To Trade or Not to Trade: The Deadline That Could Define The Lakers’ Future

With public pressure to improve the roster coming from LeBron James and a GM known for wheeling and dealing, it seems almost inevitable that the Lakers will make a move before the deadline. But is that really what’s best for this franchise in the short and long term?

On Saturday night, the Lakers and Warriors went back and forth in one of the most entertaining games of the season, in what was truly a vintage LeBron James versus Steph Curry battle. LeBron put up a monster game with 36 points, 20 rebounds, and 12 assists and Steph dropped a season high 46 points. Most importantly for the Lakers, they were able to get a much needed win, as LeBron hit a pair of game-winning free throws to help L.A. prevail 145 to 144 in double overtime.

It was the exact kind of win that this team desperately needed — a win that could galvanize a group that has struggled all season long to find any level of consistency. However, just two nights later, any momentum the Lakers might have gained from that win came to a screeching halt. They went into Houston to face a Rockets team that had lost 12 of their last 18 games, only to completely roll over. The Lakers got down by double digits early before eventually giving up 135 points en route to being blown out. With a chance to bounce back the following night, they left Atlanta with yet another lopsided loss, this time giving up 138 points to a disappointing Hawks team that came into the night with a lackluster 19-27 record.

As per usual for LeBron James-led teams, particularly ones that struggle through a season like this one, trade rumors are swirling for the Lakers. Just one year ago, Rob Pelinka gave this team a major makeover at the deadline, trading away Russell Westbrook in favor of key rotation players in D’Angelo Russell, Rui Hachimura, Malik Beasley, and Jarred Vanderbilt. Westbrook was an addition by subtraction due to his clunky fit next to LeBron, and the additions all proved to have a major impact on the team’s turnaround. 

Given last year’s late surge and subsequent trip to the Western Conference Finals, it’s easy to look at this Lakers team and think that the 2023-24 version could use the same sort of revamp that they went through at last year’s deadline. But would a similar deal to last year’s be smart or just reactionary? Would a trade to improve this team in the short term really even make sense, or should the Lakers refrain from making any significant moves and instead just write this season off as a wash?

You might think that the answer to those questions are simple. Why would they ever consider throwing away a season when LeBron is 39 years old and still averaging 25-8-8 and Anthony Davis is having his best (and healthiest) season in a while? Of course they should make a deal in order to maximize the twilight years of LeBron’s career.

Well, the Lakers are currently one game below .500, outside the top 8 in the west, have a -1.4 net rating, a bottom third offense, and only the 14th best defense, an area that is supposed to be this team’s calling card. All of this is true despite the fact that LeBron, AD, and Austin Reaves have missed only a combined 8(!!!) games all season long, so unlike other years, their poor record cannot be attributed to a lack of health. They just aren’t a very good basketball team. 

Last year, they could afford to make only tweaks to their rotation because of the presumed improvement from just subtracting Westbrook and the eventual return of LeBron and Davis to full health. But this year, those scapegoats aren’t there. This team needs more than just a “round out the edges of the roster” move — they need a significant upgrade. There certainly are moves to make to improve the team, but is there truly a deal currently out there that would be a true needle mover?

The best players likely to be available are Dejounte Murray and Zach LaVine. Two players that, while potentially just based on reputation alone, would likely command at least one of Austin Reaves or the only available first round pick that L.A. can deal, along with likely some combination of pick swaps. If they did trade for one of those players, it would certainly improve this Lakers team, but does it take them from a below .500 group to true contender level? That’s a different conversation, one that Lakers fans might not want to have.

LaVine is having his worst year since arriving in Chicago, he can’t stay on the court, he’s been a mess defensively his entire career, and the Bulls have looked noticeably better without him on the floor (-5.2 net rating with LaVine on the court, +0.7 without him). Murray is having a good offensive season, but has been a below average shooter throughout his career (34.5% career from three), hasn’t meaningfully impacted winning anywhere he’s played, and his defensive effort has fallen off a cliff to the point that he’s actually been a negative on that end in recent years (121 defensive rating this season compared to 108 across five seasons in San Antonio). 

The Lakers are only average defensively right now, and given the defensive shortcomings of LaVine and lack of effort on that end from Murray, adding either of them likely wouldn’t improve the team defensively at all. And unless Murray decides to totally reengage on that end, adding one of those two could even potentially hurt the defense. Would adding one help the Lakers offensively? Probably, but they’re only 20th in the league right now, so even if it gave them a noticeable bump up on that end, let’s say up to 10th offensively, then they still project as a team with an offense and defense both either right at or outside of the top 10, realistically making them a middle-of-the-pack playoff team at best.

Are they beating the Nuggets, the Clippers, or the Suns with those numbers? Probably not, and that’s not even to mention Minnesota or Oklahoma City. So if we operate under the assumption that this team, with or without a deal, has virtually no chance to win a title this year (which with a 39-year-old LeBron James, should be their only goal), then what benefit is there to sacrificing these future assets now? To maybe lose in the second round instead of the first round?

What this team needs is a significant addition, and the only way to get that is to send out a real haul of assets. Right now, because they owe a 2024 and 2027 first round pick to other teams, the Lakers currently have only one first round pick available to trade (due to the Stepien Rule). If they send out that first round pick right now, then they are virtually guaranteed to be short of the sufficient assets to pull off a major deal anytime soon.

But alternatively, what if they hold on to that pick? If the Lakers stand pat, they’ll have a bevy of assets to move in the offseason. After the 2024 draft is complete, they’ll have at their disposal up to three first round picks to trade, as well as three pick swaps, five second rounders, D’Angelo Russell and Rui Hachimura’s expiring contracts, Austin Reaves on a team friendly deal, and their first round pick from the 2023 draft, Jalen Hood-Schifino.

Now that is quite a competitive assortment of assets, and likely enough to put together the kind of trade package that could net a legitimate superstar, not just a tertiary player like LaVine or Murray. A return headlined by Reaves, salary fillers, the three firsts, and a few swaps would put them comfortably in the conversation for whoever the next disgruntled star might be.

We’ve heard rumors that if Cleveland falls flat again in the postseason that Donovan Mitchell could potentially become available. The Hawks have been a dumpster fire this season and could finally feel inclined to shop Trae Young. Maybe the Mavs reset around Luka and decide to deal Kyrie while he still has some value. Or maybe someone unexpected becomes available, like LaMelo Ball, if Charlotte commits to a full on tear down. Or Jimmy Butler, if the Heat flame out and decide to invest in a youth movement.

The options are abundant, but without the Lakers retaining the totality of their potential assets heading into the offseason, a ceiling-changing addition like that won’t be possible. A potential deal for LaVine or Murray would almost assuredly require the inclusion of either Reaves or their only tradable first round pick, which without Reaves to headline a deal or having only two firsts at their disposal, leaves the Lakers in a very vulnerable position to be outbid by another team if one of the aforementioned stars were to become available. Just ask the Miami Heat about the limitations of dealing for a star (*cough*, Damian Lillard, *cough*) with only two tradable first rounders.

Instead, the Lakers would likely be forced to run it back with whatever group they end this season with — whether that be with LaVine, Murray, or someone else — or make another move for an ancillary player in the offseason that raises their ceiling, but only marginally.

I know the clock is ticking on all-NBA level LeBron seasons, and maybe even AD for that matter, but if you truly want to maximize the window of those guys, it makes way more sense to put all your eggs into next season’s basket, rather than putting only some of your eggs into this season’s basket, and then maybe a few more eggs into the next season’s as well.

Front office’s of teams that employ LeBron James have to take big swings, not just improve around the margins. Adding another all-NBA caliber player next to LeBron and AD, specifically a guard like Mitchell or Young, could potentially vault this team right back into the thick of the contender conversation. 

And none of this is even to mention the elephant in the room — regardless of what the Lakers decide to do, LeBron can opt out of his deal in the offseason and walk in free agency for nothing.

Could you imagine what a disaster it would be for the Lakers to surrender a highly coveted unprotected first round pick, or even Austin Reaves, just for LeBron to leave? And for what in return? The right to pay $120M to Dejounte Murray or $138M to Zach LaVine, with both players already looking like a shell of their former selves and reaching the wrong side of 30 by the end of those deals.

Waiting on pulling the trigger on a larger deal makes sense not only for maximizing the ceiling of this team, but it also provides the organization with a significant amount of insurance if LeBron were to leave in the offseason. Would it be unfortunate for Lakers fans to watch him go? Of course, he is an undisputed top two player of all-time still playing at an all-NBA level. But if he did, at least they’d still be strapped with the assets to replace him with another star to pair with AD (to a degree, obviously there’s no way to truly replace a legend like LeBron), or alternatively, they could stockpile those assets, potentially trade Davis as well, go young, and build for the future. 

Or perhaps the most enticing option in the LeBron leaving scenario — aligning the stars to make a huge run at Luka Doncic, who will be a free agent in the summer of 2027.

It remains to be seen if Luka would ever want to leave Dallas, or if the Mavericks would ever consider moving him out of fear of him walking for nothing. But either way, if the Lakers refrain from a panic move at this deadline, then they could put themselves in prime position to chase Luka. They could stockpile the requisite assets to pull off whatever that blockbuster deal might look like down the road, or alternatively, could successfully time up a clean cap sheet to be able to sign him outright in free agency, assuming Dallas rolls the dice on re-signing him. 

Any Luka rumors are strictly speculation at this point, but the discourse is more of an exercise to highlight the flexibility the Lakers could retain by waiting this out and seeing not only what they might be able to acquire this offseason, but also if LeBron commits to staying with the team and for how long.

Regardless of what LeBron does this summer, the handicapping that an impulsive deal at the deadline could do to this franchise is significant. This iteration of the Lakers is not winning anything this season, regardless of what path they choose, and although riding this season out likely won’t be an easy pill for Lakers fans to swallow in the short term, the benefits of standing pat and reevaluating this team’s options in the offseason are too great to pass up.