What's new
By:

We should not have traded NAW

NUMBERICA said:
Or contract(s) absorbed (and maybe assets with that).

I personally would find it just dandy to absorb Lonzo Ball since the Jazz could be a mile under the salary floor and he is pretty damn good at winning basketball since he seems to be most of the difference between them looking like dark horse contenders and absolute rubbish.
Click to expand...
This is the deal we need to make. If he's dead, then he's dead.
 
infection said:
This is the deal we need to make. If he's dead, then he's dead.
Click to expand...
I’ve read that the insurance policy for him doesn’t pay out if he’s traded and it’s found out that this is career ending though, that’s going to be a tough pill to swallow
 
David Stern said:
I’ve read that the insurance policy for him doesn’t pay out if he’s traded and it’s found out that this is career ending though, that’s going to be a tough pill to swallow
Click to expand...
I believe he’s expiring next year (the contract).
 
I dont get why people say we gave up 3 starters. Two of the three were not starters in a .500 Jazz team and only reason they became starters in a Lakers team is because Lakers were absolute trash behind Lebron and AD evidenced by their record at the time of the trade. They likely had the worst record ever held by a team with 2 superstars playing at a superstar level.

So far that dynamic duo has played 10 games with the Lakers averaging 24 minutes (Vando) and 26 minutes (Beasley):
Vando has 7.7 PPG / 8.2 RPG with team 9th 0.2 BPM (negative BPM in 6/10 games despite Lakers being 7-3 during that stretch).
Beasley has 12.2 PPG with 11.7 FGA and 38/34/62 splits

Vando is also defended by no one which enables him to produce more than he should (both points and boards). Lakers can handle that since AD and Lebron can beat double teams and both have the awareness and ability to pass the ball to Vando when he sneaks in through the backdoor. But literally anyone can do what Vando does offensively for them... so him being useful is more about his effort and ok defense.

Imagine those two guys being upgrades to your team...
 
HermanG said:
I dont get why people say we gave up 3 starters. Two of the three were not starters in a .500 Jazz team and only reason they became starters in a Lakers team is because Lakers were absolute trash behind Lebron and AD evidenced by their record at the time of the trade. They likely had the worst record ever held by a team with 2 superstars playing at a superstar level.

So far that dynamic duo has played 10 games with the Lakers averaging 24 minutes (Vando) and 26 minutes (Beasley):
Vando has 7.7 PPG / 8.2 RPG with team 9th 0.2 BPM (negative BPM in 6/10 games despite Lakers being 7-3 during that stretch).
Beasley has 12.2 PPG with 11.7 FGA and 38/34/62 splits

Vando is also defended by no one which enables him to produce more than he should (both points and boards). Lakers can handle that since AD and Lebron can beat double teams and both have the awareness and ability to pass the ball to Vando when he sneaks in through the backdoor. But literally anyone can do what Vando does offensively for them... so him being useful is more about his effort and ok defense.

Imagine those two guys being upgrades to your team...
Click to expand...
Yeah. This is exactly why I had no problem with trading these dudes. My problem was with not getting anything (short term) useful back. That was the real tanking move.
 
Tremendous Upside said:
Yeah. This is exactly why I had no problem with trading these dudes. My problem was with not getting anything (short term) useful back. That was the real tanking move.
Click to expand...
I also dont like that fact that we were the ones who compensated the Wolves for upgrading Conley to DLo which benefited the Lakers only..

If I went full tank theorist here I would say DA wanted to be on the losing end of this deal because tanking was the true goal and he acted as a shadow GM to improve the Lakers... while also improving his own reputation as a guy who is not winning every deal he makes. But that sounds crazy conspiracy stuff and its hardly something you can accurately calculate.
 
fishonjazz said:
So like i said, Minnesota gave us nothing.
I agree that they helped facilitate the trade. They gave up nothing to the jazz though.
Click to expand...
This is how three-way deals often work, though. They gave up value in the trade, after all.
 
HermanG said:
I also dont like that fact that we were the ones who compensated the Wolves for upgrading Conley to DLo which benefited the Lakers only..

If I went full tank theorist here I would say DA wanted to be on the losing end of this deal because tanking was the true goal and he acted as a shadow GM to improve the Lakers... while also improving his own reputation as a guy who is not winning every deal he makes. But that sounds crazy conspiracy stuff and its hardly something you can accurately calculate.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t upgrading it was downgrading. Russell had more value in the deal.
 
Tremendous Upside said:
Yeah. This is exactly why I had no problem with trading these dudes. My problem was with not getting anything (short term) useful back. That was the real tanking move.
Click to expand...
This.
I too had no problem trading those dudes. But we got garbage back for them. It was a crap trade but i get it. The whole point was that we lose games and improve our pick. That is what will hopefully turn that total crap trade into a good trade in the end.
 
HermanG said:
I also dont like that fact that we were the ones who compensated the Wolves for upgrading Conley to DLo which benefited the Lakers only..

If I went full tank theorist here I would say DA wanted to be on the losing end of this deal because tanking was the true goal and he acted as a shadow GM to improve the Lakers... while also improving his own reputation as a guy who is not winning every deal he makes. But that sounds crazy conspiracy stuff and its hardly something you can accurately calculate.
Click to expand...
I think your tank theorist thought is exactly what happened here. Only thing that makes sense. Only way the trade is any good for us is if our pick this year ends up being way better due to the crap trade. Which it is looking like it will be.
 
HermanG said:
Yeah you read me wrong there. I meant Wolves upgraded the package going to LA but we were the ones who paid for that upgrade instead of the Lakers.
Click to expand...
How? The Lakers gave us the single best asset in the trade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top