It is quite clear that the Los Angeles Lakers‘ biggest goal this summer is to get Russell Westbrook off the team and turn a new page with a new head coach next season. The Westbrook trade could not have gone any worse and it had a ripple effect on the entire team.
Shortly after the Lakers’ season ended, Marc Stein reported that the Charlotte Hornets were a team being mentioned to trade for Westbrook. The premise of a trade with Charlotte was that the Hornets would flip two years of Gordon Hayward (plus a contract) for one year of Russell Westbrook, likely with a draft asset attached.
That seems like great business, but not to the Lakers. Stein recently reported that the Lakers are not likely to consent to a trade for Hayward, citing a desire to not trade for an injury-prone player. The Lakers should be clamoring over the idea of getting Hayward for Westbrook, and instead, it is another ill-advised thought process by the Lakers’ front office.
3 reasons why the Los Angeles Lakers are completely wrong about Gordon Hayward:
1. Gordon Hayward is far better than anyone else the Lakers are going to be able to get
Let’s not pretend like Russell Westbrook is an asset in 2022. He isn’t. No team is going to want to trade for him this offseason. Instead, the Lakers have to entice a team to take him with assets and by taking on a contract (or multiple) that they no longer want.
Yes, there are inherent risks of trading for Hayward (more on that later) but on paper, he would be a perfect third banana behind LeBron James and Anthony Davis. Hayward is an elite three-point shooter that can spot up as an off-ball scorer as well as being someone who can slash to the rim both on and off-ball.
The Lakers are not going to find anyone that is as good as Hayward in a trade for Westbrook. Laker outlets can talk all they want about flipping Westbrook for Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield but that would never happen in a million years as the Indiana Pacers can get far more for those two if they did want to trade them.
Hayward is the ceiling of what the Lakers could get for Russell Westbrook and the team is passing on that ceiling because of the idea that he is injury-prone when in reality, that might not hold much merit.
2. Gordon Hayward is no more injury-prone than the stars already on the Lakers
Gordon Hayward had a really bad injury with the Boston Celtics in his first game after signing a contract with the team. That injury essentially ruined his tenure with the Celtics as he missed substantial time.
Hayward has missed time since then, including last season, which has done nothing to shake the injury-prone label. While it is easy to point at Hayward and call him injury-prone, it is rather inconsistent as he is no more injury-prone than the stars who the Lakers are already committed to.
Over the last four seasons, Hayward has played 23 more games than Anthony Davis (which includes having eight fewer games in 2019-20 as the Hornets did not make the Orlando bubble). LeBron James, meanwhile, has only played six more games than Hayward in that same stretch.
That is not to say that there are no inherent risks of adding Hayward, but the risks are just as high if not higher with the other stars that the Lakers are already committed to. So why scoff at the idea of bringing in Hayward, especially when the team can limit his play in the regular season to keep him healthy?
It likely has to do with the fact that Russell Westbrook is on an expiring contract while Hayward has two more years left on his deal. However, that might be ill-advised thinking by the Lakers.
3. The notion of cap space next summer is irrelevant for the Lakers
Perhaps the Lakers are just going to run it back with a depleted roster this season, holding Westbrook out to either eventually be traded at the deadline when teams are more desperate or being bought out. Westbrook would be gone but his salary impact would remain, which would still hinder the depth.
The one benefit of that would be (assuming the Lakers do not take on big contracts at the deadline) cap space in the summer of 2023. If the Lakers trade for Hayward they will not have that same cap space and won’t be able to make a splash signing as a result.
That sounds great on paper but the fact of the matter is that the window is shrinking with LeBron James. Unless the team wants to trade James and start anew, it makes no sense to essentially punt on being good next season with the idea of getting cap space the following year.
James is not getting any younger and it only takes one unfortunate landing from a dunk for his career to be changed. Not to mention the fact that he could refuse to sign an extension this summer, meaning he can outright leave next summer.
The Lakers have to try and build a contender while LeBron is still on the team and is playing well. Does that mean mortgaging the future like other teams in the past? No. But trading Westbrook and one future first is not mortgaging any future. This is a legitimate way to drastically increase the team’s title odds.
But instead, they will potentially reject the trade because of something you cannot control (injuries) as well as this idea that they can spend big next summer when the options are not even that great?
Just make the trade.