05-23-2023, 08:50 AM
(05-23-2023, 07:25 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I was working hard to maximize money for Kyrie using the 110% rule and missed the most simple version of all of this (which is where Zach Lowe went in his podcast). The simplest version of this is LA letting its NG contracts go (Beasley and Bamba) and trading Vanderbilt, #17 and 2029 for Kyrie at about $34mm. That gets Dallas the largest possible TPE a replenishment of its 2029 pick and a DFS replacement. We aren't getting a Dinwiddie replacement in this, but the TPE (or the $20mm in cap room we'd have) and #17 allows you to pursue what you want.
LA would operate as a room team, could keep the $2mm cap hold on Reaves and would have the Room MLE. Retaining Rui isn't possible in this scenario. So, their team would be Davis, LeBron, R-MLE, Reaves and Irving and everyone else would be minimums. Doesn't seem smart to me, but Le-GM hasn't always made the smartest long term decisions.
Assume all the required disclosures again. Correct, this doesn't make us better. Yeah, the report said we already have a deal. Yeah, Kyrie isn't taking $34mm. The question, if he really wants to leave, is whether Dallas would want the stripped down version of this or some of LA's stuff. For instance, Rui could S&T into this eating up some of the TPE. Would you split $30mm between Rui and someone else or just keep the $30mm TPE and go shopping? The deal can't be done until July, and picks would already be made. So Dallas (or a third team) would need to like the pick made at 17 (or the pick Dallas made at 10). The TPE would allow you to bring back someone without forcing matching salaries on the other team...Collins, Herro, maybe Draymond. With 10/17/2027 and 2029 (LA), you are also back in the game for OG or any of the big name guys out there.
Teams (and most of us) tend to knee-jerk away from actions that recently hurt us.
That's why I think the Lakers will spend whatever it takes to retain Reaves. The pain of the Caruso decision is still high.
A year ago, they also went all-in on the three-star approach to roster building. They traded for Westbrook and gutted their roster of mid-level, complementary pieces. It was a disaster.
Fortunately for them, they were able to reverse course and trade Westbrook for some mid-level pieces. Of course, they also had to empty their draft cupboard and much future flexibility. But the approach worked, at least more than the three-star formula had.
It's hard for me to imagine them going back to the three-star pathway. Recency bias.
Now, trading away AD for another, more reliable star? Maybe. He's a little like KP. A star-level performer when healthy, but you just never know when he'll be hurt for a couple of months.