Lakers / Pacers idea

[DefenseWinsChamps]

At first, I hated this for the Pacers, but then I have warmed to it.

I don't really care about Westbrook in this trade, but those three picks could be gold for the Pacers. They could just buy out Westbrook and let him go try to compete in the playoffs. You could argue that the two players they are sending out are damaged goods and not part of their core moving forward anyway.

Haliburton, 22 #5 pick, Duarte, and Jackson is a nice young core. Plus they could still flip Hield for another young piece.

Plus, Greenly would say that McConnell is an important part of their core and they keep him in this scenario.

[Moranis]

I would think the Pacers could do better than that for Turner and Brogdon (Turner is expiring and Brogdon is signed long term on a reasonable enough contract). 

[CFAN38]

This proposed Westbrook trade feel like a step backwards for a franchise that likes to stay relevant.

What Indy needs to do is ditch "relevance" and properly rebuild.  They need to decide whether they see Turner as a core piece (I would think not), and then make trades accordingly.

I understand the logic behind the "proper rebuild" aka full tear down but I do not think it is the only way to build a competitive roster. If the goal of the full tank is to draft franchise foundational pieces and hope that one becomes the "corner stone" of your franchise ie (Smart, Brown, R Will and Corner stone Tatum) then the Pacers may not be on a bad path. Haliburton looks to be a perennial all-star moving forward and if they hit on this early lottery pick this could be a quick turn around.   

[Atzar]

Greatly dislike that deal for the Pacers.

I think they could trade Brogdon and Turner for a better return than three future Lakers picks even without taking on the comical Westbrook contract.  But I should qualify that opinion by saying that I really don't like the idea of dealing for future Lakers picks in particular.

That franchise could roll around in s*** for the next four years and then back into two free agents or disgruntled superstars forcing their way to Hollywood to put them right back near the top of the league.  And I know that can happen because it just did.  So I'd be unwilling to make the gamble that the Lakers are bad enough in the relevant time period to make those picks sufficiently valuable. 

I think the Pacers can find pieces that are more likely to provide significant value for Brogdon and Turner.  And if that means there's a bit less best-case upside as a result, so be it. 

[celticsclay]

I borrowed this from another site and slightly modified it:

Lakers trade:  Westbrook, 2017 #1, 2018 swap rights, 2019 #1

Pacers trade:  Brogdon, Turner

Not sure I follow.  Do you mean 2027, 2028, and 2029 for the picks and swap?

Assuming that is the case, still not sure IND would want to bring in Westbrook.  The Lakers might be good again by 2027 so hard to know how much value those picks and swap would be.

Yes.  I'm living 10 years in the past.

I suspect Indy would tell Westbrook to stay home and would tread water for a season.

I don't think the Pacers want to trade Turner (although I could see them trading Brogdon for sure). They had a choice between Sabonis and Turner and I think opted to see Turners more modern game and he could be a very good pairing with Haliburton.  Would be a bit strange to trade him without ever seeing him play alongside Halliburton. I don't know if the salaries would work but hield would seem a lot more likely.

[Atzar]

I borrowed this from another site and slightly modified it:

Lakers trade:  Westbrook, 2017 #1, 2018 swap rights, 2019 #1

Pacers trade:  Brogdon, Turner

Not sure I follow.  Do you mean 2027, 2028, and 2029 for the picks and swap?

Assuming that is the case, still not sure IND would want to bring in Westbrook.  The Lakers might be good again by 2027 so hard to know how much value those picks and swap would be.

Yes.  I'm living 10 years in the past.

I suspect Indy would tell Westbrook to stay home and would tread water for a season.

I don't think the Pacers want to trade Turner (although I could see them trading Brogdon for sure). They had a choice between Sabonis and Turner and I think opted to see Turners more modern game and he could be a very good pairing with Haliburton.  Would be a bit strange to trade him without ever seeing him play alongside Halliburton. I don't know if the salaries would work but hield would seem a lot more likely.

I don't think this is the correct way to intrepret that trade.  I don't think that moving Sabonis for Haliburton is a sign that the Pacers preferred Turner over Sabonis in a vacuum, and I don't see it as a sign that they're at all committed to Turner.

I think it's more likely that the Pacers simply found an unexpected opportunity to acquire Haliburton and jumped at it.  I would expect that they moved Sabonis because that's who they needed to give up to make that deal, not because they preferred to keep Turner over him.

[jambr380]

I borrowed this from another site and slightly modified it:

Lakers trade:  Westbrook, 2017 #1, 2018 swap rights, 2019 #1

Pacers trade:  Brogdon, Turner

Not sure I follow.  Do you mean 2027, 2028, and 2029 for the picks and swap?

Assuming that is the case, still not sure IND would want to bring in Westbrook.  The Lakers might be good again by 2027 so hard to know how much value those picks and swap would be.

Yes.  I'm living 10 years in the past.

I suspect Indy would tell Westbrook to stay home and would tread water for a season.

I don't think the Pacers want to trade Turner (although I could see them trading Brogdon for sure). They had a choice between Sabonis and Turner and I think opted to see Turners more modern game and he could be a very good pairing with Haliburton.  Would be a bit strange to trade him without ever seeing him play alongside Halliburton. I don't know if the salaries would work but hield would seem a lot more likely.

I don't think this is the correct way to intrepret that trade.  I don't think that moving Sabonis for Haliburton is a sign that the Pacers preferred Turner over Sabonis in a vacuum, and I don't see it as a sign that they're at all committed to Turner.

I think it's more likely that the Pacers simply found an unexpected opportunity to acquire Haliburton and jumped at it.  I would expect that they moved Sabonis because that's who they needed to give up to make that deal, not because they preferred to keep Turner over him.

Yeah, I definitely don’t think Hali for Turner was on the table. Sac wanted Sabonis and Indy jumped a solid value opportunity. I don’t think they ‘hate’ Turner as much as they did a year or two ago (when he was reportedly in every deal), although I imagine he is certainly available for the right price.

[Roy H.]

Greatly dislike that deal for the Pacers.

I think they could trade Brogdon and Turner for a better return than three future Lakers picks even without taking on the comical Westbrook contract.  But I should qualify that opinion by saying that I really don't like the idea of dealing for future Lakers picks in particular.

That franchise could roll around in s*** for the next four years and then back into two free agents or disgruntled superstars forcing their way to Hollywood to put them right back near the top of the league.  And I know that can happen because it just did.  So I'd be unwilling to make the gamble that the Lakers are bad enough in the relevant time period to make those picks sufficiently valuable. 

I think the Pacers can find pieces that are more likely to provide significant value for Brogdon and Turner.  And if that means there's a bit less best-case upside as a result, so be it.

The Lakers have missed the playoffs in seven of nine seasons.  We don’t know where they’ll be in five years, but I’m guessing they’ll still be mismanaged and losing.

[celticsclay]

I borrowed this from another site and slightly modified it:

Lakers trade:  Westbrook, 2017 #1, 2018 swap rights, 2019 #1

Pacers trade:  Brogdon, Turner

Not sure I follow.  Do you mean 2027, 2028, and 2029 for the picks and swap?

Assuming that is the case, still not sure IND would want to bring in Westbrook.  The Lakers might be good again by 2027 so hard to know how much value those picks and swap would be.

Yes.  I'm living 10 years in the past.

I suspect Indy would tell Westbrook to stay home and would tread water for a season.

I don't think the Pacers want to trade Turner (although I could see them trading Brogdon for sure). They had a choice between Sabonis and Turner and I think opted to see Turners more modern game and he could be a very good pairing with Haliburton.  Would be a bit strange to trade him without ever seeing him play alongside Halliburton. I don't know if the salaries would work but hield would seem a lot more likely.

I don't think this is the correct way to intrepret that trade.  I don't think that moving Sabonis for Haliburton is a sign that the Pacers preferred Turner over Sabonis in a vacuum, and I don't see it as a sign that they're at all committed to Turner.

I think it's more likely that the Pacers simply found an unexpected opportunity to acquire Haliburton and jumped at it.  I would expect that they moved Sabonis because that's who they needed to give up to make that deal, not because they preferred to keep Turner over him.

I don't know if they liked Sabonis or Turner more, there were rumors that early last year there was a lot of interest in Turner as his defense and three point shooting had really improved and Sabonis is kind of an old school player (and to be fair Sabonis didn't seem to make any impact in Indiana or Sacramento as I believe the Kings were worse with him than haliburton and hield). Unless they fully believe Turner is too injury prone or something, I really don't see them trading him for a negative asset and some draft picks they don't get for years. As a small market team they have less leeway to make that kind of trade.

[footey]

Westbrook is the worst/most toxic contract in the NBA.  I can't imagine any GM willing to take it on, unless the offer was somehow packaged with Anthony Davis. 

[Birdman]

Who would want Westbrook contract? & 4 teams in 4 years? There’s a reason behind that

[Roy H.]

Westbrook is the worst/most toxic contract in the NBA.  I can't imagine any GM willing to take it on, unless the offer was somehow packaged with Anthony Davis.

It’s expiring.  You either keep him home or buy him out.

[CFAN38]

Westbrook is the worst/most toxic contract in the NBA.  I can't imagine any GM willing to take it on, unless the offer was somehow packaged with Anthony Davis.

James Dolan say "hold my beer"

Do the Knicks come in and offer a package of Randle, Fournier, and Noel for Westbrook, Horton-Tucker ,2027 #1, 2028 swap rights and 2029 #1 ?

Knicks open up the roster for Toppin to start and eat Westbrooks deal for 1 year but clear Randle and Fournier off long term. NY media will love Westbrooks stat filling ways and the local radio will love talking about how Westbrook actually still is good.

Lakers get two starters

[Vermont Green]

Westbrook is the worst/most toxic contract in the NBA.  I can't imagine any GM willing to take it on, unless the offer was somehow packaged with Anthony Davis.

It’s expiring.  You either keep him home or buy him out.

Russell Westbrook, what an enigma.  Past MVP, 2 time first all nba, 5 time second all nba, 2 time third nba (total 9 all nba selections). Has averaged a triple double 4 times (most recently in 2020-21).  And now potentially the worst contract in the NBA (John Wall may have something to say about that).  Only age 33.

I am not going to pile on.  He is not going to play to a $47M contract, not sure anyone in the league can, but I am also not going to give up on him just yet.  I think his problems this year are more mental than physical.  In some ways, he is kind of like Marcus Smart.  He needs to rein in the "I can take over the game" mentality but if he does, there is a lot he can do on the court to help a team.

It is a player option for next season.  Would he decline that if offered say 3 years and $25M or something like that.  I wonder, if he declines the option, would the Lakers still have Bird rights to him?

[celticsclay]

Westbrook is the worst/most toxic contract in the NBA.  I can't imagine any GM willing to take it on, unless the offer was somehow packaged with Anthony Davis.

It’s expiring.  You either keep him home or buy him out.

Russell Westbrook, what an enigma.  Past MVP, 2 time first all nba, 5 time second all nba, 2 time third nba (total 9 all nba selections). Has averaged a triple double 4 times (most recently in 2020-21).  And now potentially the worst contract in the NBA (John Wall may have something to say about that).  Only age 33.

I am not going to pile on.  He is not going to play to a $47M contract, not sure anyone in the league can, but I am also not going to give up on him just yet.  I think his problems this year are more mental than physical.  In some ways, he is kind of like Marcus Smart.  He needs to rein in the "I can take over the game" mentality but if he does, there is a lot he can do on the court to help a team.

It is a player option for next season.  Would he decline that if offered say 3 years and $25M or something like that.  I wonder, if he declines the option, would the Lakers still have Bird rights to him?

The scariest thing I noticed about him from a long term perspective this year was a decline in lift on his bursts to the rim. He could still get to the rim but was often missing dunks or jamming layups into the rim. Obviously he also hasn't improved his shooting. I don't think that is something that is going to get better next year. If he could use his strength to finish with contact rather than just trying to outleap people this could perhaps be an improvement, but he definitely didn't make that adjustment this year when he needed to.