Lakers-Jazz Trade

[Avery]

I do admit that watching the Lakers drown last year was terrific. You can't pay three guys >75% of your cap and expect a competitive rotation of 7/8 guys.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I think a deal could be announced today. We are in the right timeframe now. Getting it done now instead waiting over Labor Day weekend. Its weird but I think it could be pushed through because of that.

STAHP

 

[NUMBERICA]

I do admit that watching the Lakers drown last year was terrific. You can't pay three guys >75% of your cap and expect a competitive rotation of 7/8 guys.

You totally can, that's actually a formula of success. But only if all three of those guys are worth anywhere near their money and not actually one of the most destructive saboteurs ever.

 

[Elizah Huge]

My guess is the deal becomes Westbrook and Nunn plus 1 first and a couple seconds for Bogey, JC, Beasley, Gay. We waive both guys and clear the roster glut in one move.

We don’t have to get rid of Nunn in that scenario.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

We don’t have to get rid of Nunn in that scenario.

We will though. I'm not sure hes a guy we'd want around and we'd still have plenty of guys we'd rather play.

 

[Bodhi]

I dont know why we would include Vando in a deal here. I doubt he's a deal breaker for the Lakers and he should be the exact kind of guy we wont in our rotation for the next 5-7 years at least.

 

[MTS]

I think a deal could be announced today.

By today, do you mean today today, or the Cy today.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I dont know why we would include Vando in a deal here. I doubt he's a deal breaker for the Lakers and he should be the exact kind of guy we wont in our rotation for the next 5-7 years at least.

He's only under contract for the next two years and then he's an unrestricted free agent. He's worth something now because he's on a cheap contract but probably won't be in the future. He's also most useful playing next to a dynamic, rangy big since he has 0 offensive game so he will be less useful here than he would on the Lakers.

He also just signed with Klutch which is something to keep in mind. If he's the piece that clinches a 2nd unprotected pick then I will drive him to the airport, even if the Jazz had restricted free agency rights on him or more years on his deal (which again, they don't).

The Jazz will have to pay top-dollar to keep him, which if they really want to do that, then do it in two years.

 

[Avery]

Throwing in Vandy is icing if you have to - he's worth keeping just as a cheap contract, but if it's the only path to potentially getting a second unprotected or some other sweetener, you have to consider it.

I'd prefer to keep him all things being equal.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Throwing in Vandy is icing if you have to - he's worth keeping just as a cheap contract, but if it's the only path to potentially getting a second unprotected or some other sweetener, you have to consider it.

I'd prefer to keep him all things being equal.

Clarify "all things being equal"? I read that as if we're not getting anything for him, then just keep him. In which case I agree.

But I really don't think in the net he moves the needle in the ultimately desired direction in the next two years either.

 

[Elizah Huge]

We will though. I'm not sure hes a guy we'd want around and we'd still have plenty of guys we'd rather play.

I must be missing something on him is he a potential locker room issue?

 

[infection]

By today, do you mean today today, or the Cy today.

But Cy ended up being right, so as long as it happens today, that’s all I care about.