Seth curry for clarkson and 28

[Pinkyring]

Seth curry to the lakers for clarkson and 28

Lakers dump one of their bigger contracts and mavs add a pick plus a backup combo guard

[Karmaloop]

Why? The Lakers don't view Clarkson as a bad contract, and they're not using an asset to do so.

[sogood]

Clarkson isn't a bad contract.

[Spens1]

don't understand why clarkson is a bad contract, he's a very decent deal actually

15PPG on 45%, yes his 3pt shot isn't the best (though i think its more consistency than anything cause he can shoot the 3)

If anything he's an asset we'd attach to ditch Deng or Mozgov.

[atlantabbq99]

C: Zubac
PF: Randle
SF: Ingram
SG: Russell
PG: Ball

6th: Clarkson

Clarkson can still serve in a valuable role for the rebuilding Lakers as a 6th man, especially now that Lou Williams is gone.

The only reason i can see the Lakers in trading away Clarkson is if Clarkson has already expressed to the Lakers that he wants a starting spot and/or a huge contract when he becomes a free agent, just like what Lin did to the Knicks years ago.

If the Lakers don't think they will be able to resign Clarkson, because they know he wants a starting spot, then yes it would be good to find a trading partner for Clarkson and try to get a mid to low first round pick, so that the Lakers can get a center like Justin Patton or Omer Yurtseven so that they can increase their depth at the center spot.

[Texas Chuck]

Wrong team. And we've talked about this. I think you can get a late 1st for Curry, but you need a contender who is okay with renting him. The Lakers make no sense as a destination.

As for the Mavs the inclusion of Clarkson makes this unattractive for me. We have enough decent players with big contracts, we don't need to tie up our cap with any more.

[Texas Chuck]

If anything he's an asset we'd attach to ditch Deng or Mozgov.

No he isn't. What team is going to take on what $30M in salary just to have Clarkson? I mean I think he's slightly negative value on his contract, but nothing horrible. But he's terrible value once you attach one of those anchors to him. Impossible.

[Spens1]

If anything he's an asset we'd attach to ditch Deng or Mozgov.

No he isn't. What team is going to take on what $30M in salary just to have Clarkson? I mean I think he's slightly negative value on his contract, but nothing horrible. But he's terrible value once you attach one of those anchors to him. Impossible.

He's a guard under 25, locked in for the foreseeable future that is averaging 15PPG (even if its 15PPG for us) on decent figures. I don't see how that is slightly negative in any way, shape or form.

[Texas Chuck]

If anything he's an asset we'd attach to ditch Deng or Mozgov.

No he isn't. What team is going to take on what $30M in salary just to have Clarkson? I mean I think he's slightly negative value on his contract, but nothing horrible. But he's terrible value once you attach one of those anchors to him. Impossible.

He's a guard under 25, locked in for the foreseeable future that is averaging 15PPG (even if its 15PPG for us) on decent figures. I don't see how that is slightly negative in any way, shape or form.

Fine. I don't care enough to argue with you about it.

Doesn't change the reality that there is less than zero chance that you could use him to dump Deng or Mozgov.

[andyhop]

If anything he's an asset we'd attach to ditch Deng or Mozgov.

No he isn't. What team is going to take on what $30M in salary just to have Clarkson? I mean I think he's slightly negative value on his contract, but nothing horrible. But he's terrible value once you attach one of those anchors to him. Impossible.

He's a guard under 25, locked in for the foreseeable future that is averaging 15PPG (even if its 15PPG for us) on decent figures. I don't see how that is slightly negative in any way, shape or form.

Because he has horrific defensive numbers and is a massive negative in all the impact numbers

[Spens1]

No he isn't. What team is going to take on what $30M in salary just to have Clarkson? I mean I think he's slightly negative value on his contract, but nothing horrible. But he's terrible value once you attach one of those anchors to him. Impossible.

He's a guard under 25, locked in for the foreseeable future that is averaging 15PPG (even if its 15PPG for us) on decent figures. I don't see how that is slightly negative in any way, shape or form.

Fine. I don't care enough to argue with you about it.

Doesn't change the reality that there is less than zero chance that you could use him to dump Deng or Mozgov.

honestly we don't know what asset could be going with Deng or Mozgov, the fair assumption though is its not Ingram, the 2nd, Russell and probably not Zubac either. So it will most likely be the 28th or guys like LNJ, Clarkson and maybe Randle who are on the block perhaps to help create the cap space.

[Texas Chuck]

honestly we don't know what asset could be going with Deng or Mozgov, the fair assumption though is its not Ingram, the 2nd, Russell and probably not Zubac either. So it will most likely be the 28th or guys like LNJ, Clarkson and maybe Randle who are on the block perhaps to help create the cap space.

Sigh.

I explained why it can't be Clarkson. Clarkson plus Deng or Mozgov equals $30M+ annually. Since Mozgov and Deng are largely dead weight that would require a team valuing Clarkson as a $25-30M player. And not even the biggest diehard Laker fan thinks he's worth that.

That was my whole point. You said he could be used to do that. I outlined exactly why that's not the case. I also think you are overly optimisic about his value, but again I'm not interested in arguing the point.

[hoosierdaddy34]

As a Laker fan, the teams offense is predicated around shooting and passing. Curry has a 60% true shooting and is a capable passer, he is an ideal 3rd guard in Luke's system. Clarkson's weakness? Shooting and passing. Yes I do this trade. But I think Clarkson isn't a great fit in a ball movement offense.