Lakers-Jazz Trade
- Thread starter Jazz Fusion
- Start date
I don't know if you guys have listened to Trevor Lane on the Lakers Nation podcast (he's also a co-host with Keith Smith on the NBA Front Office podcast).
His theory is the Lakers aren't going to make a trade now. If they need to later, they'll still have Westbook's contract and the two picks to play with. But more important, at the draft next year they'll have three draft picks (their 2023 [Pelicans have swap rights], 2027 and 2029), about $30 million in cap space, plus they won't be weighed down by Westbook's contract anymore.
If they can pull it off (without a Lebron/fan revolt), I think this makes some sense, if indeed this is what they have in mind.
His theory is the Lakers aren't going to make a trade now. If they need to later, they'll still have Westbook's contract and the two picks to play with. But more important, at the draft next year they'll have three draft picks (their 2023 [Pelicans have swap rights], 2027 and 2029), about $30 million in cap space, plus they won't be weighed down by Westbook's contract anymore.
If they can pull it off (without a Lebron/fan revolt), I think this makes some sense, if indeed this is what they have in mind.
Either way we win.
We either get their pick/picks or they run out RW again and they waste one of Brons’s last years.
I’m of the opinion Bron isn’t ok with that and Russ is moved but fine either way.
I prefer to see the Lakers lose, but I wouldn't really take them standing pat as a "win" for us over making a trade that is useful for us. But maybe that's what we end up with.
mongoose01
Well-Known Member
Westbrooks contract isn’t an asset especially if all they are willing to accept are expiring contracts. Lakers are dumb as sh**
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think anyone's saying it's a pure asset. But it's their only mechanism now (except for the untouchable Lebron and AD) to bring back substantial talent.
That's why I'm pushing '26/'27/'29 super duper swaps and 2nds: they basically keep everything you just mentioned (except having '28 and '30 outright instead).
Well since we can’t force a trade and I don’t think they care much for what we think, if they don’t do it I will happily watch them suck again by making the wrong decision….
In 25/27/29 we can swap our pick or Minnesota’s/Cleveland’s pick with theirs.
I don't think there's a universal nomenclature for these things, but the gist is that team B swaps their pick with any of the picks that team A owns/is owed that year.
Say in '27 we have one of these from the Lakers, that could mean that the Lakers would take the worst pick of the Jazz's, Cavs', and Wolves' and the Jazz would receive the Lakers pick (assuming that the Lakers pick is not the lowest of the 4 teams).
Say that prior to conveyance, the Jazz's pick is #10, Cavs' is #25 (owned by Jazz, swappable), Wolves' is #15 (owned by Jazz, swappable), and Lakers are #5. If this were a straight swap, the Jazz would give the #10 and receive #5, but with this scenario, the Jazz send #25 instead and get to keep #10.
You can do all kinds of crazy conditions with trades, but that's the general idea. And with the Jazz having all those picks in '27 and '29, something like this could be really useful in juicing the overall value of those picks.
I know I'm a little wild-eyed about this ****, but it gives the Jazz the premium potential that comes with outright owning '27 and '29 while the Lakers keep their '28 and 30' picks tradable. The Jazz get all the extra stuff like "super" designation, another in '26, and 2nds in order to both lower the odds of a scenario in which the Lakers don't actually have to convey anything in the 1st round (in case they are good during those periods) and compensates for the risk of that outcome.
Last edited:
You did a better job lol
The verbiage on it would likely be they get the lesser of the 4 total picks in that year.