Thought Starter...
To trade or not to trade?
At 20-15 and sitting fifth in the Western Conference (as of Monday night), the Lakers are very firmly in that cluster of teams that have shown themselves to be better than the fringe-y teams but not as good as the elite ones.
They’ve already used their most straightforward trade chip, D’Angelo Russell (along with a handful of second round picks) to acquire Dorian Finney-Smith and Shake Milton. They don’t have much inventory left, beyond a couple of first rounders and contracts like Rui Hachimura ($17 million, one more year remaining on his current contract), Gabe Vincent ($11 million, one year remaining) and Jarred Vanderbilt ($10.7 million, two years remaining). There’s also Jalen Hood-Schifino (just under $4 mil, and since the Lakers didn’t make him a qualifying offer, he can come off a team’s cap this summer.
Max Christie? Could have some value around the league, and the Lakers might be willing to deal if the return was impressive enough. You could say the same for Dalton Knecht, but raise the bar higher, and for Austin Reaves, the haul would need to be massive.
So in all likelihood, those guys aren’t moving, meaning what’s left has to get the job done.
It’s not enough to fill the team’s needs. But are those needs fundamentally positional (like a backup center) or based on skill set? (i.e. athleticism, scoring, switchability, etc.) Can they find the right players to fill the right needs without drastically overpaying? Would the biggest names on center market—starting with Jonas Valančiūnas—actually make sense for a team with Anthony Davis as a starting center, and LeBron James as a frontcourt mate? The loss Sunday in Houston had fans clamoring for help behind Davis, and no question, the Lakers need some. But is Valančiūnas, who rebounds well but doesn’t defend, likely won’t play big minutes with A.D. and would almost certainly not play big minutes in the playoffs, be worth first round compensation?
(This is before getting into the question of the downstream impacts of getting a backup center who merits big minutes—what does that mean for Hachimura? Finney-Smith? Christie? The ripple effect here could be significant.)
Can Pelinka find a center who is athletic, can play stretches with Anthony Davis, won’t necessarily become unplayable in the postseason, is good enough to make it worth shaving minutes away from other good players on the roster but also doesn’t necessarily need 25 minutes a night? Because those types of players tend to be called “starting centers,” and the Lakers already have one. Trading for a starting center at starting center rates only makes sense if you have starting center minutes to provide.
So instead of positions, would a better approach be a focus on skill set and fit? Because it seems highly, highly unlikely that the Lakers can swing enough trades to satisfy everything on a hypothetical wish list, given what they have to offer. Going “all-in,” so to speak, can’t just mean a willingness to trade the most important pieces of draft capital the Lakers have at their disposal. That sacrifice must also be in line with the utility of the return. That’s not to say whatever they do has to turn them into clear cut contenders, at the level of an OKC or Boston. Just that the value and usefulness of what they’re getting back has to match what flows out.
Not easy to do.
—BK
Also In This Episode...
-Why the 2nd Half in Houston was so important, even if the Lakers still lost.
-Should Dorian Finney-Smith Start Over Rui Hachimura?
-The challenges of trading for a center.
