Lakers-Jazz Trade

[Elizah Huge]

Aren't our pick swaps with Minnesota and Cleveland in 2026? We need to space those out.

I actually believe the more swaps in one year the better the odds are getting a high pick that year.

 

[NUMBERICA]

The Lakers can also trade a 2026 pick swap. Best thing for them to do would be 2026 pick swap plus 2027 unprotected 1st.

I could've sworn I said the same thing, but I guess I didn't. In either event, that seems like it would be most palatable for the Lakers which of course matters.

I would like to get a '26 super swap or 2nds to sweeten, though.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Aren't our pick swaps with Minnesota and Cleveland in 2026? We need to space those out.

Ideally. We don't get to call all the shots, though.

The flip side is it might be a relatively easy sell on getting a '26 swap from them since they would basically have to have the worst of all four teams (lowering the odds of conveyance), but on the Jazz's side, that's probably a pretty damn good assurance of a good pick.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I actually believe the more swaps in one year the better the odds are getting a high pick that year.

Of course it does, but the marginal returns diminish rapidly with each swap added in a year versus getting it in another year without any other swaps. It is more ideal to spread them out, certainly.

 

[Elizah Huge]

Of course it does, but the marginal returns diminish rapidly with each swap added in a year versus getting it in another year without any other swaps. It is more ideal to spread them out, certainly.

I’d rather have a very good shot at increasing our pick in one year vs a minimal chance in two years.

 

[NUMBERICA]

They also have the worse of their pick or NO. I would take a swap in 23

I'm a little lost, could you elaborate how that would work? Like... we would own swap rights with the lesser of the NOP/LAL pick? If I'm understanding right, then I'd rather have 2nds if that serves as the swap that satisfies the criterion of getting a swap.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Of course it does, but the marginal returns diminish rapidly with each swap added in a year versus getting it in another year without any other swaps. It is more ideal to spread them out, certainly.

But what if we get like 26 more teams to agree to swaps... then its a pretty fool proof plan.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I'm a little lost, could you elaborate how that would work? Like... we would own swap rights with the lesser of the NOP/LAL pick? If I'm understanding right, then I'd rather have 2nds if that serves as the swap that satisfies the criterion of getting a swap.

NO can swap their pick for the Lakers... We could add a swap with the Minny pick, the Philly pick, or our pick for the worse of the Lakers or NO pick.

So if the results of the season were exactly as they were this year... we could swap the Philly pick at #23 for the NOP at #15. I think one of LA or NO ends up in the lotto... I doubt either team is as good as Minny or Philly in the regular season.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I’d rather have a very good shot at increasing our pick in one year vs a minimal chance in two years.

You really have this backwards. To simplify the scenario for comparison: In a given situation where the Jazz benefit from a swap, they can only benefit from one. We only benefit from one of the swaps in a stacked year no matter how many, so if you own two swaps in one year, you just get one swap. If you have two swaps in two years you get two swaps. For the purposes of this conversation, there's a scenario where the Jazz don't get the Lakers swap in '26 at all so value isn't realized, and even if it does, it nullifies the realized value of another swap. However, if the swap were in '27, then it doesn't nullify any of the value of anything else.

 

[NUMBERICA]

NO can swap their pick for the Lakers... We could add a swap with the Minny pick, the Philly pick, or our pick for the worse of the Lakers or NO pick.

So if the results of the season were exactly as they were this year... we could swap the Philly pick at #23 for the NOP at #15. I think one of LA or NO ends up in the lotto... I doubt either team is as good as Minny or Philly in the regular season.

But do you think they end up in the lotto if we give them a bunch of really good vets? In either case, making it a super swap makes it something where it would otherwise be nothing.

 

[Elizah Huge]

You really have this backwards. To simplify the scenario for comparison: In a given situation where the Jazz benefit from a swap, they can only benefit from one. We only benefit from one of the swaps in a stacked year no matter how many, so if you own two swaps in one year, you just get one swap. If you have two swaps in two years you get two swaps. For the purposes of this conversation, there's a scenario where the Jazz don't get the Lakers swap in '26 at all so value isn't realized, and even if it does, it nullifies the realized value of another swap. However, if the swap were in '27, then it doesn't nullify any of the value of anything else.

I don’t have any of this backwards. I know exactly how swaps work.

Swaps are not guaranteed to work out. I’d rather stack the chances to make it more likely to work out.

I get both sides for sure. I’m not opposed to either way.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I don’t have any of this backwards. I know exactly how swaps work.

Swaps are not guaranteed to work out. I’d rather stack the chances to make it more likely to work out.

I get both sides for sure. I’m not opposed to either way.

I'm just saying that all things equal, there is no gross benefit in getting a swap in '26 rather than '27, rather, there is a net loss in benefit comparatively speaking.

Of course this is multivariate, but given that we don't know outcomes that far out, then flattening the variability makes sense.

But yeah, we're getting in the weeds.

 

[Elizah Huge]

I'm just saying that all things equal, there is no gross benefit in getting a swap in '26 rather than '27, rather, there is a net loss in benefit comparatively speaking.

Of course this is multivariate, but given that we don't know outcomes that far out, then flattening the variability makes sense.

But yeah, we're getting in the weeds.

I mean what if the best pick out of ours plus the swaps we already have in 2026 is like 18 but the Lakers we’re top-5 that year?

 

[Elizah Huge]

Plus in my scenario we are getting their 2027 unprotected 1st. That allows them to trade a pick swap in 2028/2030 plus their 2029 unprotected 1st if they wanted to.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Plus in my scenario we are getting their 2027 unprotected 1st. That allows them to trade a pick swap in 2028/2030 plus their 2029 unprotected 1st if they wanted to.

Then I just might go for '27 unprotected and '29 swap.

 

[Elizah Huge]

Then I just might go for '27 unprotected and '29 swap.

Well of course. I’m just trying to think of a compromise besides ones we’ve discussed already.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

It depends on the pieces going back but I would prefer getting the 28 pick and evening out our pick allocation a bit. It also makes the 27 swap so much more valuable... because we could swap it with 1 of 3 picks.

I'm also comfortable just going back to Phoenix and getting a 24 pick from them for Bogey and selling off the other pieces if LA is digging in. They have so much more riding on this than us.

 

[Elizah Huge]

It depends on the pieces going back but I would prefer getting the 28 pick and evening out our pick allocation a bit. It also makes the 27 swap so much more valuable... because we could swap it with 1 of 3 picks.

I'm also comfortable just going back to Phoenix and getting a 24 pick from them for Bogey and selling off the other pieces if LA is digging in. They have so much more riding on this than us.

I forgot about that angle. That’s actually much more ideal being able to swap it with 3 other picks.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Well of course. I’m just trying to think of a compromise besides ones we’ve discussed already.

Right. The one I just mentioned is one that I hadn't thought of previously and it struck me as in the realm of reasonable for both parties. '26 swap doesn't feel strong enough. I know the Jazz could maybe just send less than our best offer (of players) to balance, but I think both sides should be motivated for our best to be the outgoing package.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I forgot about that angle. That’s actually much more ideal being able to swap it with 3 other picks.

And if we aren't getting two picks... which I understand.... we get to dictate some of the terms.

If that FO runs with Westbrook they are making a huge dumb error... especially if the plan is to land Kyrie the following year. Bron/AD/Kyrie at less than his max (by a lot) plus like 10 minimum guys gonna be a title contender next year?