What's new
By:

We should not have traded NAW

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.
 
HermanG said:
Do you think they paid the right price considering the 3 guys they got?
Click to expand...
I dont. not only did they get 3 guys to help them win now (which they are desperate to do since they dont own their pick) but we also took a huge salary from them and saved then tons of money and took a player off their hands that they didn't want.
And they give 1 protected first that might be 2 seconds? not enough imo
 
fishonjazz said:
I dont. not only did they get 3 guys to help them win now (which they are desperate to do since they dont own their pick) but we also took a huge salary from them and saved then tons of money and took a player off their hands that they didn't want.
And they give 1 protected first that might be 2 seconds? not enough imo
Click to expand...
Why are you saying we saved them tons of money? They didn’t save very much at all and actually added salary for next year.
 
Elizah Huge said:
They gave up the best asset in the deal and a huge expiring contract. I would say they did.
Click to expand...
Russ along with his deal was a problem to them. I dont think he was the only expiring available if that was all we wanted... especially considering the buyout markets we just witnessed.

Also I'm confused... how is a single protected 2027 FRP so valuable that its worth:
  • Expiring 27 yo former all-star PG
  • 23 yo rotational guy with an awesome contract
  • 26 yo shooter (the whole NBA knew they desperately needed shooting)
Are there reference points for similar trades in the past, where one protected FRP gets you that much?
 
We gave up multiple pieces that could have been complimentary pieces with great contracts on a team that competes. The only logic I can muster is that the Jazz don't think it is difficult to find complimentary pieces on the cheap and traded more based upon overall salary cap reasons. I dont think anyone can argue that we got asset value for what we sent out.
 
HermanG said:
Russ along with his deal was a problem to them. I dont think he was the only expiring available if that was all we wanted... especially considering the buyout markets we just witnessed.

Also I'm confused... how is a single protected 2027 FRP so valuable that its worth:
  • Expiring 27 yo former all-star PG
  • 23 yo rotational guy with an awesome contract
  • 26 yo shooter (the whole NBA knew they desperately needed shooting)
Are there reference points for similar trades in the past, where one protected FRP gets you that much?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understand. The Lakers traded the single most valuable asset in the entire deal.

The Celtics have traded terrible firsts in seperate deals for Derrick White and Malcolm Brogdon. Both of which are probably better than any single player the Lakers got. In my opinion at least.
 
Elizah Huge said:
I don’t think you understand. The Lakers traded the single most valuable asset in the entire deal.

The Celtics have traded terrible firsts in seperate deals for Derrick White and Malcolm Brogdon. Both of which are probably better than any single player the Lakers got. In my opinion at least.
Click to expand...
lakers didn't get any single player doe. They got 3 players and dumped a player and salary they didn't want.
 
Beasley is shooting 38.5% from the field and 34.2% from 3 with the Lakers.

Vanderbilt is what he is. He’s averaging like 8/8 in 24 mins.

You guys are acting like we gave up so much. It’s hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top