2015 Lakers Trade Deadline thread

tviper · Post #581 » by **tviper** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:03 am

trade with IND to get Stephenson:

LAL out: Marshall, Sacre, Nash, HOU 2015 1st = 11,531,486
IND out: Scola, Stephenson (S&T 11.5M per, 4 yrs/46M) = $16,368,499

Max LAL can take back is 11.531M + 5M = 16.531M so this is legal.

IND after the trade, and after waiving Marshall, is at $75,951,539 which keeps them under the tax line of 76.8M with a little breathing room.

LAL could waive Scola for a $940,946 hit, or keep him as a rotation player.

aaron_gray · Post #582 » by **aaron_gray** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:10 am

That's like, stacking shooting guards the way the Suns are stacking point guards.

tlifeset · Post #583 » by **tlifeset** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:54 am

tviper wrote:trade with IND to get Stephenson:

LAL out: Marshall, Sacre, Nash, HOU 2015 1st = 11,531,486
IND out: Scola, Stephenson (S&T 11.5M per, 4 yrs/46M) = $16,368,499

Max LAL can take back is 11.531M + 5M = 16.531M so this is legal.

IND after the trade, and after waiving Marshall, is at $75,951,539 which keeps them under the tax line of 76.8M with a little breathing room.

LAL could waive Scola for a $940,946 hit, or keep him as a rotation player.

It's a good thought and well constructed. But I don't see Indiana disassembling a roster that most pundits would say is the #1 team in the East. I just don't think they're looking to dump salary or players that contribute right now, regardless of the luxury tax.

Perhaps they could take one Nash and the Hou draft pick for an S/T Stephenson - Nash can still shoot when he's on the floor, something Larry Bird clearly likes. However, based on what we're offering Stephenson, they would probably just match and resign him themselves UNLESS Stephenson prefers LA, which is possible for someone who looks that much like Tracy Morgan.

tviper · Post #584 » by **tviper** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:49 pm

tlifeset wrote:
tviper wrote:trade with IND to get Stephenson:

LAL out: Marshall, Sacre, Nash, HOU 2015 1st = 11,531,486
IND out: Scola, Stephenson (S&T 11.5M per, 4 yrs/46M) = $16,368,499

Max LAL can take back is 11.531M + 5M = 16.531M so this is legal.

IND after the trade, and after waiving Marshall, is at $75,951,539 which keeps them under the tax line of 76.8M with a little breathing room.

LAL could waive Scola for a $940,946 hit, or keep him as a rotation player.

It's a good thought and well constructed. But I don't see Indiana disassembling a roster that most pundits would say is the #1 team in the East. I just don't think they're looking to dump salary or players that contribute right now, regardless of the luxury tax.

Perhaps they could take one Nash and the Hou draft pick for an S/T Stephenson - Nash can still shoot when he's on the floor, something Larry Bird clearly likes. However, based on what we're offering Stephenson, they would probably just match and resign him themselves UNLESS Stephenson prefers LA, which is possible for someone who looks that much like Tracy Morgan.

well they just lost Stephenson for nothing, at a much lower salary, so I guess LAL wasn't interested. Seems incredible that they would pay Hill the same as a guy who led the league in triple doubles but maybe they thought the personality wasn't a fit. just one more disappointing nail in the coffin of 2014 FA...

aaron_gray · Post #585 » by **aaron_gray** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:41 pm

Well Mitch did get some assets for the cap space.

Post #586 » by **milesfides** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:46 pm

It depends on whether you see Lance as a franchise player or not. $9-10m is that awkward amount that isn't for a max talent but enough so that it hurts your salary cap to build around legit franchise players. It's opportunity cost.

This is why Jeremy Lin is a Laker. His poison pill is hard to swallow, but the Lakers could absorb it, and evaluate what he's worth. If he ends up being exactly the same that he was in Houston (imo unlikely, but a worst case scenario), he'll end up being capped at the MLE for his next contract, so we would actually save money if we choose to retain him.

Lance is high risk, because his two years are guaranteed, and that hurts our future flexibility if he does turn out less than his potential.

If you're not the Spurs with a strong culture, player development, and system, your best chance to win a championship is to have the best players.

And Lance is not that.

TylersLakers · Post #587 » by **TylersLakers** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 6:08 am

milesfides wrote:It depends on whether you see Lance as a franchise player or not. $9-10m is that awkward amount that isn't for a max talent but enough so that it hurts your salary cap to build around legit franchise players. It's opportunity cost.

This is why Jeremy Lin is a Laker. His poison pill is hard to swallow, but the Lakers could absorb it, and evaluate what he's worth. If he ends up being exactly the same that he was in Houston (imo unlikely, but a worst case scenario), he'll end up being capped at the MLE for his next contract, so we would actually save money if we choose to retain him.

Lance is high risk, because his two years are guaranteed, and that hurts our future flexibility if he does turn out less than his potential.

If you're not the Spurs with a strong culture, player development, and system, your best chance to win a championship is to have the best players.

And Lance is not that.

I agreed. I really wish we would have put the pressure on Houston early on with Chandler Parsons. I've wanted him ever since he was playing for Florida. Wanted the Lakers to trade into the 1st round a few years ago and get him. Instead, he slipped to the second round, Houston got him.

Get17 · Post #588 » by **Get17** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:39 am

Trade Proposal:
Lakers help Clippers financially
Clippers help firm up Lakers rotation

Marshall (.9) + Sacre (.9) + 2.45 space available
for
Dudley (4.25)

Why LAC? - move them UNDER the luxury tax with the savings and gives them a 3rd C in Sacre (in the Hollins role) and Marshall gets waived to capture another mill savings.

Why LAL? - need another wing who can play reasonable minutes. Dudley can do one thing well, spread the floor with his shot, and LA will need that with Lin, Kobe and Clarkson breaking down defenses. Too many PGs on roster and with Davis now, Sacre is expendable.

soxfan2003 · Post #589 » by **soxfan2003** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:01 am

Celtic fan here....

Is this Laker fan legit? He is speculating on a 3 way trade involving Boston/MN/LA and involving Rondo/Randle and Love and picks.

https://twitter.com/tspence26

Like a few others, he did correctly predict a few things like Lebron to Cleveland. He could be completely making things up or actually have an inside source.

tugs · Post #590 » by **tugs** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:06 am

Second line first sentence. I stopped when I saw his picture.

Get17 · Post #591 » by **Get17** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:14 am

Makes no sense. BOS heavy in PFs gets Love? LA heavy in PGs gets Rondo? So unbalanced its like a guy who hasn't looked at a roster invented it.

soxfan2003 · Post #592 » by **soxfan2003** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:03 am

Get17 wrote:Makes no sense. BOS heavy in PFs gets Love? LA heavy in PGs gets Rondo? So unbalanced its like a guy who hasn't looked at a roster invented it.

Can't speak for LA but for Boston it actually makes sense. Olynyk would be gone and Sullinger can back up Love and play some minutes at center. Bass won't be with the Celtics long term and Humphries is already gone.

Green/Wallace can play some PF but both are really SF's.

Lakers would be getting rid of Marshall and possibly Nash in this transaction.

I'm still very skeptical since its easy to make up BS on Twitter. He was certain wrong on Gasol to SA but actually may have been right before ESPN etc. on other things.

Get17 · Post #593 » by **Get17** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:32 am

Yeah I later saw the expanded which includes Nash & Marshall in the out for LA and Olynik out for Bos. Makes more sense.

The one that seems to work financially is
LA in Rondo, KMartin
Bos in Love, Barea
Min in Nash, Randle, Olynik, 3 1sts
(plus non-guaranteeds of Bogans* n Marshall to be waived)
- *Bogans 4 Barea keeps Boston under hard cap rules
Question would be whether Min keeps Nash to tutor Rubio (apparently Nash is his idol) and whether Nash would go or insist on buyout

Jajwanda · Post #594 » by **Jajwanda** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:36 am

Could see a trade for Harrison Barnes happening. He's a talent, probably on part with what L.A. can find the late first round next year. He fits nicely into their contract plans as well. He would fit nicely as the starting 3 with Swaggy coming in behind Bryant and Barnes.

Doormatt · Post #595 » by **Doormatt** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:58 am

soxfan2003 wrote:Celtic fan here....

Is this Laker fan legit? He is speculating on a 3 way trade involving Boston/MN/LA and involving Rondo/Randle and Love and picks.

https://twitter.com/tspence26

Like a few others, he did correctly predict a few things like Lebron to Cleveland. He could be completely making things up or actually have an inside source.

lol if the lakers are trading randle then we are getting love not rondo

but we are definitely not trading him.

KSOR24 · Post #596 » by **KSOR24** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:09 pm

Sacramento receives: Josh Smith
Detroit receives: Steve Nash, future pick from Kings
Los Angeles receives: Derrick Williams, Travis Outlaw

tviper · Post #597 » by **tviper** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:37 pm

KSOR24 wrote:Sacramento receives: Josh Smith
Detroit receives: Steve Nash, future pick from Kings
Los Angeles receives: Derrick Williams, Travis Outlaw

think LAL will save the Nash contract for a player with more impact closer to the deadline, but this would definitely address the hole at SF.

tviper · Post #598 » by **tviper** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:39 pm

Doormatt wrote:
soxfan2003 wrote:Celtic fan here....

Is this Laker fan legit? He is speculating on a 3 way trade involving Boston/MN/LA and involving Rondo/Randle and Love and picks.

https://twitter.com/tspence26

Like a few others, he did correctly predict a few things like Lebron to Cleveland. He could be completely making things up or actually have an inside source.

lol if the lakers are trading randle then we are getting love not rondo

but we are definitely not trading him.

If MIN wants Randle, and we are trading Randle, why not deal directly with MIN? Not enough picks, okay, but LAL is going to assist in delivering Love to the hated Celtics? Doesn't seem plausible. Also, CLE would have to be crazy to trade Wiggins for Love. That new GM needs to take a deep breath.

tviper · Post #599 » by **tviper** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:48 pm

Now there are numerous reports that Wiggins is being made available. Well, there goes another FA possibility for LAL. There are literally no possibilities until 2016 and at that point, why is Durant coming here. Bad times. Looks like will have to get a talent via trade. The proposed S&T for Stephenson posted above works for Bledsoe as well, that is:

LAL out: Marshall, Sacre, Nash, HOU 2015 1st = 11,531,486
PHO out: Bledsoe (S&T 112M per, 4 yrs/48) = 12,000,000

Max LAL can take back is 11.531M + 5M = 16.531M so more could be offered to Bledsoe to get the deal done (max cap room no longer necessary because no max players realistically available). Also a possibility would be sending Kelly in a S&T to PHO as he would help replace the loss of Frye. Similar games.

Austincys21 · Post #600 » by **Austincys21** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:16 am

Steve Nash, Ed Davis, and HOU 1st for Wilson Chandler and Timfy Mozgov

Lin / Marshall
Kobe / Young / Clarkson
Chandler / Henry
Boozer / Randle / Kelly
Mozgov / Hill / Sacre

Lakers do it because the get a defensive rebounding center and a defensive 3 pt shooter.

Nuggets do it to save money next season, a cheap young PF and a late 1st next season.