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

[TheGOATWill]

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.

[sp6r=underrated]

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.

This is a very reasonable stance. Given the lakers long-term draft situation, even with the advantage of playing in LA for free agents, giving up multiple 1st rounders for a nutball like Kyrie is extremely risky. He could move to LA, live out there for a month and say I miss Jersey move the team to Newark. He is one of the least professional players in NBA history. If the lakers had tons of picks it'd be a lot less risky to toss in a couple but they don't. And they don't have many young players that can help you buy a 1st rounder. So totally get were you are coming from.

I also Brooklyn's stance. You guys have 0% chance of contending. We're offering you a 5% lottery ticket to get right back in it. That should come with a price.

This is why I increasingly think all of the Brooklyn guys will still be in Brooklyn in October. I'm just not sure there will come trades that Brooklyn feels it should accept

[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 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.

I'm saying given that we can get first rounders by other means AND retain the cap space to help future facilitating deals or absorb other contracts, it's not imperative to get the first here, and by extension we may not be incentivized to take just a first. If LAL can get, say, Indy involved instead, or just keep it between the Nets, fine. But I just don't see this as a 'losing a chance at a first round pick' scenario when there are other less cap absorbing means of doing so. It makes sense for each interested party to use the strength of its leverage is all.

[Yuri Vaultin]

Do the Lakers have anything considered an "asset"?

[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.

Davis is at a low end for value now but if he rebounds and LA is still out of contention he could nab a huge haul in the middle of the season from Mid-Market teams. I don't think small market teams will bid on him based on how he behaved in New Orleans.

[facothomas22]

Do the Lakers have anything considered an "asset"?

No they do not. That's why the Rockets demanded a unprotected 1st round pick in trade in exchange for a very injury prone John Wall,in which they had no intentions of keeping anyway. If I was Sean Marks,I would hang up on the Lakers right now and just hope some other team is interested in getting Kyrie Irving at some point.If not,then the "John Wall" option can be used,which means just sit him out for a entire season. Another option is just give Kyrie a contract extenison,which would defuse tenisons between Nets and KD/Kyrie. If I was the Nets, I see any option as better than taking Russell Westbrook 47 million dollar contract,even if I get 1-2 unprotected 1st round picks out of it.

[Ballerhogger]

Hard pass.

How are you going say hard pass to that ? What ? Besides the picks your getting good players return and players that can be easily moved after this season

Not trading KD with Ayton as the main piece back. Sorry.

your getting miles bridges and cam Johnson and boat load picks…. What kind return do you think a aging star that has had acl injury get you? He’s on last stretch of his prime years

[Ballerhogger]

I’d be quite happy to see the Nets price themselves out of a trade.

That’s what they are doing with Kd. They already shed for towns , dlo etc for Kd

[TheHartBreakKid]

Do the Lakers have anything considered an "asset"?

No they do not. That's why the Rockets demanded a unprotected 1st round pick in trade in exchange for a very injury prone John Wall,in which they had no intentions of keeping anyway. If I was Sean Marks,I would hang up on the Lakers right now and just hope some other team is interested in getting Kyrie Irving at some point.If not,then the "John Wall" option can be used,which means just sit him out for a entire season. Another option is just give Kyrie a contract extenison,which would defuse the tenisons between Nets and KD/Kyrie. If I am the Nets,anything is better than taking Russell Westbrook,even if I get 1-2 unprotected 1st round picks out of it.

Wait are you bringing up the rockets’ poor decision making as an example to support the fact that the lakers don’t have assets?

The rockets actually messed up by demanding an unprotected first, and I’m sure the lakers laughed them off and never considered it.

Even if the lakers were offering two seconds, the rockets would have been better off taking it and buying out Westbrook vs buying out wall with nothing in return.

And that’s exactly what the nets should avoid…which is losing Kyrie for nothing. Obviously his price is higher and imo it will take two 1st rounders to get it done, but bringing up the John wall situation and the mismanagement by the rockets and overplaying their hand is pretty laughable to me

The lakers have minimal/poor assets, but they have leverage, and it’s in the nets best interest to get something in return, if they are thinking logically and not emotionally

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

I'll be honest. I'm not even sure why the Spurs...or any team for that matter...would be involved in a potential deal between the Lakers, and Nets. All the Lakers really want, is Kyrie. The Nets want compensation. Something that the Lakers are severely limited in. Involving a third team, just complicates the asset distribution. The Laker don't have enough to compensate the Nets, and another team. The Nets are trying to collect compensation for Kyrie. Not give it out. So, unless either the Nets, or Lakers, are willing to take on long term contracts from another team...which is the only logical deduction...there's not a lot to be explored here.

I think the Spurs angle is just talk. Nothing serious.

[Blame Rasho]

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.

If a trade between the lakers and nets easily could be done then it would have been made already. Clearly they need a third team, and that team has leverage over what they can ask for. The spurs have a crap ton of cap space that they can use better than getting a single 1st round pick. This isn’t string theory or neuroscience. They can keep the cap space and use it during the season with their trade assets to get better offers than a single damn pick. I am sorry that you can’t grasp this but it been explained before and you and other posters ignorance is just pretty laughable

[sp6r=underrated]

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.

The Lakers have a very real free agency advantage so I totally get were you are coming from. Lakers attractiveness to free agents makes picks less important to LA than a middle market team like the Celtics and especially a small market club like the Hornets Unlike other clubs we can rely on acquiring players through free agency.

Why not do that here get Kyrie and just make sure cap space is available in the future for the next disgruntled superstar?

I agree with you the advantage is real but I think you can't treat picks the way you propose and doing so for Kyrie is a big mistake. There are several reasons.

1. The Lakers free agency advantage is very real but has shrunk.

Simply put, Ballmer is a game changer. Sterling was a racist SOB. He was also a terrible businessman when it came to basketball. He was penny wise pound foolish. Ballmer isn't. He spends money. Since he's taking over the Clippers they've attracted a top free agent (Kawhi) and spent money and resources to ensure the rest of the team is good. It hasn't resulted in titles but they have the third best winning percentage in the sport since he bought the Clips. He has much deeper pockets than the Busses.

I'm a middle aged old. For me the Clippers will always be a joke on some level. But for someone born in 2004, next year's draft, their only memory of the Clippers is a pretty good team that plays in LA. Is that as good as the Lakers brand? No! But is the gap smaller? Yes! That matters. It used to be if your choice was Lakers or CLippers you always took the Lakers. Now if you're hellbent on LA, if the Clippers have a better roster and chance of winning long-term picking the Clippers is the smart play.

So going forward Lakers still have a very real advantage over all the non-NY/LA teams when it comes to free agency. But I think the home-town gap between them and the Clippers has shrunk dramatically. And even with this rough patch in Brooklyn, the Nets are becoming much more viable for top players. Only the Knicks are still clueless.

2. You still need picks to facilitate Davis style trades. The reason New Orleans was willing to trade Davis to LA wasn't just that he was leaving but that LA was willing to offer a haul in picks and top level young players. In a world in which the Lakers can't offer picks and don't have any top young players (Ingram as example), NO would have just said to Davis walk. Now maybe he signs outright with LA anyway so you don't care. But trading away picks means that trade is off the table permanently because someone could always outbid you in a trade for Davis just as a rental. Does anything Toronto's regrets its Kawhi rental? In MLB, the other sport I follow, rentals are quite common.

Now maybe Kyrie is worth it. I don't follow the Lakers closely enough to know whether he gets you back into contention. But I do know chronically trading picks will make it much harder for the Lakers to compete going forward

[sp6r=underrated]

I'll be honest. I'm not even sure why the Spurs...or any team for that matter...would be involved in a potential deal between the Lakers, and Nets. All the Lakers really want, is Kyrie. The Nets want compensation. Something that the Lakers are severely limited in. Involving a third team, just complicates the asset distribution. The Laker don't have enough to compensate the Nets, and another team. The Nets aren't trying to collect compensation for Kyrie. Not give it out. So, unless either the Nets, or Lakers, are willing to take on long term contracts from another team...which is the only logical deduction...there's not a lot to be explored here.

I think the Spurs angle is just talk. Nothing serious.

Great point. You see this a lot in fan proposed trades. A third team is involved to solve an unsolveable problem from the fans' perspective. In this case mostly lakers fans, and all fans do this not just Lakers fans, badly want Kyrie because they see him as the one possible piece to revive contender status.

The Lakers offer is Russ*, a combination of 2 picks (max), and the Nets giving up a decent player to make salaries match. Brooklyn has concluded, fairly or not, what the lakers can offer isn't worth bringing Kyrie back and hoping for the small chance he acts rationally and plays hard.

So fans say let's bring in a third party to facilitate the trade. They see the Spurs are below the salary floor and see the solution. SA takes on Russ. But once you think about it for a second as that Spurs fan explained, Russ has no value to SA either. It is a solution only if you assume SA has an interest in making this trade go forward. Which is something fans do not executives for other teams.

If a Kyrie-LA trade happens it will be 2 party or the scope substantially changed from what is being considered.

Third party trades only happen when Team A has a player that has no value to Team B but would be valuable to Team C. Team C can then be brought into the fold. There is no Team C for Russ right now. His play is too bad. The value of his expiring isn't enough. And his rep has been destroyed enough he can't be used to sell tickets.

* Off-topic: Russ is an ATG and I feel bad for him the way his prime now is getting mocked. If you're an ATG with a bad ending to a career, you'll get knocked. If you don't have a title and you played for a team with a small fanbase like OKC you'll get a lot of unfair criticism for your prime days. Russ will make and deserves the HOF. Don't blame Laker fans for hating him but just wanted to defend him a bit.

[Darren]

Fakers is so desperate for Kyrie to lure LBJ stay. Brooklyn should ask for a farm. Fakers has no choice.

[Darren]

Worst ugly contract and Gobert-trade-like picks should be included.

[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 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.

I'll be honest. I'm not even sure why the Spurs...or any team for that matter...would be involved in a potential deal between the Lakers, and Nets. All the Lakers really want, is Kyrie. The Nets want compensation. Something that the Lakers are severely limited in. Involving a third team, just complicates the asset distribution. The Laker don't have enough to compensate the Nets, and another team. The Nets aren't trying to collect compensation for Kyrie. Not give it out. So, unless either the Nets, or Lakers, are willing to take on long term contracts from another team...which is the only logical deduction...there's not a lot to be explored here.

I think the Spurs angle is just talk. Nothing serious.

Yeah it feels like a 'may include Spurs' comment by one of the media people and now it has taken on a life of its own.

But there is something, too, to what Blame Rasho said above: if it were easier to do the deal between the two main parties then it may have already been done by now (and it still may).

But since we have the most cap space the discussion about facilitating and requisite compensation came into play. Fans from respective teams are bringing up info and pov's that some trade proposals have not considered.

[Hello Brooklyn]

How are you going say hard pass to that ? What ? Besides the picks your getting good players return and players that can be easily moved after this season

Not trading KD with Ayton as the main piece back. Sorry.

your getting miles bridges and cam Johnson and boat load picks…. What kind return do you think a aging star that has had acl injury get you? He’s on last stretch of his prime years

An MVP level player still in his prime. Yeah it gets me more than a bunch of role players.

As I said, hard pass.

[Karmaloop]

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.

[Pharmcat]

Do the Lakers have anything considered an "asset"?

No they do not. That's why the Rockets demanded a unprotected 1st round pick in trade in exchange for a very injury prone John Wall,in which they had no intentions of keeping anyway. If I was Sean Marks,I would hang up on the Lakers right now and just hope some other team is interested in getting Kyrie Irving at some point.If not,then the "John Wall" option can be used,which means just sit him out for a entire season. Another option is just give Kyrie a contract extenison,which would defuse tenisons between Nets and KD/Kyrie. If I was the Nets, I see any option as better than taking Russell Westbrook 47 million dollar contract,even if I get 1-2 unprotected 1st round picks out of it.

And the rockets lost wall for nothing. So if they were able to get even second round picks it would have been better asset management. But some teams don’t want to help lakers out at all and cost themselves assets. Just like pop taking the worse KL deal