elpablo21
Supporter
- 106,280
- 195,463
I didn't mention the Hornets. I think the ship has sailed since they were trying to move Hayward with one of their lottery picks before the draft for their own cap purposesI was thinking likemoe200069 . If I am the Lakers why would you take on long-term deals at the deadline that 1 the deadbeat Hornets 2. you are giving up a $47MM expiring in Russ and 3. literally everyone else coming off the books except AD’s $41MM and THT’s $11MM player option. 4. You don’t know what Bron is doing in the future. Haven’t had that type of cap flexibility since the summer of 2016.
I am not trying to be on the “Lakers get everybody” tip but I can’t get down with taking on suspect long-term deals for a play-in appearance or first round exit when you have a chance at supreme flexibility. I do not believe entering another Mozgov and Deng era is the wave (although I surmise you might retort that is where they will end up if they don’t get rid of Russ).
You are honestly doing the team that takes Russ, western conference and the league a favor in the long run if you trade Russ in Feb.
But I was only saying if the Lakers are dead in the water by mid season they could probably have a better time moving Russ without giving up another 1st rounder which was part of
moe200069
's initial post about why would a team take the contract on without the pick attached A team who's in asset merchant mode would gladly take that on for half a season with a pick tax was all my post was about
I agree about it being easier to move him at the deadline if they are down bad. I guess it is a matter of one’s preferred GM approach. While you may not have to give up the pick, unless they are legitimately good deals, I would just eat the rest of the deal myself.
