Adrian Wojnarowski gave NBA fans a special Fathers’ Day gift. He dropped a Woj Bomb that Paul George told the Pacers that he intends to leave next summer (presumably for the Lakers.)
Most NBA fans criticize the idea that the Lakers should trade for Paul George now. After all, they can keep all their young talent, and sign Paul George next summer when he’s a free agent. They’ll have the cap room to do it. Paul George + young talent? That’s a winning proposition.
That said, I’m going to recommend the unconventional tactic here and suggest that the Lakers should do a trade NOW. Why? How? Let’s go through it.
The framework of a deal
The Lakers have stockpiled some interesting young talent — #2 picks D’Angelo Russell and Brandon Ingram, their #2 pick this year, Julius Randle, and (depending on how you view him) Jordan Clarkson. In an ideal world, you’d hang onto all those assets.
The problem is: the Lakers also have a pair of awful contracts on the books — Luol Deng (3 years left, $18 million per year) and Timo Mozgov (3 years left, $16 million per year). And you wonder why they axed their old management…
The idea of the Lakers attaching a young asset to a toxic contract makes sense, in order to give them even more cap room in the future. Essentially, that’s the same deal that I’d recommend: Paul George for a bad Laker contract, and a good Laker asset.
Why it makes (some) sense for the Lakers
The Lakers don’t need to shed a bad contract in order to sign Paul George next summer, but they’ll need to shed a bad contract in order to sign someone else as well. Paul George and a bunch of kids may be a good start, but it’s not a superteam.
If the Lakers can unload one of those contracts, they should have room for a Paul George extension AND another splashy free agent addition. LeBron? Russell Westbrook? DeMarcus Cousins? Pick your favorite pipedream and run with it.
If I was the Lakers, I’d try to swing this now. Julius Randle is the “young asset” that I’d prefer to deal, but I could also live with trading D’Angelo Russell as well (particularly if you want to take Lonzo Ball at #2.)
If the Lakers deal for Paul George now — they’ll only be a fringe playoff contender next year at best. That’s okay. You’re losing your pick next year anyway — there’s no benefit to sucking. Besides, this trade wouldn’t be about 2017 — it’d be about setting yourself up for an even bigger opportunity in 2018.
Why it makes (some) sense for the Pacers
Presumably, the Indiana Pacers can get a better deal than a young asset and a toxic contract for Paul George.
But here’s the thing: maybe they can’t. If Paul George is publicly announcing his desire to go to L.A. (or at least, his unwillingness to accept an extension elsewhere), then it severely hampers his trade value.
A young buck like Julius Randle or D’Angelo Russell probably isn’t going to be your franchise player, but it’s a start. And that’s what I like best about Indiana trading Paul George now: it gets them on the road to a rebuild faster. If the Pacers keep Paul George for the entire season, they may be looking at a #12 or #13 pick next year. If they dump him for young talent, that turn into a top 5 pick in 2018 — in a draft that may be just as loaded as this years.
If I ran the Pacers, I’d look for better deals than this. But Paul George’s public flirtation with the Lakers is hurting your options and perhaps boxing you into a corner.
Taking back a toxic contract is undesirable, to say the least, but when you’re a rebuilding team with a 3-4 year window back to the playoffs, it’s not as big of a deal breaker as it would be for other clubs. Without Paul George, the Pacers aren’t luring in marquee free agents anytime soon, so they may as well make their cap space work for them.
