Kawhi has asked for a trade to the Lakers....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinDavis1022

Understood. I don't see them getting rid of Lonzo, but if it gets them Lebron or Kawhi, he'll be on the first thing smoking. Devil's advocate though.
..would you give Lonzo a chance here?

---

Yes. For a few a reasons...

For all the hype there’s a ball player in there. Lonzo is a big, pass first, defensively-capable PG. He can’t shoot, he’s not particularly athletic, but he can play and the recipe for any Anthony Davis-led team will be to get that guy the ball anyway you can. We are tough to beat when we can get him the ball.

Second, Lavar would keep this team relevant and accountable. As crazy as that sounds. Only a real basketball operation can handle his type of petty grievances and attention seeking. Can’t handle your business? Loud mouth Lavar will be all over the airways blabbering his mouth with varying hints of truths. I’ve questioned our basketball operations organization in the past and I am hell bent on our having a top notch front office. Means be damned.

He won’t be coming alone. If Lonzo ends up in NOLA then that means something absurd happened that likely involved any two of him Kuzma or Ingram. Sign me up for that.

Davis
Holiday
Mirotic
Kuzma or Ingram
Ball

It’s not title worthy now but 2-3 years of seasoning (and NBA attrition) and you could be looking at something special with Davis, Holiday and Niko smack dab in their primes and Kuzma or Ingram and Ball playing specific roles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Celtics would be the best destination for him. Trade brown, rozier, morris and monroe for leonard. Works in trade machine and spurs save 2 million. Monroe should be able to be waived. Rosier and brown good young guys and morris is a good bench contributor behind LA. Celts get the star they are looking for to take the next step.

Lakers type trade would be frye (7.5 mil), ingram, ennis and hart with pick for leonard. Works in trade machine and spurs save 3 million. Frye is on one year deal. Ennis and hart possible developmental players for pop and ingram is the replacement. Still like the celts option first.

Think spurs and pop prefer him in the east as well. Celts should easily win east and could challenge warriors with irving, taytum, hayward, leonard, horford lineup. Would have to add to bench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Nail

Then it gets back to HOW can the Lakers TRADE for KL? Spurs probably don't want Ball, but he is like a 3rd plus first in the deal that they can move

---

Lonzo isn't what breaks the Spurs trade. It's sending lonzo AND Hill while we trade Ingram. Why wouldn't they just take him themselves and not settle for a sucky player?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Lonzo isn't what breaks the Spurs trade. It's sending lonzo AND Hill while we trade Ingram. Why wouldn't they just take him themselves and not settle for a sucky player?

---

So you are saying what? Ingram, Frye and Ball for KL Yeah, that would work but w/o the 2 firsts, LA might as well try another route. Even though Frye is expiring. Granted, Solo is no bargain, but he is a usable piece. SA has no SF if Gay ops out. You know what amazes me Mythrol, you seem to be sure you know how teams and operations think. If I'm in control of the money and value of player service and opportunity for SA, I HAVE TO GIVE SERIOUS consideration to 2 firsts, and a player that I can trade for a 3rd first and maybe 2nd plus a usable, if only off the bench guy, and a 8 mill per cap reduction. You however apparently feel otherwise. So be it. But I guess I am curious as to your resume that makes you not only have what you believe to have a better plan, but also the apparent ability to KNOW the operation of the minds of the SA decision makers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Nail

So you are saying what? Ingram, Frye and Ball for KL Yeah, that would work but w/o the 2 firsts, LA might as well try another route. Even though Frye is expiring. Granted, Solo is no bargain, but he is a usable piece. SA has no SF if Gay ops out. You know what amazes me Mythrol, you seem to be sure you know how teams and operations think. If I'm in control of the money and value of player service and opportunity for SA, I HAVE TO GIVE SERIOUS consideration to 2 firsts, and a player that I can trade for a 3rd first and maybe 2nd plus a usable, if only off the bench guy, and a 8 mill per cap reduction. You however apparently feel otherwise. So be it. But I guess I am curious as to your resume that makes you not only have what you believe to have a better plan, but also the apparent ability to KNOW the operation of the minds of the SA decision makers.

---

No that's not what I'm saying. My point was San Antonio isn't going to do Lonzo + Hill and late 1sts for Leonard. I don't know if the Lakers can make a package that San Antonio would accept but I do know Lonzo + Hill wouldn't be that package. Lol.

It has nothing to do with me knowing how teams operate and think and everything to do with looking at the History of trades with Superstars and seeing that's not how trading a Superstar works. The team trading the superstar gets back usually *high* 1st or star young talent and most of the time a combination of both. They don't accept late 1sts AND a BAD contract with one mediocre young player that has baggage. Paul George, Kyrie, Kevin Love, Chris Paul, look at the list of guys who asked to be traded and what they got traded for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

No that's not what I'm saying. My point was San Antonio isn't going to do Lonzo + Hill and late 1sts for Leonard. I don't know if the Lakers can make a package that San Antonio would accept but I do know Lonzo + Hill wouldn't be that package. Lol.

It has nothing to do with me knowing how teams operate and think and everything to do with looking at the History of trades with Superstars and seeing that's not how trading a Superstar works. The team trading the superstar gets back usually *high* 1st or star young talent and most of the time a combination of both. They don't accept late 1sts AND a BAD contract with one mediocre young player that has baggage. Paul George, Kyrie, Kevin Love, Chris Paul, look at the list of guys who asked to be traded and what they got traded for.

---

Nice dance, but you still don't know, you ASSuME you do, but you don't. Happy Father's Day to you friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Nail

Nice dance, but you still don't know, you ASSuME you do, but you don't. Happy Father's Day to you friend.

---

Again. It's based off the history of what we have seen from trades when Superstars demand to be moved. I even run off a list of names of recent players in similar circumstances demanding to be traded as evidence of why I think this way. This isn't just spitting into the wind. I didn't just go to ESPN trade machine and play around until I got something that said it works.

See I don't have a problem with people suggesting trade ideas, what I have a problem with is suggesting a trade idea then when someone disagrees trying to paint that person in some bad light because they disagree. I've made it very clear why I think the trade you suggested wouldn't happen and it's not because I'm saying, "I know it all and you're wrong." I have very clear reasons why I think it wouldn't happen:

1) Lonzo Ball doesn't provide enough incentive to SA on his own to be worth it considering his baggage.
2) Solomon Hill is a negative asset and teams that trade Superstars rarely take back negative assets especially when they aren't getting a star or a high pick back in the return.
3) There is a history of recent trades of Superstars asking to be moved that we can look back on and get an idea of their value and the trade you suggested doesn't match up with it.

I'll add a 4th as well: There are teams in a better position with more assets than the Pelicans who can add better pieces to be the 3rd team in any trade trying to be worked.
For example, from our very own team why wouldn't the Spurs demand Niko instead of Hill? Your own logic said they want Hill because if Gay leaves they have no SF. Who do we have if Hill leaves and why does that same logic not apply to us? Why would the Spurs not just want Ingram and Frye that they can move easier later and if we were willing to trade 2 1st now for that package why wouldn't they see what they could get later from that same deal while also not strapping themselves long term with bad money?

But you have no answer to my reasoning so instead you're trying to paint me into some negative light and that's not the case at all. I have a well thought out position that I back up not only with opinion but evidence to support the position I take. If you cannot handle someone disagreeing with your trade proposal then I suggest not posting it on a forum which is built around discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Again. It's based off the history of what we have seen from trades when Superstars demand to be moved. I even run off a list of names of recent players in similar circumstances demanding to be traded as evidence of why I think this way. This isn't just spitting into the wind. I didn't just go to ESPN trade machine and play around until I got something that said it works.

See I don't have a problem with people suggesting trade ideas, what I have a problem with is suggesting a trade idea then when someone disagrees trying to paint that person in some bad light because they disagree. I've made it very clear why I think the trade you suggested wouldn't happen and it's not because I'm saying, "I know it all and you're wrong." I have very clear reasons why I think it wouldn't happen:

1) Lonzo Ball doesn't provide enough incentive to SA on his own to be worth it considering his baggage.
2) Solomon Hill is a negative asset and teams that trade Superstars rarely take back negative assets especially when they aren't getting a star or a high pick back in the return.
3) There is a history of recent trades of Superstars asking to be moved that we can look back on and get an idea of their value and the trade you suggested doesn't match up with it.

I'll add a 4th as well: There are teams in a better position with more assets than the Pelicans who can add better pieces to be the 3rd team in any trade trying to be worked.
For example, from our very own team why wouldn't the Spurs demand Niko instead of Hill? Your own logic said they want Hill because if Gay leaves they have no SF. Who do we have if Hill leaves and why does that same logic not apply to us? Why would the Spurs not just want Ingram and Frye that they can move easier later and if we were willing to trade 2 1st now for that package why wouldn't they see what they could get later from that same deal while also not strapping themselves long term with bad money?

But you have no answer to my reasoning so instead you're trying to paint me into some negative light and that's not the case at all. I have a well thought out position that I back up not only with opinion but evidence to support the position I take. If you cannot handle someone disagreeing with your trade proposal then I suggest not posting it on a forum which is built around discussion.

---

My problem with your reasoning, that you claim I have no answer to, is that this wasn't about a trade idea at all. You just assumed it was. I was just asking a question as to how it was even possible for the Lakers to get KL w/o losing all of their young pieces. Clearly stated that w/o something like Frye or Deng attached would require a third party. Perhaps someone, maybe even all knowing you, could help me see how this was possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Nail

My problem with your reasoning, that you claim I have no answer to, is that this wasn't about a trade idea at all. You just assumed it was.

---

Um.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Nail

I'd give up a first for this, the Lakers give up one, and they only loose two of their nice contracts. Also, because of the way SA is structured they might bite.

Attachment 6337

---

Yeah where would I have gotten the idea it was a trade idea from......

It's not your first post is literally suggesting a trade from trade machine and then you spend multiple posts afterwards defending it like it was a trade before finally claiming it wasn't a trade suggestion at all.


If you are simply asking the question, "Does this trade fit one that the Spurs would make while allowing us to be the 3rd team?" then my answer is no, I don't think so and we can both move on from this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

See I don't have a problem with people suggesting trade ideas, what I have a problem with is suggesting a trade idea then when someone disagrees trying to paint that person in some bad light because they disagree. I've made it very clear why I think the trade you suggested wouldn't happen and it's not because I'm saying, "I know it all and you're wrong."

---

Mythrol. My dude. I like your knowledge. But sometimes you do come in a bit strong. This paragraph was nice and I think if it were always worded like this, well, you'd probably get very bored because your logic is usually sound so no one would debate with you. I have seen you use a lot of absolutes and it often comes across like said trade would never happen as opposed to it being more you opinion that it is unlikely. That's why people get butt hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSU-Sousaphone

Mythrol. My dude. I like your knowledge. But sometimes you do come in a bit strong. This paragraph was nice and I think if it were always worded like this, well, you'd probably get very bored because your logic is usually sound so no one would debate with you. I have seen you use a lot of absolutes and it often comes across like said trade would never happen as opposed to it being more you opinion that it is unlikely. That's why people get butt hurt.

---

That was very nice of you and I thank you. I will take what you said into consideration moving forward to the best of my abilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

That was very nice of you and I thank you. I will take what you said into consideration moving forward to the best of my abilities.

---

Man, just be yourself! Your almost always a good read, I can't say that about everyone.

I would never do these trades - although I've suggested the latter before - but I still find them interesting:

Jrue plus '19 unprotected (and perhaps '21) for Kawhi.

Sign and trade Boogie for Stayward and Morris.

Rondo
Hayward
Kawhi
Niko
Davis

I think we may shock everyone and play with our current but healthy roster.

On the radio they were talking about fultz for a second. I like that.

If we move pieces to get better on the wing they must include 2 of hill, Ajinca and boogie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boardtown

I would never do these trades - although I've suggested the latter before - but I still find them interesting:

Jrue plus '19 unprotected (and perhaps '21) for Kawhi.

Sign and trade Boogie for Stayward and Morris.

Rondo
Hayward
Kawhi
Niko
Davis

---

If Kwahi was locked into a longer term deal then I'd ship out anyone not named AD for him and be happy. The problem is I think he's made it clear he wants to go to LA and I'd be very cautious about giving up too much for him as a 1 year rental. The way Jrue played last year basically made him invaluable to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wnelson

I think we may shock everyone and play with our current but healthy roster.

On the radio they were talking about fultz for a second. I like that.

If we move pieces to get better on the wing they must include 2 of hill, Ajinca and boogie.

---

I wouldn't be shocked if we struck out on all the big free agents and instead went into this season with only a couple smaller moves and basically the exact same team. I think we will swing for the fences on all wings available but even if we all think the Pelicans are a great fit for LBJ, PG, or Kwahi we still have very low odds of getting any.

I mean if you think about it, we made it to the 2nd round and won a game against GS and were missing our 2nd superstar and Hill was only a shell of his healthy self. Add Cousins back, add healthy Hill, healthy Frank Jackson, more development from Diallo and I think that's still a pretty darn good team. If Jackson ends up being a hit in his rookie year then we are looking pretty good.

I think it's clear to everyone we really need to try and get a wing who can hit a 3 and not be terrible on defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wnelson

On the radio they were talking about fultz for a second. I like that.

---

Who was talking about that? There is no way Philly gives up on him already (especially for a 2nd).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Who was talking about that? There is no way Philly gives up on him already (especially for a 2nd).

---

Yeah that doesn't make any sense that Philly gave up a 1st rounder and used the number 1 pick on him only to trade him for a second. One of the worst proposals I've ever heard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

If Kwahi was locked into a longer term deal then I'd ship out anyone not named AD for him and be happy. The problem is I think he's made it clear he wants to go to LA and I'd be very cautious about giving up too much for him as a 1 year rental. The way Jrue played last year basically made him invaluable to us.



I wouldn't be shocked if we struck out on all the big free agents and instead went into this season with only a couple smaller moves and basically the exact same team. I think we will swing for the fences on all wings available but even if we all think the Pelicans are a great fit for LBJ, PG, or Kwahi we still have very low odds of getting any.

I mean if you think about it, we made it to the 2nd round and won a game against GS and were missing our 2nd superstar and Hill was only a shell of his healthy self. Add Cousins back, add healthy Hill, healthy Frank Jackson, more development from Diallo and I think that's still a pretty darn good team. If Jackson ends up being a hit in his rookie year then we are looking pretty good.

I think it's clear to everyone we really need to try and get a wing who can hit a 3 and not be terrible on defense.

---

Just curious, I haven't really seen him play, but if all else fails, what about Jae Crowder?

I know hes talked about as a 3&d wing, and probably wouldnt cost much to trade for

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soggymoss

Just curious, I haven't really seen him play, but if all else fails, what about Jae Crowder?

I know hes talked about as a 3&d wing, and probably wouldnt cost much to trade for

---

So you want to give up a 1st for Crowder? Not worth it but I do like Crowder. Big upgrade on Solo. Utah have no reason to trade him for cheap so you have to pay overs = not worth it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soggymoss

Just curious, I haven't really seen him play, but if all else fails, what about Jae Crowder?

I know hes talked about as a 3&d wing, and probably wouldnt cost much to trade for

---

I've been pretty high on Crowder for awhile. Truth is though Hill's last season here was pretty similar to Crowder's, Jae just had the green light to take a few more 3s. I think part of Jae's mystic is the contract he is on which becomes less relevant as he nears the end of it. Player wise he isn't a huge needle mover. He's average but just happens to play an extremely thin position in the NBA.

I'm not sure I'd make a move for him at this point unless it didn't cost much. I'd rather focus on pooling what small assets we have to try and get a needle mover.

Crowder isn’t just a wing though, he is a 4 or 5 when you want to play small. Honestly he is one of the best contracts in the NBA. He is a total glue guy, doing nothing amazing, but doing a lot of things incredibly well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

Crowder isn’t just a wing though, he is a 4 or 5 when you want to play small. Honestly he is one of the best contracts in the NBA. He is a total glue guy, doing nothing amazing, but doing a lot of things incredibly well.

---

Yeah I could see that. Similar to how Hill is best at the 4 position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusPel

So you want to give up a 1st for Crowder? Not worth it but I do like Crowder. Big upgrade on Solo. Utah have no reason to trade him for cheap so you have to pay overs = not worth it

---

Not a 1st, but if they would take say Hill and Moore plus a 2nd for Crowder and Burcs, I think that maybe something they might ponder.. Gives them an upgrade to Burkes on a good contract coming off the bench

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusPel

So you want to give up a 1st for Crowder? Not worth it but I do like Crowder. Big upgrade on Solo. Utah have no reason to trade him for cheap so you have to pay overs = not worth it

---

Where was a 1st mentioned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSU-Sousaphone

Mythrol. My dude. I like your knowledge. But sometimes you do come in a bit strong. This paragraph was nice and I think if it were always worded like this, well, you'd probably get very bored because your logic is usually sound so no one would debate with you. I have seen you use a lot of absolutes and it often comes across like said trade would never happen as opposed to it being more you opinion that it is unlikely. That's why people get butt hurt.

---

:idoh::saywhat::smoker: Just because someone says they are offended,it doesnt make them right. Not even if they yell it real loud. Myth is Myth ! :nerves::happy2: