What's new
By:

Beverley to Lakers for THT and Stanley Johnson

The entire problem with this deal is his player option.

He doesn’t improve much and we’re paying 11M for someone who we traded an expiring contract for.

He improves a lot and opts out to get a new contract. He then has the option to go somewhere else.
 
I have more thoughts than I have time but there can’t be any discussion of Stanley Johnson being anything of value in the trade as he was a guy floating around there on 10-days that many people here suggested we sign when we weren’t doing anything. I won’t dispute what he can or can’t do as that’s beyond the point. The point is if we thought he had value, why hadn’t we tendered any offers during the season when we, you know, needed a guy like that? They don’t get to play both sides of the fence on this one.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Its just wild to me that people think I got a tinfoil hat for laying out a situation where two parties got together and discussed a much bigger deal that isn't possible right now... so to show real interest and intent they did part of a deal and will hopefully complete the rest of the deal later... but if not both parties are satisfied with the part of the deal they did.

If this is a deal they liked they could do it in a month... why do it while talking with NY on Don? Why burn a contract on a guy you could use in a Don deal to another team... Cleveland for example was a team that had Bev interest and has registered Don interest. Why now when you aren't getting a pick of any sort?
Click to expand...
So not a down payment.

I must be missing something because if they did a deal they both like regardless of future dealings with each other, that sounds like a symbiotic deal that is separate from anything else.
 
Elizah Huge said:
The entire problem with this deal is his player option.

He doesn’t improve much and we’re paying 11M for someone who we traded an expiring contract for.

He improves a lot and opts out to get a new contract. He then has the option to go somewhere else.
Click to expand...
And we could've been the somewhere else and done something different right now instead. I have no doubts he simply signs to the highest bidder but I'm not sure he's gonna get bigger than the MLE again.
 
infection said:
I have more thoughts than I have time but there can’t be any discussion of Stanley Johnson being anything of value in the trade as he was a guy floating around there on 10-days that many people here suggested we sign when we weren’t doing anything. I won’t dispute what he can or can’t do as that’s beyond the point. The point is if we thought he had value, why hadn’t we tendered any offers during the season when we, you know, needed a guy like that? They don’t get to play both sides of the fence on this one.
Click to expand...

He literally was only included because it wouldn’t have worked one for one lol.
 
Why did Utah do this deal NOW and without maximizing draft assets?

It's ****ing obvious.

The Jazz dont know for certain when a Russ deal will get done with a different team, so they want to make sure they could get THT before the Lakers dealt him to someone else as part of the Russ trade. To do that they paid a little more than most would think they should have to (hence no 2nd round picks).
 
It's a down payment or Ainge has Justice Winslow-goggles on for THT. He was ****ing abysmal last year and his contract (keeping him over Caruso) was always a play at him getting better than he was. I wish I could be that optimistic but man I do NOT see it at all.
 
Like what potential Lakers/Jazz trade is not possible right now that would require a "down payment"? Am I missing something very obvious?
 
NUMBERICA said:
He was gonna be gone. I don't think that's really in question by anyone. Jazz had no reason to keep him, the issue is that what the Jazz facilitated for the Lakers (the best player in the deal, the exact type of player they need, AND a salary dump) vastly outweighs what the Jazz got for a rebuild. We took Stanley Johnson so the Lakers saved that much more money on the deal, but sure, maybe he's finally turned a corner. Not a great bet. Maybe a guy who just had his worst season at year 3 (and immediately after he got paid) and has an awful contract (UFA when it's convenient for him while on a tanking team) is... what? That's what I'm hung up on. I don't get the upside. He plays well and leaves or he sucks and the Jazz just spent $22 million in opportunity cost. Furthermore, his contract structure and general range of basketball value makes his Bird Rights not very useful, so even if he plays well, I'm not sure what he nets in a mid-season trade.
Click to expand...
He shoots 27% from three... only thing more off than his shot is his hairline.
 
Do the "Down payment" people think the Lakers threatened to take another deal unless we gave them Beverly now?

It's an absurd thought.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Like what potential Lakers/Jazz trade is not possible right now that would require a "down payment"? Am I missing something very obvious?
Click to expand...

Elizah Huge said:
You can’t aggregate players from the Timberwolves trade until September 6th.
Click to expand...
I mean I explained it in great detail... but yeah the Twolves thing is part of it.

Bogey/Beasley/Reddish is the deal that hinges on Sept. 6 and also requires we get the Don trade done. Gives them cap savings, flexibility, 3 role players they have had rumored interest in... preserves their ability to get Kyrie. Maybe its only one first so its light but its a high quality first. Sub in Vando and they get two firsts.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
So again, why did we do the Beverly trade now? Why not just wait til September 6th?
Click to expand...

Saint Cy of JFC said:
Do the "Down payment" people think the Lakers threatened to take another deal unless we gave them Beverly now?

It's an absurd thought.
Click to expand...

Not threatened per se but more than likely didn’t want Ainge doing something different in the meantime. Two weeks is a long time for the god Ainge to mix things up.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Do the "Down payment" people think the Lakers threatened to take another deal unless we gave them Beverly now?

It's an absurd thought.
Click to expand...
Do you mean like maybe they were going to do the rumored Indiana deal that has been talked about A LOT... or maybe they were going to do a straight up Turner for THT/Johnson and a first deal?

I've explained it enough... can't wait until we do the Westbrook deal and every idiot here tells me those the deals weren't related.
 
Elizah Huge said:
He literally was only included because it wouldn’t have worked one for one lol.
Click to expand...
I know that. I’m disputing anyone saying he can be viewed as a returning piece in this trade. If we didn’t value him when he was free (and when we could have actually used him), we don’t get to pretend we see him as returning value.
 
infection said:
I know that. I’m disputing anyone saying he can be viewed as a returning piece in this trade. If we didn’t value him when he was free (and when we could have actually used him), we don’t get to pretend we see him as returning value.
Click to expand...
I know that you knew that I was merely highlighting it because obviously some didn’t know that lol.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
So not a down payment.

I must be missing something because if they did a deal they both like regardless of future dealings with each other, that sounds like a symbiotic deal that is separate from anything else.
Click to expand...
Its a non-refundable deposit. You literally get pissy about me LoPo ing you by taking one paragraph of a post and you isolate one line and consider it the whole post... sure man.
 
Elizah Huge said:
Not threatened per se but more than likely didn’t want Ainge doing something different in the meantime. Two weeks is a long time for the god Ainge to mix things up.
Click to expand...
And now Ainge just trust the good faith of the Lakers to uphold whatever the other end of this "down payment" is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top