Speaker 1: M all right, Welcome to the State of the Lakers,
Speaker 1: presented by DASH Radio. I thank you guys so much
Speaker 1: for coming to hang out on a Wednesday. I wanted
Speaker 1: to use today as an opportunity to take a first
Speaker 1: look at the trade market for the Lakers, which as always,
Speaker 1: is full of conflict this time of year because of
Speaker 1: the strange, you know, need for people outside of the
Speaker 1: Lakers fan base to minimize the role that the Lakers
Speaker 1: play in the trade deadline. Like I mean, I think
Speaker 1: people have to understand here that there's always a massive
Speaker 1: chasm between what people think a player is going to
Speaker 1: get traded for and what they actually get traded for,
Speaker 1: which is something that i've i've you know, pointed out
Speaker 1: many times over the course of the last couple of
Speaker 1: weeks as it pertains to the Jeremy Grant discussions. But
Speaker 1: today I want to divide the trade targets into three categories.
Speaker 1: What I would call dream scenarios. Players that would be
Speaker 1: monumental to the Lakers, raising their talent and raising their ceiling,
Speaker 1: but might be somewhat unlikely, not completely impossible, but somewhat unlikely.
Speaker 1: And then the second category will look at are more
Speaker 1: likely scenarios, players that the Lakers absolutely could get if
Speaker 1: they wanted to, and that would absolutely make some sort
Speaker 1: of improvement to the roster. And then lastly, just kind
Speaker 1: of like fringe type of trades. Think of these as
Speaker 1: like minimum contract for minimum contract type of deals, where
Speaker 1: you know, maybe flipping players that haven't necessarily fit into
Speaker 1: what the Lakers are trying to do into somebody who's
Speaker 1: also flawed, but that might fit a little bit better.
Speaker 1: So I wanted to start with Jeremy Grant. Now, the
Speaker 1: example that I want to use to kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: reflect what I'm trying to say, is it pertains the
Speaker 1: trade value is Aaron Gordon last year. So for starters,
Speaker 1: I think Aaron Gordon is a better basketball player than
Speaker 1: Jeremy Grant. Jeremy Grants a little more skilled, but in
Speaker 1: the in the sense of what he would look like
Speaker 1: next to superstars on a contender trying to fill a role.
Speaker 1: His offensive package that he brings to the table, there's
Speaker 1: a little bit of a diminishing return they're playing alongside
Speaker 1: other superstars, and that's where the defensive gap starts to show. Now,
Speaker 1: Jeremy Grant is a good perimeter defensive player, we've all
Speaker 1: seen him do a decent job guarding perimeter superstars. However,
Speaker 1: Aaron Gordon is a very good perimeter defensive players. So
Speaker 1: when you're talking about adding a player like that too,
Speaker 1: you know, a contender, a guy like Eric Aaron Gordon
Speaker 1: is just a better ceiling raising type of player, you know,
Speaker 1: alongside superstars. We haven't really had an opportunity to see
Speaker 1: that as a result of the Jamal Murray injury, and
Speaker 1: now he's been slotted in a weird position where they
Speaker 1: need him to do more and some of his shortcomings
Speaker 1: are showing. But he's an example of a player like
Speaker 1: Jeremy Grant this year where there was a desire to
Speaker 1: add him to a contender to try to raise their
Speaker 1: ceiling and then go look at what Aaron Gordon went
Speaker 1: for salary filler basically the half decent young prospect, one
Speaker 1: first round pick that was protected. You know, there was
Speaker 1: a lot of talk about what Aaron Gordon might have
Speaker 1: gone for. There were a lot of names thrown out.
Speaker 1: But then when push came to shove, everyone got gun shy,
Speaker 1: which happens all the time in the NBA. General managers
Speaker 1: get gun shy and then they don't pull the trigger.
Speaker 1: Look at last year with Kyle Lowry. You know, like
Speaker 1: we all thought the Lakers would absolutely send th HT
Speaker 1: to Toronto for Kyle Lowry, right, I Mean, it's kind
Speaker 1: of seemed like a no brainers, but then one pusch
Speaker 1: came to shove, they hung onto him. Now this year,
Speaker 1: the Lakers are desperate, and that's why I consider them
Speaker 1: to be a legitimate threat for some of these scenarios
Speaker 1: that I'm laying out in the dream scenarios category. Because
Speaker 1: the Lakers that th h T Kendrick Nunn and that
Speaker 1: first package that absolutely is on the table, I have
Speaker 1: no doubt that they would pull the trigger if they
Speaker 1: needed to in that case, Whereas some of these teams, yeah,
Speaker 1: they talked about how they might, but it doesn't really
Speaker 1: seem likely. So I'll give you two examples. So for instance, Washington,
Speaker 1: that was the team that was reported in the uh
Speaker 1: Bleacher Report article yesterday as the front runner for the
Speaker 1: team most likely to get Jeremy Grant. But like when
Speaker 1: you really look at Washington, you've got Bradley Beale pending
Speaker 1: unrestricted free agent, and they even if they add Jeremy Grant,
Speaker 1: even if they added Jeremy Grant for nothing, which they
Speaker 1: would have to send out, you know, assets in the deal.
Speaker 1: Even if they got Jeremy Grant for nothing, you're probably
Speaker 1: still looking at the sixth, third, seventh, best team in
Speaker 1: the East, maybe fifth if you're being super optimistic. So
Speaker 1: it's like, what would be the point if you're Washington
Speaker 1: to cash in a bunch of assets that directly affect
Speaker 1: your future to become a just a little bit better,
Speaker 1: mediocre team that loses in the first or second round.
Speaker 1: And then Bradley Bell finally looks in the mirror and goes, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sick of losing. I'm out of here. And now
Speaker 1: you've given up a bunch of assets and now you're
Speaker 1: basically where the Detroit Pistons are right now, with Jeremy
Speaker 1: Grant running your offense. So again, Washington might be the favorite,
Speaker 1: but would you guys be completely shocked if all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, he you know, the the Wizards backed out
Speaker 1: at the last second and went never mind, this isn't
Speaker 1: a good idea. Same thing goes with Chicago. Like Patrick
Speaker 1: Williams is a much better prospect, much better asset than
Speaker 1: Taylor Horton. Tucker is so it's a much more significant
Speaker 1: ask for Detroit to give him up, excuse me, for
Speaker 1: Chicago to give him up. So again, you know, if
Speaker 1: you're Chicago and you're like, man, we're playing really good
Speaker 1: basketball right now, and Patrick Williams could like, we're not. Like,
Speaker 1: we're playing really good basketball, but we're probably not going
Speaker 1: to win the title. I've got Alex Crusoe who's developing offensively.
Speaker 1: I've got a Lonzo Ball who's taken a leap. I've
Speaker 1: got Tamarta Rosen who's an older guy but he looks really,
Speaker 1: really good. And Zach Levine is still on the way up.
Speaker 1: Why would I cash in for this season when theoretically
Speaker 1: in the future, Patrick Williams could fit into that four
Speaker 1: spot and actually make us a lot better in the
Speaker 1: next couple of years when we actually have a chance
Speaker 1: to try to win the title. And so again, that's
Speaker 1: where I look at that and I go like, Okay,
Speaker 1: Chicago might have called Detroit and said, hey, like what
Speaker 1: about Patrick Williams. But when push comes to shove, are
Speaker 1: they actually going to do it? I don't know, And
Speaker 1: especially when you look at their salary situation. We have
Speaker 1: reporting that says that Jeremy Grant wants a lot of money.
Speaker 1: He wants a lot of money, and he wants to
Speaker 1: have the ball in his hands on a team that
Speaker 1: already has guys that want to do that. So again,
Speaker 1: with those two scenarios, those are the two teams that
Speaker 1: get thrown out, is like really potential trade destinations for
Speaker 1: Jeremy Grant. I could make a really compelling case for
Speaker 1: why both of those teams have back out at the
Speaker 1: last second. So that doesn't mean that Lakers are gonna
Speaker 1: get Jeremy Grant. What it means is don't help them out.
Speaker 1: They have a long shot chance to make something like
Speaker 1: that happen, which is exactly what Zach Low reported on
Speaker 1: his podcast a couple of weeks ago. And it was
Speaker 1: funny because the way he reported it was kind of
Speaker 1: just through making some sort of logical progression. While he
Speaker 1: was recording the podcast, He's like, Yeah, the Lakers don't
Speaker 1: really have much of a chance, and then towards the end,
Speaker 1: he's like, wait, actually, what if all these teams back out? Okay, wait, yeah,
Speaker 1: th ht that might be the best package. And that's
Speaker 1: just the reality. That's just the reality of the way
Speaker 1: these trade deadline situations work. The truth is that these
Speaker 1: players end up going for not much. Now, as far
Speaker 1: as Jeremy Grant goes, I've seen people talk about the
Speaker 1: the concept of of of his ball dominance and whether
Speaker 1: or not that fits with the Lakers. I'm not worried
Speaker 1: about that at all, because Anthony Davis is not a
Speaker 1: perimeter initiator and Russell Westbrook is very much not in
Speaker 1: the long term plans of the Lakers. It's sure, I
Speaker 1: sure as hell hope not so. I look at it
Speaker 1: from the standpoint of like if I was Lebron and
Speaker 1: the trade was possible, it meaning Detroit was seriously considering
Speaker 1: the th h T offer, I'd be blown up Jeremy
Speaker 1: Grant's phone and being like, hey, man, I'm giving you
Speaker 1: the basketball. I'm also gonna have the basketball. But hey,
Speaker 1: in the modern NBA, we're taking turns at this thing,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna get plenty of touches. You're gonna get
Speaker 1: plenty of opportunity. I'm not I'm not worried about that
Speaker 1: side of things at all. Now, there's a whole other
Speaker 1: money element to it. Like I think if you take
Speaker 1: on Jeremy Grant and extend him, then you probably have
Speaker 1: to get rid of Russell Westbrook in the in the summer,
Speaker 1: so you might have to, you know, to try to
Speaker 1: figure out a way to make that happen. But I'm
Speaker 1: not worried about Jeremy Grant's long term fit here. That's
Speaker 1: not thing that concerns me. Now. The one thing that
Speaker 1: was pointed out to me in a discussion that I
Speaker 1: had with my guy Rouge from Houston. He had mentioned, like, hey,
Speaker 1: it's a little bit more of a seller's market this year,
Speaker 1: and that's true. There are more buyers then there are
Speaker 1: sellers this year, which may not have been the case
Speaker 1: last year. And maybe that ends up being the thing
Speaker 1: that drives up the price on Jeremy Grant, especially since
Speaker 1: he's kind of at the top of this class this
Speaker 1: trade season. That might be the wrinkle here that turns
Speaker 1: things into, uh, you know, in the favor of of
Speaker 1: of the Lakers being out of the equation. But I
Speaker 1: would not count the Lakers out. I think he's absolutely
Speaker 1: a possibility. I think he should be their top target.
Speaker 1: I think he should be their number one option. And
Speaker 1: if they could figure that move out, that's when you
Speaker 1: start to get really excited about some of these small,
Speaker 1: small ball groups that the Lakers could put out. Any
Speaker 1: front court going against Lebron, Anthony Davis and Jeremy Grant
Speaker 1: is going to be at a significant disadvantage even a
Speaker 1: team like the Milwaukee Bucks. It's just too much athleticism,
Speaker 1: it's too much versus to ability, it's too much offense
Speaker 1: that that that's a really exciting prospect. So the second
Speaker 1: player that I have under my dream Scenarios list is
Speaker 1: Harrison Barnes. So Harrison Barnes is less athletic than Jeremy Grant.
Speaker 1: I think that's the key difference. I think. I think
Speaker 1: Harrison Barnes is a little bit more of like a
Speaker 1: rigid and fundamental basketball player, while Jeremy Grant has a
Speaker 1: little more of that shiftiness and a little bit more
Speaker 1: of that, you know, like I would call it like
Speaker 1: offensive creativity, that just the the ability to have more
Speaker 1: explosive offensive nights. I think he's I think he is
Speaker 1: a little bit better in that regard. That said, Harrison
Speaker 1: Barnes is not a bad option, and most importantly, at
Speaker 1: this phase in his career, he doesn't have the same
Speaker 1: ego issues that Jeremy Grant has in terms of what
Speaker 1: he wants from his role on a team, and he
Speaker 1: has a ton of experience in a role player position
Speaker 1: alongside superstars, including with Golden State. Now, I know a
Speaker 1: lot of people are gonna point to, you know, the
Speaker 1: two thousand sixteen finals and be like, I don't want
Speaker 1: that guy, but hey, at this point in his career,
Speaker 1: he's just he's just been through enough of those moments
Speaker 1: that he's a little bit more you know, comfortable. And
Speaker 1: most importantly, that kind of thing can happen to anybody.
Speaker 1: You're insane if you don't think Jeremy Grant can also
Speaker 1: have a cold shooting playoffs series, especially with his lack
Speaker 1: of playoff experience. So I'm not I'm not worried about
Speaker 1: that at all. Now, the the nice thing with the
Speaker 1: Harrison Barnes concept is he he might end up being
Speaker 1: unavailable anyway if the if the Kings end up making
Speaker 1: this trade for Ben Simmons and Tobias Harris that's been
Speaker 1: thrown around, although there's some reporting that Daryl Moore is
Speaker 1: not interested in what the Kings have to offer. But
Speaker 1: if if it turns into a situation where the Kings
Speaker 1: are just trading Harrison Barnes straight up to somebody to
Speaker 1: try to get some assets because he's in that second
Speaker 1: position behind Jeremy Grant. That gives the Lakers an opportunity,
Speaker 1: you know, like if all the big hitters that are
Speaker 1: actually throwing assets on the table allegedly, if they actually do,
Speaker 1: then the Lakers would have a better chance at that
Speaker 1: second option. And I Harrison Barnes brings a lot of
Speaker 1: the things that I was talking about with Jeremy Grant
Speaker 1: in terms of improve the some of the ceiling and
Speaker 1: some of the lineups that the Lakers can throw out there.
Speaker 1: The third dream scenario I put together, This one is
Speaker 1: kind of complicated, and I would say this is probably
Speaker 1: the least likely of any of the trades that I
Speaker 1: put together. Here would be a package built around Russell Westbrook,
Speaker 1: Taylor Horton, Tucker, Kendrick Nunn, and probably one other minimum
Speaker 1: contract for Tobias Harris and Ben Simmons. Now it's a
Speaker 1: long shot for a lot of reasons. Why Because Russell
Speaker 1: Westbrook's value is at an all time low, So that's
Speaker 1: certainly the case. Now the only reason the door is
Speaker 1: cracked is because Tobias Harris is also at an all
Speaker 1: time low in terms of value. He's on this maximum
Speaker 1: contract with the tony years left. It's one of those
Speaker 1: situations where, even if you looked at it purely from
Speaker 1: the standpoint of contracts, the Sixers could generate some flexibility
Speaker 1: by flipping a long term max contract for a shorter
Speaker 1: term super max contract. Now. Obviously, Tobias Harris, even with
Speaker 1: his struggles, even with him massively underperforming relative to his contract,
Speaker 1: I think he's a better basketball player than Russell Westbrook.
Speaker 1: As I've talked about a lot, I think Westbrook has
Speaker 1: entered into his career. He used to make fifteen good
Speaker 1: plays for every tent bad plays. He's more like seven
Speaker 1: or eight good plays for every ten back places. And
Speaker 1: I don't think he's really much of a positive player
Speaker 1: at this point in his career. So that's probably gonna
Speaker 1: scare everybody away. Tobias Harris. He's overpaid, he's way over
Speaker 1: his skis as a player. However, he's a win shoot ball,
Speaker 1: put the ball on the floor, do some really low
Speaker 1: level playmaking, and can guard multiple positions. That automatically makes
Speaker 1: him an easy plug in in any lineup. I don't
Speaker 1: have to even think about whether or not Tobias Harris
Speaker 1: would fit and contribute with the Lakers. He absolutely would,
Speaker 1: So that kind of ends up being the ring cool
Speaker 1: there that might make this not work. However, under the
Speaker 1: circumstances where the Sixers potentially internally could be thinking hard
Speaker 1: about getting off of Tobias, that's what kind of keeps
Speaker 1: his door cracked. Now. The only thing that could swing
Speaker 1: the door open and make the deal happen, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: would be Joe l embad So. Over the course of
Speaker 1: the last half decade, Joel Embiid and Russ have had
Speaker 1: a lot of really loud battles against each other. They've
Speaker 1: had a lot of games where the two of them
Speaker 1: have gone at it, and typically Russ is one, especially
Speaker 1: a few years back. So it's possible, just like just
Speaker 1: like Lebron, James had an elevated sense of value of
Speaker 1: what Russell Westbrook was that I think he probably regrets
Speaker 1: now and Beat might have that same situation, and Beat
Speaker 1: might be sitting on his couch going, man, I'd love
Speaker 1: to play with Russ. I'd rather have him than some
Speaker 1: of these younger guards I'm playing with. He's going to
Speaker 1: be able to run, take and roll with me and
Speaker 1: get me better shots that he you know open here.
Speaker 1: You know, we all know Joel Embiad likes to take threes.
Speaker 1: That's another kind of angle there that opens up the
Speaker 1: door to that fit working a little bit better. And
Speaker 1: most importantly, that team doesn't have playmaking. One of the
Speaker 1: big reasons why the Lakers kind of don't need what
Speaker 1: Russ springs to the table is they have better playmaking options.
Speaker 1: You know, a team, a team like Philly, it's the
Speaker 1: same problem talking to the same problem I talked about
Speaker 1: with Boston a lot. They don't have guys that are
Speaker 1: good at creating shots for other people. Now, Russ at
Speaker 1: this phase in his career is bad at a lot
Speaker 1: of things in my opinion, But there's one thing that
Speaker 1: he's still good at, and it's the primary source of
Speaker 1: his good plays. He generates rim pressure, and inherently that
Speaker 1: rim pressure generates open shots for his teammates, which is
Speaker 1: something that you know, like we say, it is a
Speaker 1: very rare skill in the league. It's that playmaking ability,
Speaker 1: that ability to not just look out for yourself but
Speaker 1: rather make plays for your teammates. It's kind of a
Speaker 1: rare deal in the NBA. He's not great at it,
Speaker 1: he certainly isn't great at it, like we've talked about,
Speaker 1: but it's something that he still does well even at
Speaker 1: this phase in his career. So you can see a
Speaker 1: situation where maybe Joel Embid talks himself into like, hey,
Speaker 1: Russ is the man I would love to play with him.
Speaker 1: Let me go down to Darryl Moore Darryl Moore's office
Speaker 1: and put some pressure on him and and see if
Speaker 1: we can't make this happen. And you know, the other
Speaker 1: angle there too is what if the market surrounding Ben
Speaker 1: Simmons just cools in general because all the teams out
Speaker 1: there don't necessarily want to pay. And then here comes
Speaker 1: some pressure from Joel Embiid like, hey, I'm sick of
Speaker 1: playing my ass off here while Ben Simmons sits at
Speaker 1: home and we have all of our talent and all
Speaker 1: of our you know, salary tied up in this guy
Speaker 1: who's not even on the court. Darryl like, stop screwing
Speaker 1: around and make this happen. So that would be the
Speaker 1: like I said, super long shot, but that would be
Speaker 1: an interesting deal where you could see, just like if
Speaker 1: a couple of chips fall the right way, or maybe
Speaker 1: it could potentially happen again long shot, but I wanted
Speaker 1: to put it on my list. The last one I
Speaker 1: had for dream scenarios was Christian Would. So Christian Woods
Speaker 1: a really into sting player because he brings a lot
Speaker 1: of perimeter versatility for a big now at this point,
Speaker 1: even though he's a very good athlete and he has
Speaker 1: a lot of size, he's not a great defensive player,
Speaker 1: which I think would scare contenders away from him in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways. However, there are going to be
Speaker 1: teams out there that are going to look at him
Speaker 1: and be like, man, this would be an interesting young
Speaker 1: prospect to throw some assets out and see if we
Speaker 1: can make this happen. Now, if in that scenario, those
Speaker 1: teams are probably going to be willing to pay more
Speaker 1: than the Lakers are going to be willing to pay
Speaker 1: for a player like Christian Would. But the way I
Speaker 1: look at it in a long shot scenario is if
Speaker 1: that market cools and no other deals materialized, it's an
Speaker 1: interesting option to add size to the Lakers while also
Speaker 1: maintaining some of that five out identity. I think Christian
Speaker 1: Wood's ability to shoot the basketball. He's at at thirty
Speaker 1: seven on four attempts over his last three seasons, which
Speaker 1: is pretty good for a big player. He can do
Speaker 1: a little bit of close out attacking, like he can
Speaker 1: put the ball on the floor and make some plays.
Speaker 1: He's definitely not someone you want doing that a lot,
Speaker 1: but it's something that he can do, and it's an
Speaker 1: interesting option to add size, add athleticism, fix some of
Speaker 1: the issues with the Lakers small ball lineups being too small,
Speaker 1: while also maintaining some of that uh some of that
Speaker 1: you know, uh five out concept. And then you know,
Speaker 1: he also brings some of that upside. The Lakers have
Speaker 1: a lot tied up in the current generation right let
Speaker 1: We have a lot tied up in Anthony Davis, we
Speaker 1: have a lot tied up in Lebron and even with Russ.
Speaker 1: But Christian Wood gives you a little bit of that.
Speaker 1: I can have one foot in the moment with a
Speaker 1: productive player while also potentially having a prospect for the future. Now,
Speaker 1: Christian Wood could always be a good stats, bad team
Speaker 1: guy for the rest of his career. That's certainly possible,
Speaker 1: but it's also possible that he develops into a decent, productive,
Speaker 1: you know, big man who can contribute to a championship team.
Speaker 1: That's all possible. All right, let's move on to the
Speaker 1: more likely trade scenarios. The first one that I have
Speaker 1: on my list is Miles Turner, So I would have
Speaker 1: put him in the you know, dream scenarios category before
Speaker 1: the foot injury, because I think you would have had
Speaker 1: a lot more teams willing to buy for his services,
Speaker 1: and that lack of desperation that most teams are operating
Speaker 1: under would probably cause them to pull the plug on
Speaker 1: any offer they're based on that. Stress fractures. Stress fractures
Speaker 1: are weird. I actually had one between my first and
Speaker 1: second season playing in college, and it's weird because like,
Speaker 1: I came back in two months, but then I still
Speaker 1: had pain in my foot for like the first half
Speaker 1: of the season. It was kind of a problem. I
Speaker 1: kind of came back too soon. It very easily could
Speaker 1: have been something that I re injured. Especially with big guys,
Speaker 1: that gets even more freaky. It's one of those things
Speaker 1: where you're you take a couple of weeks off and
Speaker 1: maybe you start playing again and it just gets worse.
Speaker 1: Like it's it's one of those things that could scare
Speaker 1: some people away, which drops his value to the point
Speaker 1: where I think the Lakers suddenly become a team that
Speaker 1: could potentially get him. Now it gets tricky because I
Speaker 1: would want to hold Miles out for at least a month.
Speaker 1: So now we're talking about a player that can't play
Speaker 1: until middle late February, and it becomes one of those
Speaker 1: things where do you feel like cashing in assets like
Speaker 1: th HD, like Hendrick Nunn to then have a player
Speaker 1: come back that can't play for a little while. That
Speaker 1: is certainly a concern there. The other concern that I
Speaker 1: have with Miles Turner is just the identity fit piece,
Speaker 1: because while he does shoot the ball well from the perimeter,
Speaker 1: he's not like Christian Wood in the sense that he's
Speaker 1: not a great close out attacker. So it's hard to
Speaker 1: imagine him thriving in a five out concept. It would
Speaker 1: be more of like a traditional type of concept. And
Speaker 1: then obviously that would be Frank's dream because then Frank
Speaker 1: could basically lean all the way back into his you know,
Speaker 1: traditional pick and roll coverages in his traditional style that
Speaker 1: you'd love to use in So it's it's it's a
Speaker 1: dream in that in that respect for Frank, I just
Speaker 1: worry about it from an identity standpoint, Like we're leaning
Speaker 1: heavily at this point in the season to try and
Speaker 1: to learn five out basketball, to try and to learn
Speaker 1: small ball, and so why would we do that for
Speaker 1: another month month and a half and then suddenly late
Speaker 1: February early March like be like, okay, let's switch it
Speaker 1: up again. Here comes Miles Turner. We're going giant and
Speaker 1: we're playing Lebron at the three, eight at the four,
Speaker 1: Miles Turner at the five. That's just tough. And with
Speaker 1: the Lakers team that struggled so much with continuity this
Speaker 1: year and the ability to take on a style and
Speaker 1: just stick with it for a while until you get
Speaker 1: good at it, I think that would be some some
Speaker 1: form of self sabotage to bring a guy like that
Speaker 1: in and then to just change up your entire identity
Speaker 1: and style again in the middle of the season. So
Speaker 1: I see both sides there. But he's certainly are a
Speaker 1: possible option, and I do like the versatility that he brings.
Speaker 1: It's it's a move that I could talk myself into
Speaker 1: being a good move, even if it's not my favorite.
Speaker 1: So the second trade that I have on my more
Speaker 1: likely list is the trade that our friend cranees Um
Speaker 1: pointed out in recent weeks going after ken Ridge Williams
Speaker 1: and Mike Miscala. Now, the nice part about this type
Speaker 1: of trade is it's not forfeiting assets. You probably can
Speaker 1: get that deal done with like Kendrick Nunn in a
Speaker 1: second round pick, right, So that's exciting in the sense
Speaker 1: that you have the potential to improve the team while
Speaker 1: not giving anything up and maintaining those assets potentially for
Speaker 1: next summer. So that part is exciting. Now, this certainly
Speaker 1: isn't much of a ceiling raising trade. I don't really
Speaker 1: see Mike Noscala's value much at all. One of the
Speaker 1: things that Crane just pointed out is that his shooting
Speaker 1: in l a was a huge outlier, and I tend
Speaker 1: to agree with that. Something to keep in mind, like
Speaker 1: bad basketball teams have a hard time generating quality shots,
Speaker 1: and that team when Microscolo was playing, as a result
Speaker 1: of all the injuries, just wasn't very good. So he
Speaker 1: wasn't getting high quality shots. And and every team plays
Speaker 1: hard against the Lakers, so it wasn't like they were
Speaker 1: getting poor effort out of their opponents. It was just
Speaker 1: a tough That whole season was just tough. So I'm
Speaker 1: willing to give him a pass in that regard. But
Speaker 1: the more exciting thing to me would be Kendridge Williams.
Speaker 1: So the Lakers have had a lack of forwards. That's
Speaker 1: been an issue all year long. Ken Ridge Williams is
Speaker 1: not a very good basketball player, but he's another player
Speaker 1: that kind of fits into that Stanley Johnson archetype. I
Speaker 1: would say he's significantly less athletic and a little bit smaller,
Speaker 1: but he is still a good athlete and he shoots
Speaker 1: the ball better. So it's kind of like a variation
Speaker 1: of Stanley Johnson that's a little bit better of a
Speaker 1: spot up threat, but doesn't bring all of the same
Speaker 1: things that Stanley brings to the table. But it's another
Speaker 1: big forward to have off the bench. That buys you
Speaker 1: some depth, that buys you some versatility on the wing,
Speaker 1: gives you more options in those small ball lineups to
Speaker 1: have switchy wings on the perimeter that can hold their
Speaker 1: own offensively. So again, that's a that's a fringe move. Like,
Speaker 1: let's say all these other deals don't materialize, but you're
Speaker 1: still looking to improve the team somehow. Well, Hey, like
Speaker 1: Kendrick Nunn hasn't even played a minute for us. What
Speaker 1: if we could flip him into end of the bench
Speaker 1: shooter that we can use on some nights and some matchups,
Speaker 1: and another forward that could certainly be on the fringe
Speaker 1: of our rotation as a big guy that can play
Speaker 1: big wing, that can play in our small ball lineup.
Speaker 1: So I thought that one was interesting. Um, the last
Speaker 1: one that I have on my more likely list is
Speaker 1: Eric Gordon. So this is the one that drives Lakers
Speaker 1: fans crazy because they think that he's not good anymore,
Speaker 1: and rightfully so, they have their eyes on bigger targets,
Speaker 1: right like we all are looking at the Jeremy Grants
Speaker 1: and the Harrison Barnes types Like I get that, but
Speaker 1: Eric Gordon is a very possible outcome. It's a it's
Speaker 1: a trade that the Lakers absolutely can be in the
Speaker 1: hunt for, and it's a decent fallback option. Now I
Speaker 1: look at Eric Gordon, it's kind of like a massive
Speaker 1: upgrade on the th HD position in the current uh
Speaker 1: Like in the current timeline. Now, if I'm describing th
Speaker 1: h t s potential outcomes, like what kind of player
Speaker 1: he could become one day, I think it kind of
Speaker 1: ranges from an Eric Gordon all the way up to
Speaker 1: like a Drew holiday, meaning like his ceiling, like the
Speaker 1: kind of player he could become if everything goes right,
Speaker 1: is like a Drew Holiday. But it's extremely realistic to
Speaker 1: think that th HT by the time he's in his
Speaker 1: late twenties early thirties could be an Eric Gordon type.
Speaker 1: You know, a guy who brings, who's a little bit
Speaker 1: undersized on the wing, but is built like a truck,
Speaker 1: has you know, a super low center of gravity that
Speaker 1: makes him very difficult to move off of his spot.
Speaker 1: He was very good defensively, and I, as I've said
Speaker 1: on the show many times, I think th HD projects
Speaker 1: to eventually be a good shooter, even if he isn't yet. Now.
Speaker 1: Eric Gordon immediately coming out of college, immediately coming out
Speaker 1: of Indiana was already a good shooter. So it's not
Speaker 1: like their timelines are the same or anything like that.
Speaker 1: But I look at Eric Gordon as like a similar
Speaker 1: concept of like, hey, what if we could take th
Speaker 1: HT but make him a veteran. You know, That's kind
Speaker 1: of the way I look at it. Now, with his size,
Speaker 1: it would be an issue. Eric Gordon would become an
Speaker 1: issue if Frank continued to stay too small at the
Speaker 1: guard position, Like if Frank's plan is to play Russ
Speaker 1: Avery Bradley and uh and Eric Gordon and yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: with you, guys, that's a stupid idea. But it's also
Speaker 1: a stupid idea to do the same thing with Moleague
Speaker 1: Monk there, which is something he's been doing anyway. So
Speaker 1: the way I look at it is like in the
Speaker 1: future where Anthony Davis is back and Frank finally leans
Speaker 1: on using some of these small forwards the way he
Speaker 1: talked about in the preseason, Allah aresa in the starting lineup.
Speaker 1: As long as we look at it from that perspective,
Speaker 1: his size is actually beneficial. If I look at it
Speaker 1: as like Eric Gordon as the fifth guy in a
Speaker 1: lineup that includes Lebron, Anthony Davis, Russell Westbrook Day, Trevor
Speaker 1: Ariza or an Austin Reeves or Stanley Johnson and those lineups,
Speaker 1: I think Eric Gordon's size it's fine. He's got a
Speaker 1: ton of playoff experience, he said, a ton of big
Speaker 1: playoffs shots. He has a ton of of He has
Speaker 1: a long resume of causing problems for people as a
Speaker 1: perimeter defender in the playoffs, including what he's done to
Speaker 1: Donovan Mitchell. He can chase over the top of screens
Speaker 1: the way that Frank wants him to in our scheme. Again,
Speaker 1: I understand some of the pessimism there because there are
Speaker 1: better options available. But if the Lakers ended up falling
Speaker 1: back on Eric Gordon, I think it's one of those
Speaker 1: deals where we could be looking in a playoff series,
Speaker 1: you know, in April, and and looking at a lineup
Speaker 1: on the floor, watching the Lakers go on a run
Speaker 1: in a big moment, and being like, man, Eric Gordon's
Speaker 1: making some plays out there, you know, I I tend
Speaker 1: to think that that he would still be a good option.
Speaker 1: So the last concept that I wanted to look at
Speaker 1: is this veteran minimum swap type of concept. Now it's
Speaker 1: hard to really gauge what these deals would look like
Speaker 1: because it's hard to gauge what types of veteran veteran
Speaker 1: minimum players are available. But I'll give you one example
Speaker 1: of the type of deal I'm looking I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: This is a deal that I think Laker fans would hate,
Speaker 1: but I think would be more you know, beneficial to
Speaker 1: what our identity, what our identity would be moving down
Speaker 1: the line. So Malik Monk Malik Monk has been unbelievable
Speaker 1: offensively as of late, although he's coming off of a
Speaker 1: short stretch here where he hasn't shot the ball as well.
Speaker 1: You know, Malik Monk, when he was in that group
Speaker 1: against the Jazz, when we had Lebron and Austin Reaves
Speaker 1: and Stanley Johnson and th Ht on the floor, he
Speaker 1: was okay defensively. Why because the entire unit was bought in.
Speaker 1: They were switching everything so he didn't have to fight
Speaker 1: over the top of screens or anything like that. And
Speaker 1: just because of the aggri defensive talent surrounding him, he
Speaker 1: was functional as a two guard in that lineup right.
Speaker 1: But for the most part, over the course of the
Speaker 1: last couple of months, coinciding with his offensive explosion, he's
Speaker 1: been our worst defensive player, like really, really, really really bad,
Speaker 1: something I've been talking about a lot on the pod lately.
Speaker 1: So as good as Milik Monk is and I think
Speaker 1: his value, I think he's played himself into a situation
Speaker 1: where his value uh massively exceeds what his contract number is.
Speaker 1: That said, it's also you know, I'm of the opinion
Speaker 1: that if the Lakers, you know, were to flip him
Speaker 1: for a similar type of player on a minimum contract
Speaker 1: that better fits what their identity is as a switching
Speaker 1: team that needs to defend well. Even though it would
Speaker 1: be hard for Laker fans to accept because of how
Speaker 1: good Malik Monk has been playing offensively, it could make
Speaker 1: the team better. So the one example I wanted to
Speaker 1: give is a trade with the Oklahoma City Thunder for
Speaker 1: lu dorw Out. You might think that's absolutely crazy, and
Speaker 1: both teams might be not at all interested, but I
Speaker 1: wanted to use it as just an example of the
Speaker 1: type of trade I'm talking about. Lou Dort. I don't
Speaker 1: think he's necessarily even as good of a basketball player
Speaker 1: as Malik Monk, probably not close. But on a Laker
Speaker 1: team that, when fully healthy, doesn't need Malik Monk's offense
Speaker 1: as much. On a fully healthy Laker team that's gonna
Speaker 1: lean heavily on Lebron James and big moments, on Anthony
Speaker 1: Davis and big moments, you know on, in that scenario
Speaker 1: where Malik Monk is going to be more relegated to
Speaker 1: spot up shooting, or Malik Monk is going to be
Speaker 1: more dependent on defensively, it's possible that in that scenario,
Speaker 1: a player of Lou Dort's archetype actually makes the Lakers better.
Speaker 1: I know it's hard to imagine, but if you think forward,
Speaker 1: because he's he's kind of like a high volume three
Speaker 1: point shot guy that doesn't shoot especially well, kind of
Speaker 1: like that Kyle Kuzma type of archetype in the sense
Speaker 1: that he's sets him up, but they tend to not
Speaker 1: go in. However, really aggressive three point shooters, even when
Speaker 1: they don't shoot well, tend to have a certain amount
Speaker 1: of gravity, just because it's what shows up in the
Speaker 1: scouting report. That was the thing with Kuzma. Like Kuzman
Speaker 1: didn't shoot the ball amazingly well when he was with
Speaker 1: the Lakers, but teams guarded him out there because they
Speaker 1: knew he would shoot it and on any given night
Speaker 1: he could get hot and make six out of eight
Speaker 1: and it could swing a game. And Lue Dort's kind
Speaker 1: of that same type of player in terms of a
Speaker 1: spot up threat. But he is amazing defensively. He is
Speaker 1: a flat out weapon to have against some of the
Speaker 1: bigger wings in the league. He's an amazing option to
Speaker 1: have in those scenarios, and adding him to the roster
Speaker 1: in place of someone like Malik Monk, even though it
Speaker 1: might hurt you in the regular season short term right
Speaker 1: now with Anthony Davis out because they're leaning so heavily
Speaker 1: on the leak Monk. I could see in a playoffs
Speaker 1: scenario down the line, when the team is fully healthy,
Speaker 1: I could see a player like lu Door kind of
Speaker 1: being just a better fit. And if you're Oklahoma City
Speaker 1: and you're building for the future, and you're like, wait, wait, wait,
Speaker 1: we might get Malik Monk, this kid who's been playing
Speaker 1: so well. Maybe we can develop him more as a
Speaker 1: as a physical specimen, put some muscle on him. Maybe
Speaker 1: he becomes a better defensive player, and he becomes a
Speaker 1: good that court partner for say Gil just Alexander, Like,
Speaker 1: I could see Oklahoma City talking themselves into that as well. Now,
Speaker 1: even if it's not Dort, even if it's not Monk.
Speaker 1: These are the kinds of deals I'm talking about trying
Speaker 1: to flip. I talked about this concept with a rush
Speaker 1: trade flipping junk for junk, Like this is a player
Speaker 1: that on our team is junk, and on your team
Speaker 1: you have a player that you guys kind of us junk.
Speaker 1: But maybe if we swap them because our identities are different,
Speaker 1: they'll flip they'll fit better into our concept. So I
Speaker 1: use the Monk Dort deal as just like an idea
Speaker 1: of what I'm talking about. But essentially, what I'm asking
Speaker 1: is the Lakers to consider flipping betteran minimum pieces that
Speaker 1: haven't worked for us, for veteriment, veteran minimum pieces that
Speaker 1: haven't worked elsewhere that might fit better with our identity
Speaker 1: in the direction we're trying to go as a team.
Speaker 1: So that's kind of the way I look at it.
Speaker 1: I like I said from the beginning, I wouldn't hold
Speaker 1: the Lakers. I wouldn't count the Lakers out in any
Speaker 1: trade scenario where the salaries match, just because of the
Speaker 1: fact that you never know how much GMS are willing
Speaker 1: to pay, and also you guys don't know how much
Speaker 1: GM's value players. I know, it's kind of one of
Speaker 1: those deals where you know, th HD has become the
Speaker 1: butt of a joke because he played so poorly for
Speaker 1: a stretch this season, But guys, th HD is is
Speaker 1: still a prospect that carries value around the league. In
Speaker 1: his last six games, he's averaging thirteen points on six shooting,
Speaker 1: while also having a great deal of defensive impact. He
Speaker 1: had a huge couple of huge defensive moments against Donovan
Speaker 1: Mitchell in that game against the Jazz. He still flashes
Speaker 1: a lot of that potential. It's not unreasonable to think
Speaker 1: that just because Twitter doesn't think th HD is good,
Speaker 1: that the GM of such and such NBA team thinks
Speaker 1: he's good. They there are absolutely going to be gms
Speaker 1: in the league that think highly of THHD, or more
Speaker 1: highly of him than the rest of Twitter does. So
Speaker 1: I hope people acknowledge that reality when they're talking about
Speaker 1: this kind of stuff, because it certainly is a factor.
Speaker 1: All Right, that's all I had for today, guys. This
Speaker 1: is gonna be on dash Radio tomorrow morning. Actually, tonight's
Speaker 1: postgame show will be on dash Radio tomorrow morning. I'll
Speaker 1: find some other time to air this one. This will
Speaker 1: be in our podcast feed here in about half an hour.
Speaker 1: As always, we appreciate you guys support. We broke our
Speaker 1: daily record for downloads again after that Jazz game. I
Speaker 1: appreciate you guys hanging with us because this team has
Speaker 1: been so frustrating for so long and you can actually
Speaker 1: see just an interest and not even just with you guys,
Speaker 1: with me, like man when we were when we all
Speaker 1: had COD, when the whole team had COVID. I was
Speaker 1: having a hard time being enthusiastic about watching some of
Speaker 1: those games when it's like a fake basketball team in
Speaker 1: the middle of the season. So I get it, I do.
Speaker 1: But hopefully this Jazz game is the start of a
Speaker 1: far more interesting and successful Lakers run, and hopefully we
Speaker 1: can all have some some fun covering it together. But
Speaker 1: thank you guys as always for your support, and we
Speaker 1: will see you tonight right after the final buzzer against
Speaker 1: Indiana