This is just the author (Byrne -- who I kind of respect) interpreting from the Windhorst report that we all saw yesterday or the day before. It's not "new."
But if it turns out to be true, I'm not doing the LOL Lakers thing on this particular move. They've gotten themselves into this impossible situation, to be sure, but I'm not going to clown them for deciding not to make this particular deal with the Jazz.
They apparently would really like to do three things:
a) keep their cap space clean for next year (to offer Kyrie, presumably, but who knows)
b) get rid of Westbrook and turn him around for pieces that put them into title contention
c) keep their only remaining 2 picks that they can deal (or at least one of them)
It seems impossible to do all three. They might be willing to compromise on one if they can get the other two.
They seem to think that a trade for Turner and Hield would get them closest to the contention goal (but still maybe not even close enough), and Indy doesn't seem to want to/can't play along in a way that doesn't destroy the other two goals.
The Jazz also allow the Lakers to get rid of Westbrook and make their team better. But from all I've heard, they don't believe the Jazz players would do as much as the Turner/Hield trade in terms of making them contenders. And we are also wanting the two picks. The only advantage we have over a theoretical Indy offer is helping them keep their cap space for next year. But we really can't keep this even as clean as they want.
So just keeping Westbrook is the option that allows two of the other goals to be reached.
Unless Lebron gives them an ultimatum, I think they'll keep Westbrook. It might be fun to watch another year of dysfunction in LA, but I can't disagree with their choice if that's what they do.