What's new
By:

Lakers-Jazz Trade

Elizah Huge said:
I’d rather have a very good shot at increasing our pick in one year vs a minimal chance in two years.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NUMBERICA said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Elizah Huge said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NUMBERICA said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
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.
Click to expand...

I forgot about that angle. That’s actually much more ideal being able to swap it with 3 other picks.
 
Elizah Huge said:
Well of course. I’m just trying to think of a compromise besides ones we’ve discussed already.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Elizah Huge said:
I forgot about that angle. That’s actually much more ideal being able to swap it with 3 other picks.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top