While the Lakers quietly built a roster that can not only compete for an championship right now but also potentially contend after LeBron retires, James and Davis in championship form complicates their decisions.
The Lakers have always believed a healthy LeBron James and Anthony Davis were all they need to contend for a championship. Back-to-back 40-point games from their two superstars have just reminded them of that.
With LeBron turning 39 in a few days, Rob Pelinka knows now is the time for the Lakers to go all-in to win because this season is likely the team’s and James’ last and best opportunity to win another NBA championship.
The problem is the Lakers are trying to build a deep and diverse roster to win titles now and after LeBron retires while simultaneously trying to trade for a third superstar to replace James and become Davis’ co-superstar.
The Lakers must decide whether to gamble on pursuing a trade for the Bulls’ Zach LaVine, a talented, sharp-shooting 28-year old two-guard with an injury history and massive contract who could replace LeBron James.
The consensus among pundits is LeBron James’ and Anthony Davis’ recent superstar play has ratcheted up the pressure on Rob Pelinka and Lakers’ front office to pull off a mega trade for LaVine as their third superstar.
A healthy and dominating James and Davis probably increases the odds the Lakers will pursue a major blockbuster move like trading for Zach LaVine, especially if the price is low since there don’t seem to be any competitors.
However, there are compelling arguments that a smarter and safer path for the Lakers to pursue could be to trade for three elite rotation players who combined earn $40 million per year rather than pay it to just one player.
Trading for Three Players SMARTER Than Trading For LaVine
The Lakers would be smarter to trade for three players who combined earn $40 million per year rather than one player because they have more roster needs to fill than a single player making $40 million per year could provide.
Assuming they plan to start LeBron James at point guard, the Lakers clearly need more shooting, playmaking, and rebounding in the starting lineup and a better defensive center to protect the rim when Anthony Davis rests.
While Zach LaVine would provide their starting lineup with desperately needed shooting, rebounding, and playmaking, the Lakers would still have to sacrifice valuable bench depth and diversity and financial flexibility.
Instead, the Lakers could decide to trade for Kelly Olynyk, Daniel Gafford, and Tyus Jones, who together earn $38.5 million per year, and would add starting lineup shooting, rebounding, and playmaking and a backup center.
There’s even the possibility that the Lakers might be able to get Olynyk by removing 1–4 protection from the 2027 first round pick they owe the Jazz and offering multiple second round picks to Wizards for Gafford and Jones.
That would give L.A. a starting lineup of LeBron James, Cam Reddish, Taurean Prince, Kelly Olynyk, and Anthony Davis and bench of Tyus Jones, Austin Reaves, Rui Hachimura, Jarred Vanderbilt, and Daniel Gafford.
Olynyk replacing Vanderbilt could transform the Lakers’ starting lineup with his elite 3-point shooting, rebounding, and playmaking and Jones and Gafford would add needed playmaking and rim protection to the bench.
The combination of Olynyk, Jones, and Gafford would provide the Lakers starting lineup and rotation with more depth and diversity than they could get from a single player making $40 million per year like Zach LaVine.
Trading for Three Players SAFER Than Trading For LaVine
Trading for Kelly Olynyk, Tyus Jones, and Daniel Gafford, who make $38.5 million per year combined, is considerably safer than putting all your eggs in one basket by trading for a single $40 million player like Zach Lavine.
The problem with trading for a third superstar like LaVine is the Lakers would essentially be gambling all of their trading chips on just one player when our record and performance tells us we need three new players.
While LaVine could be a great fit if he stayed healthy and played defense, there’s major risks the Lakers could repeat the Russell Westbrook trade and end up like with a three superstars and nothing else like the Phoenix Suns.
The Lakers would be much safer by splitting that $40 million in annual salary between three players like Kelly Olynyk, Tyus Jones, and Daniel Gafford rather than betting it all on just one player like Zach LaVine.
Having three players instead of one could also cushion the Lakers from adverse events like injuries, foul trouble, off-games, or bad matchups and provide invaluable insurance should they fall victim to an adverse event.
The Lakers showed in their last two games that LeBron and AD are still top-5 superstars and that what they need most is three strategic upgrades to their starting lineup and rotation instead of a gamble on a third superstar.
https://twitter.com/LakerTom/status/1739796710971543821
https://twitter.com/LakerTom/status/1739796995597050096
https://twitter.com/LakerTom/status/1739797269896200364
Not sure I agree LT, we have done that this year.
Three players we chose for $40M (Russell $17.3M, Vincent $10.5M, and Hachimura $15.7M) haven’t done the job so we need to swap them for players who will do the job.
That’s Olynykj, Gafford, and Jones.
Guess we don’t lose anything, but I want more, a 3rd.
https://twitter.com/LakerTom/status/1739797562041970930
https://twitter.com/LakerTom/status/1739803634148450805
I haven’t even read anything that the Lakers have engaged in anything at all. Even the LaVine thing was semi-diffused by Klutch on air. It’s just the easiest way for lazy journalists to generate content. Still, were a trade to happen it absolutely has to be for a guard. Burning Russell, or even Rui honestly, on Olynyk who is expiring after this season makes zero sense. The reason the 5 out sets ain’t doing jack for the offense is because LeBron at the point accomplishes one thing: packs the paint. All teams, any team, every team will happily and gleefully concede open three pointers…and this hypothesis has been confirmed by the eye test in recent games watching a cavalcade of open Lakers bricking threes. They need to get the bigger guys moving outta the corners and setting screens or boxing out.
Apparently there was some conversation at the G league show case about Jevounte Murray from the Hawks. Fine two player but the asking price might Austin which I’m sure I would do.
Murray for D-Lo and picks I’d consider.
Michael, are you saying you would trade Reaves in a deal for Murray or was that an error? Thanks.
Yes. Would not.
I will interpret that as:
Yes, that was an error.
No, you would not trade Reaves for Murray
I also would not.
But I would for Lauri.
Pelinka has done a great job keeping potential moves close to the vest. This trade deadline could be career maker or breaker for him as Lakers are trying to win now, build roster to win later, and find third star to be the second star with AD when LeBron retires, which could be this summer or 5 years from now.
Top of Lakers mindset right now has to be how well James and Davis are playing. Both are legitimately top-10 and maybe top-5 superstars. Lakers still believe a healthy LeBron and AD make them a legitimate contender. Pelinka knows this could be the team’s and James’ best shots at winning another championship. For that, you go all-in.
But what does all-in mean? Do you spend $40M on one player or spread it around three players so you can solve three roster issues and not risk having all your eggs in one potentially fragile and limiting overpaid superstar. Lakers need to decide whether they would prefer trading for Zach LaVine or spend that $40M on Marcus Smart, Kelly Olynyk, and Daniel Gafford to upgrade starting shooting guard and power forward and backup center?
At any rate, that’s what I think Pelinka should do. What I expect him to do is to make as many small moves as possible to upgrade the roster without giving up that first round pick, which I think they want to keep to get LeBron’s replacement, unless they decide they can’t pass on a chance to get LaVine at a bargain price. One thing for sure is Pelinka does not show his hand too early and I do like that. But we need help and we need it right now, not in late January or February, when it may be too late.
Whether you think this mess is the coach’s problem or just bad luck on injuries or bad decisions by front office, what’s now painfully obvious is the Lakers need a big trade deadline like last year if they’re going to get a chance to beat the Celtics in the race to #18.
Totally, and I do think some kind of move needs to be made. D-Murray would be a coup if we could keep Austin. Like you LT I don’t see him as “untouchable”. Maybe mostly untouchable?
Agree 100%.
Your comment on Rob keeping things close to the vest is spot on. Everyone in the world knew we were after AD . But since then, the trade for Dennis came out of the blue. Then everyone was talking Buddy and to a lesser extent Derozen. We trade for Russ. After that no one was talking Rui, DLI, Beasley and Vando but we got them. We could very well be targeting someone that no one is talking about at the moment.