just like how stern guaranteed they'd get the first pick (AD) right after the current owner bought the team
Man I'd love for the Lakers to **** this up. I'm convinced the best thing for them to do is fill out the roster with solid contributors. I'd love for them to overpay a Tobias Harris type or bring in a possible locker room cancer like Jimmy Butler. A 36 year old Lebron with a ballhog like Butler and Davis at the 4 or 5 is good until someone gets injured or jealous. More importantly as we just saw in this past Finals, depth matters
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...uild-a-title-team-after-anthony-davis-overpay In fact, the Knicks, recognizing the futility of a trade and fearful of getting shut out this summer, made overtures for Davis to join them as a free agent in 2020, according to a league source. [...] The Lakers are now working to involve a third team to create a max salary slot, still with a July 6 target, according to ESPN's Adrian Wojnarowski and Bobby Marks. But a seasoned front office would have accounted for all of these factors before agreeing to the deal and losing leverage. A better executive would have had Davis waive his kicker (as the price of getting to L.A. immediately) and persuaded Griffin to push the trade to Aug. 1 (as the price of all those draft picks). "The Lakers totally screwed up the timing of this, clearly," the rival GM said. And yet, he added: "I still like it for the Lakers. They're going to be really good." [...] And this is where the Davis trade could hurt the Lakers, now and in the years to come. They effectively have no picks to trade for the next six years. They have no players left to trade. They have no assets of any kind, except the SoCal sunshine and the allure of the Lakers logo. Can Pelinka's staff build a sound roster, with little cap room and no other trade options? Can they at least improve on last summer, when Johnson and Pelinka assembled a thoroughly clunky supporting cast after landing James? "The coaching search does not inspire confidence," the rival GM said. "The way they've handled the timing of the trade has not inspired confidence. The dysfunction does not inspire confidence." James turns 35 in December and is entering his 17th season. There isn't much time to get this right. There's no cushion if the Lakers stumble in free agency. There's no fallback plan. And the risks for the Lakers only grow as James ages. He could be retired, or at least significantly diminished, by the time those final draft picks convey to the Pelicans. And Davis has shown he can't carry a team deep in the playoffs by himself.
B/R: NBA Execs Skeptical Lakers Can Build a Title Team After Anthony Davis Overpay https://bleacherreport.com/articles...uild-a-title-team-after-anthony-davis-overpay
With a 30-year-old LeBron the Lakers probably wait the Hornets out and either get a favorable deal or sign Davis next year, but both teams knew LeBron's championship window is closing fast. Losing another season wasn't an option. Pelicans had about as good a scenario as you can get for a franchise with a disgruntled star forcing a trade.
woj doesn't like lebron based on most of his stories about him. since this looks like a lebron move, he wants to push that narrative. i think the lakers gave up nothing but a 4th pick. lonzo and ingram have negative trade value to me. how's that f4p, they put up pretty good numbers for their age? sure, exactly the wrong level of numbers. not low enough to get labeled "role player" and get paid accordingly. not high enough to be an actual superstar, but high enough to get paid some significant chunk of the max (like rudy gay). you'll probably pay 15-20M/yr for them as they are. if ingram shows any more promise, maybe a max. and yet neither one is even close to an all-star right now. i don't think ingram will, but even if he puts it all together i think ingram is a fringe all-star. and any team paying market price for young non-all stars pretty much always is overpaying. because the difference in what superstars bring and what good players bring to the table is so vast, value in the nba comes in 2 forms. having actual superstar/all-star talent (pay whatever you have to for that) and being a rookie/role player on a good contract. the impact of a good player who isn't an all-star isn't much greater than a really nice role player like pj tucker or patrick beverley. you can't let lonzo or ingram lead your team but they aren't valuable enough without the ball to fit in like role players. so you pay 20M for ingram when you could get 3 role players around your superstars.