it.

[G R E Y]

Best deal yet everyone would say yes to that . Nets get picks and players , suns get Kd we get a scoring guard .. I can’t see how anyone would say no

Here it comes - no lol

The 1st we get is not enough just to eat RW's salary alone. But on top of that we are to give up two rotation players - a starter and 3&D 6th man at that - for nothing? Just to make salaries balance out better?

This is horrible asset management - we could get more assets for either or combining both JRich and Doug - and we're just there as huge favour doers for everyone else. Nope.

Richardson and Doug are older vets taking up minutes on non playoff team no? I get the Westbrook cost and the spurs should get another first . But Both these players are salary fillers are they not ?

Older vets relative to our team, yes. Relative to yours and Nets they're practically young adults lol

Relative to teams who need vet presence to bolster their post-season chances? I like our chances of getting some quality assets back.

Put it this way. If this RW deal wasn't being pushed, we'd still be trying to trade them. Or are you implying that their worth is nothing more than salary filler? We got a 1st round pick for Thad Young on an expiring contract. Their floor spacing with excellent 3s shooting alone has value. And it's damn well beyond salary filler no matter how much others may want to use them as expendables to fit their trade ideas.

[Hello Brooklyn]

Kyrie once threatened to have surgery and sit out the season for the Cavs if he didn’t get traded.

He cost himself nearly 15 million last year over a vaccine.

He’s not auditioning for anything. If the Nets are bringing Kyrie back, they better be ready to max him, otherwise this is going to be a disaster. Paying him 36 million to sit on the bench is absolutely not a better deal than paying WB 47 million to sit on the bench and get draft compensation.

Now, they may get a championship out of this year if they max Kyrie, so it may be worth the gamble. But mark my words, the Nets aren’t going to be able to leverage this guy into doing what they want.

Are the Lakers really prepared to give Kyrie 100 million just to appease LeBron?

Because that would be the entire point of the trade.

Sadly yes. I’m sure they are. Either your Nets or my Lakers are going to end up with a maxed Kyrie. The only question is which spot will he land.

[Hello Brooklyn]

I think that puts the Nets in a significantly worse position than now, by the trade deadline they'll be staring down the barrel of a massive luxury tax payment and losing at least Irving for nothing in free agency.

It seems far better for them to wrap this for at least Irving before training camp happens.

I guess with KD you can wait it out until the trade deadline but that's going to play hell on the team and it'll be difficult for them to turn the page with that looming over them. Nor does one expect KD will be playing hard and risking his health for a team he's demanded to leave. At best the team will allow him to excuse himself from the team for the first few months.

Which you do what you gotta do but that's not in the ideal interest of the Nets and whomever their new coach will be, because no way in hell you stick with an unproven puppet as your culture setter for your new era.

Losing Irving for nothing as opposed to losing Harris and taking back Westbrick?

Thats negative value.

I'm fine with getting nothing for Kyrie.

Lets see LA put their money with their mouth is and offer 31 year old Kyrie a 4 year 120 million+ dollar contract after sitting out 2 years and sucking in the playoffs.

Do you see Harris as an asset rather than an onerous contract? Because when I look at the proposed Irving/Harris package I see it as Lakers giving Brooklyn luxury tax relief, and it's one of the benefits of the deal to Brooklyn.

Harris really doesn't need to be included - the salaries work if Brooklyn adds Sumner instead.

Harris is one of the best shooters in the league.

No we couldn't. Westbrook makes 11 million more.

[Kurtz]

Losing Irving for nothing as opposed to losing Harris and taking back Westbrick?

Thats negative value.

I'm fine with getting nothing for Kyrie.

Lets see LA put their money with their mouth is and offer 31 year old Kyrie a 4 year 120 million+ dollar contract after sitting out 2 years and sucking in the playoffs.

Do you see Harris as an asset rather than an onerous contract? Because when I look at the proposed Irving/Harris package I see it as Lakers giving Brooklyn luxury tax relief, and it's one of the benefits of the deal to Brooklyn.

Harris really doesn't need to be included - the salaries work if Brooklyn adds Sumner instead.

Harris is one of the best shooters in the league.

No we couldn't. Westbrook makes 11 million more.

Salaries just need to be within 25%. It works in the trade machine:

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine

[Hello Brooklyn]

Do you see Harris as an asset rather than an onerous contract? Because when I look at the proposed Irving/Harris package I see it as Lakers giving Brooklyn luxury tax relief, and it's one of the benefits of the deal to Brooklyn.

Harris really doesn't need to be included - the salaries work if Brooklyn adds Sumner instead.

Harris is one of the best shooters in the league.

No we couldn't. Westbrook makes 11 million more.

Salaries just need to be within 25%. It works in the trade machine:

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine

Then you have the problem of the Nets taking back a ton of additional luxury tax money for what? 1 first?

[DarkXaero]

The whole notion of having to dump Joe Harris salary on Lakers is ridiculous. The guy is statistically the best 3pt specialist in the league over the last 4 years and he's competent enough defensively. Even if Nets need to dump his salary for tax reasons, there are way better ways to do that than this.

[celticfan42487]

The whole notion of having to dump Joe Harris salary on Lakers is ridiculous. The guy is statistically the best 3pt specialist in the league over the last 4 years and he's competent enough defensively. Even if Nets need to dump his salary for tax reasons, there are way better ways to do that than this.

Agreed, Joe Harris is at least worth a late first in the league to the 12 or so teams that may be contending. He's a strong shooting option off any contenders bench.

Hell and in any trade with the Lakers and their lack of shooting he's twice as valuable. He's exactly what they need with or without Irving.

[Jfh20]

Nobody but the Lakers are going to offer anything of value as that's the only team he wants to play for. There's zero indication that MIA wants to trade for Kyrie.

lakers have nothing to offer. he needs to give that dream up.

Doesn't have to give up on it, just has to postpone it... He's getting paid this season no matter what, so just kick back and join LA next season when the Lakers have a ton of cap space.

fine with me. lebron will be one year older, and hopefully closer to retirement at that point. so kyrie can go there if he likes, np.

[TheGOATWill]

Best deal yet everyone would say yes to that . Nets get picks and players , suns get Kd we get a scoring guard .. I can’t see how anyone would say no

I think the Spurs (or whoever is taking 47m in dead money for Westbrook) need two future 1sts. Nobody is taking Westbrook for a single FRP. Toss them one of the Suns FRPs, and maybe that would work.

The Spurs are the unquestioned tank commander for Wembanyama. Russ' expiring contract does not complicate their plans. They'd gladly take a free 1st round pick to park his contract that they'll buyout eventually if not immediately. (Leading to Russ taking a minimum deal with GS...you heard it here first) OKC took on Horford with 3 years/85 mil left for a 2025 first two years ago. A first is likely still the going rate. Plus SA is still petty far from the payroll floor. As odd as this sounds, they actually need an inflated contract. Man we are deep into the weeds of a situation that might not even happen.

[G R E Y]

Best deal yet everyone would say yes to that . Nets get picks and players , suns get Kd we get a scoring guard .. I can’t see how anyone would say no

I think the Spurs (or whoever is taking 47m in dead money for Westbrook) need two future 1sts. Nobody is taking Westbrook for a single FRP. Toss them one of the Suns FRPs, and maybe that would work.

The Spurs are the unquestioned tank commander for Wembanyama. Russ' expiring contract does not complicate their plans. They'd gladly take a free 1st round pick to park his contract that they'll buyout eventually if not immediately. (Leading to Russ taking a minimum deal with GS...you heard it here first) OKC took on Horford with 3 years/85 mil left for a 2025 first two years ago. A first is likely still the going rate. Plus SA is still petty far from the payroll floor. As odd as this sounds, they actually need an inflated contract. Man we are deep into the weeds of a situation that might not even happen.

Gladly take a 1st for the privilege of absorbing RW's contract? We got a 1st for Thad Young and Dragic's much cheaper contract relative to RW's. We have other serviceable vets to trade for assets. We're being considered as huge favour doers here for very low compensation when we do not have to take on RW unless our price is met. We do NOT have to meet the salary floor. This has been explained by Blame Rasho already. A single pick is too low.

[FrodoFraggins]

Best deal yet everyone would say yes to that . Nets get picks and players , suns get Kd we get a scoring guard .. I can’t see how anyone would say no

Here it comes - no lol

The 1st we get is not enough just to eat RW's salary alone. But on top of that we are to give up two rotation players - a starter and 3&D 6th man at that - for nothing? Just to make salaries balance out better?

This is horrible asset management - we could get more assets for either or combining both JRich and Doug - and we're just there as huge favour doers for everyone else. Nope.

Richardson and Doug are older vets taking up minutes on non playoff team no? I get the Westbrook cost and the spurs should get another first . But Both these players are salary fillers are they not ?

There are probably less useful/tradable players that can be used as filler no? They also have the cap space to not require that much salary going out I believe.

[Balls Deep]

Kyrie is 10x the player Westbrick is. This is a no brainer. If Jeanie doesn’t get this done then she’s an absolute disgrace of an owner and doesn’t care about winning.

[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.

[Karmaloop]

We got a 1st round pick for Thad Young on an expiring contract.

Are you going to ignore the fact that the Spurs took on the salary dump of Goran Dragic?

[Karmaloop]

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.

It's the Lakers' tax. Get used to it. If it involves the Lakers, they want to extract a pound of flesh in the process.

[G R E Y]

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.

Well you answered your own question in part. The RW trade/contract is not in isolation. Given that LAL is to be receiving is the better player, and also on an expiring and lesser contract, that LBJ is pushing for the deal and reportedly leveraging extending his own tenure on the team, the leverage for other teams goes up depending on what they value more and how much time they can wait.

Worst case scenario for Nets is that cap space. Maybe Irving plays, maybe not. But they can afford to wait it out.

Worst case scenario for Spurs? Nothing. We have the most cap space to facilitate deals most advantageous to us, can afford to wait, and have other players to trade for future assets. It's a case of whether cap space or assets are more important for next season and seeing as how we can get both without helping facilitate a RW trade, we don't have to rush into anything but what we want.

Worst case for LAL? Don't give LBJ what he wants (arguably giving him what he wants is also an issue), go into the season with RW (who LBJ wanted) which makes LAL less competitive than does Irving, piss LBJ and his group off.

Which team has the most to lose here? It's not the one which wants more for RW than a single pick when those can be had by trading other players.

[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.

[G R E Y]

We got a 1st round pick for Thad Young on an expiring contract.

Are you going to ignore the fact that the Spurs took on the salary dump of Goran Dragic?

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.

[TheHartBreakKid]

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.

Well you answered your own question in part. The RW trade/contract is not in isolation. Given that the player LAL is to be receiving is the better player, and also on an expiring and lesser contract, that LBJ is pushing for the deal and reportedly leveraging extending his own tenure on the team, the leverage for other teams goes up depending on what they value more and how much time they can wait.

Worst case scenario for Nets is that cap space. Maybe Irving plays, maybe not. But they can afford to wait it out.

Worst case scenario for Spurs? Nothing. We have the most cap space to facilitate deals most advantageous to us, can afford to wait, and have other players to trade for future assets. It's a case of whether cap space or assets are more important for next season and seeing as how we can get both without helping facilitate a RW trade, we don't have to rush into anything but what we want.

Worst case for LAL? Don't give LBJ what he wants (arguably giving him what he wants is also an issue), go into the season with RW (who LBJ wanted) which makes LAL less competitive than does Irving, piss LBJ and his group off.

Which team has the most to lose here? It's not the one which wants more for RW than a single pick when those can be had by trading other players.

You’re a great poster, but I’m genuinely confused regarding your point. Are you saying that the spurs shouldn’t touch this for a first rounder? That’s fair, but it’s ridiculous to think you would get two picks to help facilitate this deal. The lakers can directly send those two picks to the nets and the deal will be done today. It’s fair to not want the spurs to touch this deal, but they are certainly not necessary to make it happen. It could easily happen without them, and there is no way in hell they would receive more than one pick in a potential trade.