Official 2022 NBA Free Agency Thread

[Chinook]

How many firsts can the Lakers offer? If they're stupid enough can they give out 2027/2029/2031/2033/2035/2037? Plus swaps in the even years?

I don't know if there's a rule that stops teams from trading picks past a certain point in the future.

Can only go out seven years, so they have two picks (2027 and 2029) and three swaps {either 2024 or 2025 along with 2026 and 2028)

[lefty20]

A little bit of googling --

The youngest team in NBA history seems to have been the 2005-06 Atlanta Hawks (22.7 years average), with Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, Zaza Pachulia, Joe Johnson, oldest player was Tyronn Lue at 28 years old.

The current Spurs roster has an average age of 21.56 years old. I'm too lazy to calculate per start of the season, but just adding 0.5 to the number to make up for six months... the Spurs seem to have the youngest roster in NBA history.

And some of the fans still insist that we're not "tanking".

FO has definitely committed to the tank by putting this roster together.

The players will still go out there and ball out for the W, but due to lack of talent and experience they'll simply fail to do so on a consistent basis. We're capped out at 20~ wins rn. It'd take a miracle for us to break 25.

We can argue on the semantics all day, but the bottom line is that a top 3 pick seems super likely next year and it just happens to be a really good year to land one of those.

[John B]

I don’t see the scenario of Lakers getting Kyrie and dumping Westbrooks. Unless they include AD in the conversation which is dumb. But then they start getting back picks, which they don’t really need as much because they just poach other talents. Man I hate these Fakers

[John B]

If I were the Fakers, I’d just run it back. Kyrie would be UFA next year and they can sign him them instead of putting more dents on their picks.

[exstatic]

How many firsts can the Lakers offer? If they're stupid enough can they give out 2027/2029/2031/2033/2035/2037? Plus swaps in the even years?

I don't know if there's a rule that stops teams from trading picks past a certain point in the future.

7 years. With the new league year started, you can now trade 2029 picks.

[exstatic]

If I were the Fakers, I’d just run it back. Kyrie would be UFA next year and they can sign him them instead of putting more dents on their picks.

Their payroll is so high that when RWs contract rolls off, they won’t have even one penny of cap room. That’s how far over the cap they are.

[LkrFan]

In lieu of WojTek comments:

I present for your visual enjoyment, a blast from the past:

[John B]

Their payroll is so high that when RWs contract rolls off, they won’t have even one penny of cap room. That’s how far over the cap they are.

Then they’re ed even more reason to just let them burn

[exstatic]

edit : when you talk about Brooklyn adding some players Mr.Body, you probably talk about a two team deal so you're right in that case.

They don’t have to get players in a 3 way, but they have to get something. A highly protected (top 55) SRP, or player rights to a player who will never come over.

They can’t just ship out Kyrie.

[Dex]

Wiz just gave Bradley Beal a 5-year max WITH a no-trade clause, a 15% trade kicker, and a player option?

Just a reminder that there are people out their more brain-dead than the Spurs FO.

[KingKev]

How many firsts can the Lakers offer? If they're stupid enough can they give out 2027/2029/2031/2033/2035/2037? Plus swaps in the even years?

I don't know if there's a rule that stops teams from trading picks past a certain point in the future.

2027 and 2029.

[Dverde]

I think they should revise their name to “Klutch Presents…The Lakers”

[Dex]

*there

, I hate not being able to edit posts.
timvp The draft is over, can we flip the switches back to normal!?

[TeKu]

Not saying I necessarily like this but the sort of construction I could see being floated is:

LAL: Irving & McBuckets
Nets: Nunn and FRP (Charlotte 2023)
SA: Westbrook, 2 FRP's (LA 2027,2029 unprotected)

Is an unprotected LAL pick more attractive than that Charlotte pick (Bridges makes it less likely to convey?).

Would mean getting those 2 LAL unprotected picks at the cost of ~$36m in space, McBuckets (addition by subtraction?) and the Charlotte pick?

Still a ty return for the Nets though.

[KingKev]

Wiz just gave Bradley Beal a 5-year max WITH a no-trade clause, a 15% trade kicker, and a player option?

Just a reminder that there are people out their more brain-dead than the Spurs FO.

Yeah, seriously. Wiz making PATFO look like Jamie Dimon or Elon Musk.

Beal’s contract will be the worst in the league in 1-3 years if it isn’t already. Future Laker tbh.

[Dverde]

10776482[/URL]]

Wiz just gave Bradley Beal a 5-year max WITH a no-trade clause, a 15% trade kicker, and a player option?

Just a reminder that there are people out their more brain-dead than the Spurs FO.

A trade kicker with a No-trade clause seems like an oxymoron. Just straight up cash grab.

[Chinook]

The Spurs have an an absurdly young team for their standards for like three or four years now. It's funny that people would think that means tanking when teams that were unabashedly tanking like Process Sixers still had older players on their roster.

My guess as to why the Spurs are hanging around the talks is to take guys like THT and Harris to save the teams money on the backend for assets. Harris has value in the right situation, but that situation may not be apparent. Or they might have value to a third team with only bad salary and assets to give, which neither principle team wants but SA might stomach for compensation. Also, though Harris is basically McDermott but more expensive. He's negative value for LAL, but swapping him out for Doug or even Richardson might be enough to get them to give up something good to the Spurs. Good enough? I don't know but like:

Westbrook and the 2027 first to BRK
Irving, Richardson and McDermott to LAL
Harris, THT, the 2029 first and additional incentive (seconds and/or a swap in 2026 or 2028) to SA

Saves both LAL and BRK a good deal of money. Get the Spurs another unprotected pick and a double-swap to boost the value of either the 2026 or 2028 first. It would encourage the Spurs to focus on near-term returns for Poeltl and the rest of their cap space, as their future would be stacked with quality assets.

[Dex]

A trade kicker with a No-trade clause seems like an oxymoron. Just straight up cash grab.

My thoughts exactly. Washington will continue to suck for another year or two, and then Beal can "request a trade" a.k.a. force his way out of town for more money, and also be able to pick the team of his liking.

[MannyIsGod]

The Spurs don't need to get involved at all. Woj is just bored and/or ESPN is making TV.

ALL the Lakers have to trade is those two late FRPs (27, 29). They don't want to use them because that's all they have. And they may be trying to strongarm Marks because they can try.

Nets have to include more salary to match, so either Joe Harris or Seth Curry. Both have value, Curry has more.

So the Lakers think they can pry Kyrie Irving away and maybe even get Seth Curry for like one draft pick and Westbrook.

In no scenario above is the Spurs a requirement. They only get involved to 'absorb salary' but there's no salary to absorb unless somehow they take Westbrook, which makes no sense. Plus they would need sweeteners and who would give them? Brooklyn?

Nah.

1) Brooklyn is more likely to sit on Kyrie and -- yes -- sit on Durant and just tell them to play some goddamn basketball, the team is fine.

2) The Spurs aren't involved in this player's trade at all.

How does it not make sense? The spurs eat the contract and maybe send out a player, get pick(s) and the Nets get players/pick(s) and get a giant trade exemption while not having to send off any positive value players. It makes perfect sense that the Spurs would be a landing spot for Westbrook.

[MannyIsGod]

The Spurs have an an absurdly young team for their standards for like three or four years now. It's funny that people would think that means tanking when teams that were unabashedly tanking like Process Sixers still had older players on their roster.

My guess as to why the Spurs are hanging around the talks is to take guys like THT and Harris to save the teams money on the backend for assets. Harris has value in the right situation, but that situation may not be apparent. Or they might have value to a third team with only bad salary and assets to give, which neither principle team wants but SA might stomach for compensation. Also, though Harris is basically McDermott but more expensive. He's negative value for LAL, but swapping him out for Doug or even Richardson might be enough to get them to give up something good to the Spurs. Good enough? I don't know but like:

Westbrook and the 2027 first to BRK
Irving, Richardson and McDermott to LAL
Harris, THT, the 2029 first and additional incentive (seconds and/or a swap in 2026 or 2028) to SA

Saves both LAL and BRK a good deal of money. Get the Spurs another unprotected pick and a double-swap to boost the value of either the 2026 or 2028 first. It would encourage the Spurs to focus on near-term returns for Poeltl and the rest of their cap space, as their future would be stacked with quality assets.

Are we sure the Nets wouldn't rather get the Spurs players as opposed to Westbrook?

[cd98]

How does it not make sense? The spurs eat the contract and maybe send out a player, get pick(s) and the Nets get players/pick(s) and get a giant trade exemption while not having to send off any positive value players. It makes perfect sense that the Spurs would be a landing spot for Westbrook.

Yes, there may be some way that they need a third team involved, but if the Spurs are taking Westbrook, what are they sending out? I mean we can't send out all our young players. McDermott? And what else? I just think it's noise. I imagine if there is a scenario where the spurs are involved, it's Durant.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, there may be some way that they need a third team involved, but if the Spurs are taking Westbrook, what are they sending out? I mean we can't send out all our young players. McDermott? And what else? I just think it's noise. I imagine if there is a scenario where the spurs are involved, it's Durant.

The Spurs don't need to send out much since they have all the cap space but the Spurs could easily send out Doug and Josh Richardson and be fine. They're likely going to move Josh at some point (and Doug if anyone out there considers him positive value). I think Poeltl has value so I'm not including him in this deal unless we get both Laker picks.

[spurraider21]

What I'm struggling to think of is why SA would get 1sts instead of Brooklyn. i get we are taking WB into our cap so we get paid for our trouble, but I mean if BKN is trading the best player, shouldn't they get the best asset in return? it's not like they want any of the Lakers trash anyway and their only theoretical valuable commodity is their unprotected picks 5 years from now. not sure what a 3 team trade involving SA would even look like

there was a proposal from an ESPN article that iirc had the spurs sending josh richardson and the charlotte protected first to brooklyn in the deal, where we get 2 unprotected firsts from LAL plus eat westbrook's deal

[MannyIsGod]

there was a proposal from an ESPN article that iirc had the spurs sending josh richardson and the charlotte protected first to brooklyn in the deal, where we get 2 unprotected firsts from LAL plus eat westbrook's deal

Yeah this would be good IMO. Those 2 Laker picks are ing gold.

[Chinook]

Are we sure the Nets wouldn't rather get the Spurs players as opposed to Westbrook?

They might want the Spurs' players, but they aren't paying for them; LAL is. Brooklyn would have to pay to turn those players into Westbrook's huge contract. They'll have the assets after the Durant trade, but I don't know that they'll actually go through with that trade