Trade offers for Darius Garland?

[jbk1234]

This is bizarre because when I mentioned this as being the obvious play you absolutely killed me for it. Like 3 days ago or something lol.

I'm talking about Klutch's motivations here, not the Cavs.

Yeah and I don't think Lebron wants to go back to Cleveland, I think their motivations here are strictly about Garland. And of course I think Cleveland should be thrilled if they could swap the two (I know you feel strongly the other way and I'm certainly not trying to talk you into something you hate).

But an agency has to be loyal to each client, not just Lebron. And I don't think they are trying to manipulate Garland to accommodate Lebron. I'd have it much more likely if they were trying to steer him to LA, they would be doing so for him to help Lebron/AD.

If LBJ doesn't want to go Cleveland, he won't go, but he didn't show up courtside to Game 4, watch the Cavs barely lose to the Celtics without Allen or Mitchell, and walk away without any thoughts.

[Euphonetiks]

I haven’t posted or even visited RealGM in several years, but I got bored tonight and curious about the viewpoint of other fan bases, since I spend most of my time on a Cavs centered forum these days. However, this post caught my eye enough for me to login and reply.

The Pelicans have been heavily chasing after Allen for a while. I’m not sure if the Cavs will call New Orlean’s back to rediscuss the Pels offer this offseason, but if so, I think you may be surprised at the value NO has on Allen.

Pels heavily chased Allen by offering Jonas’ expiring and picks, not Herb or Trey or Zion or Ingram. You think I may be surprised at the value of Allen and I think you may be surprised at the value of Ingram.

Yes to expiring and picks but no to Jonas being the headliner. We’ll see if the Cavs change their mind now or if a different deal pops up instead, but they weren’t interested at the time.

Not sure what else to even say on it. I didn’t decide to post for the first time in years without being aware of what I was talking about.

If you’re going to insinuate you’re an insider, don’t be coy. Name the Pels trade offer you heard.

[Hoops23]

I doubt Mitchell will sign an extension, so I doubt the Cavs trade Garland.

[mcfly1204]

I'm talking about Klutch's motivations here, not the Cavs.

Yeah and I don't think Lebron wants to go back to Cleveland, I think their motivations here are strictly about Garland. And of course I think Cleveland should be thrilled if they could swap the two (I know you feel strongly the other way and I'm certainly not trying to talk you into something you hate).

But an agency has to be loyal to each client, not just Lebron. And I don't think they are trying to manipulate Garland to accommodate Lebron. I'd have it much more likely if they were trying to steer him to LA, they would be doing so for him to help Lebron/AD.

If LBJ doesn't want to go Cleveland, he won't go, but he didn't show up courtside to Game 4, watch the Cavs barely lose to the Celtics without Allen or Mitchell, and walk away without any thoughts.

As much as I don't want to think about it, it's an interesting thought. It doesn't look like LBJ is going to help the Lakers win another championship anytime soon, but it does feel like he could potentially help the Cavs win another. We're talking egos here...

[mademan]

Yeah and I don't think Lebron wants to go back to Cleveland, I think their motivations here are strictly about Garland. And of course I think Cleveland should be thrilled if they could swap the two (I know you feel strongly the other way and I'm certainly not trying to talk you into something you hate).

But an agency has to be loyal to each client, not just Lebron. And I don't think they are trying to manipulate Garland to accommodate Lebron. I'd have it much more likely if they were trying to steer him to LA, they would be doing so for him to help Lebron/AD.

If LBJ doesn't want to go Cleveland, he won't go, but he didn't show up courtside to Game 4, watch the Cavs barely lose to the Celtics without Allen or Mitchell, and walk away without any thoughts.

As much as I don't want to think about it, it's an interesting thought. It doesn't look like LBJ is going to help the Lakers win another championship anytime soon, but it does feel like he could potentially help the Cavs win another. We're talking egos here...

eh. Lakers have contracts and 3 first round picks. Theyre a good team with 2 top 10ish players...theyre not that far off. If they go for broke and have a healthy run (big if), they have a shot.

Lakers 3 unprotected picks+swaps should have decent value. Lebron might have enough leverage with his UFA status to force them to put it all on the table for a 2 year window. I could see Ainge taking the picks for Markannen, who would be a terrific fit, imo.

[jbk1234]

If LBJ doesn't want to go Cleveland, he won't go, but he didn't show up courtside to Game 4, watch the Cavs barely lose to the Celtics without Allen or Mitchell, and walk away without any thoughts.

As much as I don't want to think about it, it's an interesting thought. It doesn't look like LBJ is going to help the Lakers win another championship anytime soon, but it does feel like he could potentially help the Cavs win another. We're talking egos here...

eh. Lakers have contracts and 3 first round picks. Theyre a good team with 2 top 10ish players...theyre not that far off. If they go for broke and have a healthy run (big if), they have a shot.

Lakers 3 unprotected picks+swaps should have decent value. Lebron might have enough leverage with his UFA status to force them to put it all on the table for a 2 year window. I could see Ainge taking the picks for Markannen, who would be a terrific fit, imo.

People keep talking about the Lakers unprotected picks as if one of them isn't No. 17 in this draft. They have two future unprotected picks they can trade and 2031 pick conveys 7 years from now. If they weren't the Lakers, no one would even be talking about them this way. They needed Reaves to break out, not get moved to the bench halfway through the season.

[mademan]

As much as I don't want to think about it, it's an interesting thought. It doesn't look like LBJ is going to help the Lakers win another championship anytime soon, but it does feel like he could potentially help the Cavs win another. We're talking egos here...

eh. Lakers have contracts and 3 first round picks. Theyre a good team with 2 top 10ish players...theyre not that far off. If they go for broke and have a healthy run (big if), they have a shot.

Lakers 3 unprotected picks+swaps should have decent value. Lebron might have enough leverage with his UFA status to force them to put it all on the table for a 2 year window. I could see Ainge taking the picks for Markannen, who would be a terrific fit, imo.

People keep talking about the Lakers unprotected picks as if one of them isn't No. 17 in this draft. They have two future unprotected picks they can trade and 2031 pick conveys 7 years from now. If they weren't the Lakers, no one would even be talking about them this way. They needed Reaves to break out, not get moved to the bench halfway through the season.

I think any team giving up multiple first round picks can do some great things with them. We just saw dallas, with 1 first and a swap get 2 starter worthy players that put them on the cusp of the CF's and have catapulted them from a .500 team to pseudo contender.

1st rounders have value. You think Utah wouldnt very much consider getting a big pick package for a guy like Lauri who's a FA in a year and will be looking for a max contract? Does Lauri catapult LA into contender territory? I think its very plausible.

[jbk1234]

eh. Lakers have contracts and 3 first round picks. Theyre a good team with 2 top 10ish players...theyre not that far off. If they go for broke and have a healthy run (big if), they have a shot.

Lakers 3 unprotected picks+swaps should have decent value. Lebron might have enough leverage with his UFA status to force them to put it all on the table for a 2 year window. I could see Ainge taking the picks for Markannen, who would be a terrific fit, imo.

People keep talking about the Lakers unprotected picks as if one of them isn't No. 17 in this draft. They have two future unprotected picks they can trade and 2031 pick conveys 7 years from now. If they weren't the Lakers, no one would even be talking about them this way. They needed Reaves to break out, not get moved to the bench halfway through the season.

I think any team giving up multiple first round picks can do some great things with them. We just saw dallas, with 1 first and a swap get 2 starter worthy players that put them on the cusp of the CF's and have catapulted them from a .500 team to pseudo contender.

1st rounders have value. You think Utah wouldnt very much consider getting a big pick package for a guy like Lauri who's a FA in a year and will be looking for a max contract? Does Lauri catapult LA into contender territory? I think its very plausible.

Yes, future first round picks have value, but the 2024 picks have known value at this point. Picks that convey 7 years from now get discounted, if for no other reason than the GM trading for that pick isn't guaranteed to still be employed by the time it conveys. It's also very hard to sell tickets or construct a roster around a 2031 pick.

The reality, that no one dare speak for fear of losing millions of eyeballs/eardrums, is the Lakers don't really have the assets to trade for a star. The same is true of the Heat unless you're willing to pretend that there's a magical third team that was so impressed by Herro this season, that his value has skyrocketed since last summer

[mademan]

People keep talking about the Lakers unprotected picks as if one of them isn't No. 17 in this draft. They have two future unprotected picks they can trade and 2031 pick conveys 7 years from now. If they weren't the Lakers, no one would even be talking about them this way. They needed Reaves to break out, not get moved to the bench halfway through the season.

I think any team giving up multiple first round picks can do some great things with them. We just saw dallas, with 1 first and a swap get 2 starter worthy players that put them on the cusp of the CF's and have catapulted them from a .500 team to pseudo contender.

1st rounders have value. You think Utah wouldnt very much consider getting a big pick package for a guy like Lauri who's a FA in a year and will be looking for a max contract? Does Lauri catapult LA into contender territory? I think its very plausible.

Yes, future first round picks have value, but the 2024 picks have known value at this point. Picks that convey 7 years from now get discounted, if for no other reason than the GM trading for that pick isn't guaranteed to still be employed by the time it conveys. It's also very hard to sell tickets or construct a roster around 2031 pick.

The reality, that no one dare speak for fear of losing millions of eyeballs/eardrums, is the Lakers don't really have the assets to trade for a star. The same is true of the Heat unless you're willing to pretend that there's a magical third team that was so impressed by Herro this season, that his value has skyrocketed since last summer

I think you overrate the value of 'stars' like Lauri, who are closer to 3rd best players on title teams. We saw Siakam go for 3 first rounders, 2 of them known non-lotto and 1 lightly protected. I think Lauri is worth more, but not significantly so. I think the opportunity exists to get him relatively cheap if you are willing to overpay him salary wise next offseason

[Texas Chuck]

We keep saying things like team X can't trade for a star and then the Bucks get Dame and the Clippers get Harden. You can rule out the Lakers getting a good player(Garland and Lauri aren't what I would call stars anyway), but I won't. I know jbk hates it but players and agents do have influence on the process.

[jbk1234]

I think any team giving up multiple first round picks can do some great things with them. We just saw dallas, with 1 first and a swap get 2 starter worthy players that put them on the cusp of the CF's and have catapulted them from a .500 team to pseudo contender.

1st rounders have value. You think Utah wouldnt very much consider getting a big pick package for a guy like Lauri who's a FA in a year and will be looking for a max contract? Does Lauri catapult LA into contender territory? I think its very plausible.

Yes, future first round picks have value, but the 2024 picks have known value at this point. Picks that convey 7 years from now get discounted, if for no other reason than the GM trading for that pick isn't guaranteed to still be employed by the time it conveys. It's also very hard to sell tickets or construct a roster around 2031 pick.

The reality, that no one dare speak for fear of losing millions of eyeballs/eardrums, is the Lakers don't really have the assets to trade for a star. The same is true of the Heat unless you're willing to pretend that there's a magical third team that was so impressed by Herro this season, that his value has skyrocketed since last summer

I think you overrate the value of 'stars' like Lauri, who are closer to 3rd best players on title teams. We saw Siakam go for 3 first rounders, 2 of them known non-lotto and 1 lightly protected. I think Lauri is worth more, but not significantly so. I think the opportunity exists to get him relatively cheap if you are willing to overpay him salary wise next offseason

Didn't realize we were talking about Lauri. Does Lauri make the Lakers a legitimate contender after they've traded all their picks and Reaves, maybe Rui as well, for him? Because the cupboards are pretty bare at that point.

[ejftw]

We keep saying things like team X can't trade for a star and then the Bucks get Dame and the Clippers get Harden. You can rule out the Lakers getting a good player(Garland and Lauri aren't what I would call stars anyway), but I won't. I know jbk hates it but players and agents do have influence on the process.

I mean, I wouldn't consider Harden a star anymore, even before the trade that I still wish never went down.

Would rather have given up that package for Garland or Lauri any day.

[DowJones]

I think any team giving up multiple first round picks can do some great things with them. We just saw dallas, with 1 first and a swap get 2 starter worthy players that put them on the cusp of the CF's and have catapulted them from a .500 team to pseudo contender.

1st rounders have value. You think Utah wouldnt very much consider getting a big pick package for a guy like Lauri who's a FA in a year and will be looking for a max contract? Does Lauri catapult LA into contender territory? I think its very plausible.

Yes, future first round picks have value, but the 2024 picks have known value at this point. Picks that convey 7 years from now get discounted, if for no other reason than the GM trading for that pick isn't guaranteed to still be employed by the time it conveys. It's also very hard to sell tickets or construct a roster around 2031 pick.

The reality, that no one dare speak for fear of losing millions of eyeballs/eardrums, is the Lakers don't really have the assets to trade for a star. The same is true of the Heat unless you're willing to pretend that there's a magical third team that was so impressed by Herro this season, that his value has skyrocketed since last summer

I think you overrate the value of 'stars' like Lauri, who are closer to 3rd best players on title teams. We saw Siakam go for 3 first rounders, 2 of them known non-lotto and 1 lightly protected. I think Lauri is worth more, but not significantly so. I think the opportunity exists to get him relatively cheap if you are willing to overpay him salary wise next offseason

I like Lauri more than Siakim. Lauri shot 40% from 3 on 8 attempts per game, is 3 years younger, and is 3 inches taller.

[jbk1234]

We keep saying things like team X can't trade for a star and then the Bucks get Dame and the Clippers get Harden. You can rule out the Lakers getting a good player(Garland and Lauri aren't what I would call stars anyway), but I won't. I know jbk hates it but players and agents do have influence on the process.

Who is the Jrue Holiday that the Heat or the Lakers are adding to their picks? Because that's how the Bucks got Dame, by adding a player that the Blazers knew they could immediately flip for considerable value (the Heat couldn't even beat the Celtics offer for Jrue).

The Sixers didn't want to pay Harden because they just watched a playoff performance where he made it pretty clear he was on the back 9 of his career. Obviously, the trade value of a player decreases once it becomes clear that the team a player is on doesn't want to pay him.

Frankly, Morey looks like he made the right call because the end result might just be that the Sixers can include PG in the in-box as a result of that trade.

[mademan]

Yes, future first round picks have value, but the 2024 picks have known value at this point. Picks that convey 7 years from now get discounted, if for no other reason than the GM trading for that pick isn't guaranteed to still be employed by the time it conveys. It's also very hard to sell tickets or construct a roster around 2031 pick.

The reality, that no one dare speak for fear of losing millions of eyeballs/eardrums, is the Lakers don't really have the assets to trade for a star. The same is true of the Heat unless you're willing to pretend that there's a magical third team that was so impressed by Herro this season, that his value has skyrocketed since last summer

I think you overrate the value of 'stars' like Lauri, who are closer to 3rd best players on title teams. We saw Siakam go for 3 first rounders, 2 of them known non-lotto and 1 lightly protected. I think Lauri is worth more, but not significantly so. I think the opportunity exists to get him relatively cheap if you are willing to overpay him salary wise next offseason

I like Lauri more than Siakim. Lauri shot 40% from 3 on 8 attempts per game, is 3 years younger, and is 3 inches taller.

I think he's worth more than Siakam but i dont think theyre worlds apart. Siakam went for 19th pick in a draft, 1 lightly protected pick and an extra first in the 25-30 range. Lakers offering an extra pick on top of that, JHS as a prospect and Rui, who's worth more than Bruce Brown, as well as swaps.

Lauri suffers the same value issues that Siakam did as in he's gonna get paid 50mill/year while not being worth that. Maybe the Jazz are ok with paying him and all this is moot, but if you can get 2-3 unprotected picks, a swap as well as a not great prospect in JHS for a guy who will be overpaid the second he signs his contract...i think thats a pretty good deal. But this has kind of gotten off topic in the DG thread

[toooskies]

I think you overrate the value of 'stars' like Lauri, who are closer to 3rd best players on title teams. We saw Siakam go for 3 first rounders, 2 of them known non-lotto and 1 lightly protected. I think Lauri is worth more, but not significantly so. I think the opportunity exists to get him relatively cheap if you are willing to overpay him salary wise next offseason

I like Lauri more than Siakim. Lauri shot 40% from 3 on 8 attempts per game, is 3 years younger, and is 3 inches taller.

I think he's worth more than Siakam but i dont think theyre worlds apart. Siakam went for 19th pick in a draft, 1 lightly protected pick and an extra first in the 25-30 range. Lakers offering an extra pick on top of that, JHS as a prospect and Rui, who's worth more than Bruce Brown, as well as swaps.

Lauri suffers the same value issues that Siakam did as in he's gonna get paid 50mill/year while not being worth that. Maybe the Jazz are ok with paying him and all this is moot, but if you can get 2-3 unprotected picks, a swap as well as a not great prospect in JHS for a guy who will be overpaid the second he signs his contract...i think thats a pretty good deal. But this has kind of gotten off topic in the DG thread

The question is if the Lakers want to trade all their assets. They've been reluctant to do so in the past few years. For Garland or Mitchell or Lauri or whoever.

[mg]

Pels, and likely the vast majority of teams, would value Herb over Allen. With Herb’s improved perimeter shooting and elite on-ball defense, he’s a very good pairing with Zion. I don’t see a path where we would trade Herb for a rim-runner/rim-protector big.

I haven’t posted or even visited RealGM in several years, but I got bored tonight and curious about the viewpoint of other fan bases, since I spend most of my time on a Cavs centered forum these days. However, this post caught my eye enough for me to login and reply.

The Pelicans have been heavily chasing after Allen for a while. I’m not sure if the Cavs will call New Orlean’s back to rediscuss the Pels offer this offseason, but if so, I think you may be surprised at the value NO has on Allen.

Pels heavily chased Allen by offering Jonas’ expiring and picks, not Herb or Trey or Zion or Ingram. You think I may be surprised at the value of Allen and I think you may be surprised at the value of Ingram.

I don't have a dog in the chase at all but I also heard from my guy that David Griffin did offer Herb+filler for Jarrett Allen back in January. This was during the time when Mobley was out injured for an extended period. I'm guessing they potentially circle back to that type of discussion in the next few weeks. Maybe it ends up being something else (Daniels+pick?) for Allen but there was smoke. FWIW Allen is a damn good player and the type they thought they were drafting in Hayes who obviously busted. I think Griff has finally woke up to the fact he can't keep acquiring washed up guys like Jonas or Capela (or fill in the blank) type stopgaps on the down side of their careers anymore. He needs to find a youngish 5 that can play next to Zion for the next 5-6 years. Allen just turned 26 and was the Cavs 2nd best player this past season. Allen is also a strong rebounder which is obviously not Zion's strong suit.

[mademan]

I like Lauri more than Siakim. Lauri shot 40% from 3 on 8 attempts per game, is 3 years younger, and is 3 inches taller.

I think he's worth more than Siakam but i dont think theyre worlds apart. Siakam went for 19th pick in a draft, 1 lightly protected pick and an extra first in the 25-30 range. Lakers offering an extra pick on top of that, JHS as a prospect and Rui, who's worth more than Bruce Brown, as well as swaps.

Lauri suffers the same value issues that Siakam did as in he's gonna get paid 50mill/year while not being worth that. Maybe the Jazz are ok with paying him and all this is moot, but if you can get 2-3 unprotected picks, a swap as well as a not great prospect in JHS for a guy who will be overpaid the second he signs his contract...i think thats a pretty good deal. But this has kind of gotten off topic in the DG thread

The question is if the Lakers want to trade all their assets. They've been reluctant to do so in the past few years. For Garland or Mitchell or Lauri or whoever.

ya. I imagine a precondition of Lebron re-signing will be them willing to go for broke. Lebron, even at his age, has that kind of leverage

[Mr Loggins]

eh. Lakers have contracts and 3 first round picks. Theyre a good team with 2 top 10ish players...theyre not that far off. If they go for broke and have a healthy run (big if), they have a shot.

Lakers 3 unprotected picks+swaps should have decent value. Lebron might have enough leverage with his UFA status to force them to put it all on the table for a 2 year window. I could see Ainge taking the picks for Markannen, who would be a terrific fit, imo.

People keep talking about the Lakers unprotected picks as if one of them isn't No. 17 in this draft. They have two future unprotected picks they can trade and 2031 pick conveys 7 years from now. If they weren't the Lakers, no one would even be talking about them this way. They needed Reaves to break out, not get moved to the bench halfway through the season.

I think any team giving up multiple first round picks can do some great things with them. We just saw dallas, with 1 first and a swap get 2 starter worthy players that put them on the cusp of the CF's and have catapulted them from a .500 team to pseudo contender.

1st rounders have value. You think Utah wouldnt very much consider getting a big pick package for a guy like Lauri who's a FA in a year and will be looking for a max contract? Does Lauri catapult LA into contender territory? I think its very plausible.

yes, but dallas added what - gaffert and washington?

If thats the type of player non-lotterry poicks get, best of luck to the lakers

[Wolveswin]

To Pels: Garland + Allen + Minott

To Cavs: Towns + Ingram + Moore Jr.

To Wolves: Daniels + Herb + LeVert

Cavs get an awesome lineup.

Towns or Mobley
Mobley or Towns
Ingram
Strus
Mitchell