Anthony Davis trades: Which team can make the best offer?

Which teams can make the best trade offers to the New Orleans Pelicans for Anthony Davis? New Orleans EVP David Griffin has started to provide potential suitors with the framework of the package he is seeking in a deal, according to a report by ESPN's Adrian Wojnarowski.

The NBA draft lottery has changed things since Davis' initial request before the trade deadline. Do the Los Angeles Lakers or New York Knicks have an advantage? Or do the Boston Celtics still have the upper hand, despite uncertainty with Kyrie Irving's free agency?

ESPN Insider's Kevin Pelton and Bobby Marks answer the big questions surrounding potential AD trade talks and break down the most appealing possible packages.

More: What top AD trade contenders can actually offer

The Celtics' questions

Marks: Kevin, what's Griffin's first priority in trade talks?

Pelton: Deciding to move Davis now makes sense. As I explained a few weeks ago, I don't think keeping Davis and trying to make a run next season to convince him to stay was the right move for the Pelicans. The odds of truly contending with a rookie Zion Williamson were too remote to be worth the risk of Davis being injured or the anticipated market failing to materialize for a player potentially in the final season of his contract.

With that in mind, my first call is to the Celtics to see whether the kind of mega-package we anticipated them offering is still available. Do you agree with that approach, and what would your response be as Celtics president of basketball operations Danny Ainge?

Marks: The only way that Davis was going to be in a Pelicans uniform come training camp was if he were to ink a five-year, $235.5 million supermax contract on July 6, though I appreciate the effort of Griffin and the Pelicans to sell the All-Star on the possibility of playing with Williamson and the option of retooling the roster this summer.

Despite a season of turmoil with a disappointing finish, Boston still has the right mix of young players (Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum), draft assets (Nos. 14, 20 and 22 in 2019, plus a valuable future first-rounder from the Memphis Grizzlies) and contracts (Marcus Smart) to make a deal work.

Does Ainge take an aggressive approach with Davis, knowing that Irving could leave in free agency? I would be hesitant gutting my roster and draft assets in a Davis deal without Irving giving a strong indication he'll re-sign in free agency for multiple seasons.

Pelton: At this point, it seems unlikely that Irving is coming back no matter what happens with Davis. That means Boston must weigh the risk of losing both players in free agency in successive years. That would be devastating to the franchise's future.

Given that possibility, I'd say Tatum and the Memphis pick would be off the table for me right now. Could the Celtics still make the best offer without those two as part of a deal?

Marks: That leaves Boston with an offer of Smart, Brown and three first-round picks in June. Add Al Horford to the mix (if he opts into his contract, with the Celtics taking back Solomon Hill to make the money work) and that is a solid offer that New Orleans would need to consider. Even in the case that Horford is not in play, Smart is under contract for three seasons and Brown is on a controllable deal because he's extension-eligible this summer.

The tipping point would be how the Pelicans view the 2019 draft. Do they see value in all three picks?

The Los Angeles teams

Marks: Let's move on from the Boston part of the equation. Would you revisit talks with the Lakers now that they have the No. 4 pick, or possibly engage the Clippers?

Pelton: I think it's interesting to compare the two L.A. teams. Let's say the Clippers offer rising sophomore guards Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Landry Shamet along with forward Danilo Gallinari, who's in the last year of his contract -- a trade they could execute after using their approximately $44 million to $57 million in cap space this summer.

Does that trump a Lakers offer? I know things have changed a bit since late February, but Gilgeous-Alexander didn't get a single vote for our top 25 under 25 rankings at that time, while a pair of Lakers (Lonzo Ball and Kyle Kuzma) cracked the list and so did Brown.

Add in the fact that Gallinari wouldn't do much for a rebuilding New Orleans team and am I wrong to think that offer is weaker than what the Lakers have available, aside from any anti-Laker sentiment in the Pelicans organization? And should the Clippers be willing to go further than that and weaken the depth of their 2019-20 team?

Marks: I actually would have a hard time putting Gilgeous-Alexander in a trade. Yes, we are talking about Anthony Davis, and no player should be untouchable, but from my understanding the Clippers consider the point guard off limits in any deal. That leaves the Clippers with Shamet, Lou Williams, Montrezl Harrell and the unprotected 2021 Miami first-rounder as their most prized assets. Though there is value in all three players, none is considered a building block for the future.

Circling back to the Lakers: We know they were rebuffed at the trade deadline when they offered all their young players and expiring contracts. Does that change now having the No. 4 pick?

Pelton: It should, I think. First, if Tatum isn't available, I'm not sure which young prospect the Pelicans can acquire who is clearly better than the Lakers players who were reportedly offered for Davis before the deadline. Second, a legitimate concern of the Lakers' offer was that their first-round picks would likely be in the 20s if they added Davis to go with LeBron James. This year's first-round pick becoming No. 4 overall is a huge upgrade on those future picks.

Not since Cleveland in 2011 (No. 1 pick Kyrie Irving and No. 4 pick Tristan Thompson) has one team had two of the top four selections in the same draft. Though I'm not enamored by the options at No. 4 this year, that would still be an interesting starting point for a building process in New Orleans.

What do you think of the Lakers' offer and is it even worth discussing given the way the Lakers are viewed as rivals around the NBA?

Marks: The Pelicans need to remove the hard feelings from the trade deadline and think about what is best for the organization, even if that means sending Davis to the Lakers. Griffin should help give New Orleans a fresh perspective in these trade talks.

If the Celtics aren't including Tatum or the Memphis pick, then the Lakers have the most to offer in a trade. I understand that there is some separation from the top three in this draft to where the Lakers are selecting at No. 4. However, a top-four pick, a future first and a combination of Brandon Ingram, Ball and Kuzma should have appeal for the Pelicans.

Now the question comes down to: Can New Orleans flip Ingram, Ball or Kuzma to another team and get future draft assets? Or do they view each player as a core piece for the future?

For example, would the Phoenix Suns have interest in a combination of Ball and Josh Hart in exchange for the No. 6 pick, which would go to New Orleans? The Pelicans would end up with No. 4, No. 6, Ingram and perhaps Kuzma. That would be a solid trade return for New Orleans.

However, the one thing that I wouldn't do is accommodate the Lakers on a trade timeline. The Lakers potentially could sign a max player first and then wait 30 days after the No. 4 pick signs his contract to use his salary slot in a trade. Trading Davis first would decrease room and eliminate the Lakers from adding a third max player to join James and Davis.

It may sound petty, but I would have nightmares of a superteam in Los Angeles.

The Knicks and potential wild-cards

Marks: Outside of the three teams we've discussed, does New York have appeal? Is there a wild-card team out there?

Pelton: Yeah, the Knicks have appeal, though if I were Griffin, I would also want to reroute the young players and perhaps even the pick coming from New York elsewhere in a multi-team trade. Aside from Mitchell Robinson, I'm not a believer in the Knicks' young talent. Kevin Knox, who rated poorly in my pre-draft statistical projections, subsequently backed that up by posting the second-most-negative wins above replacement total (3.0 WARP) by my player value metric. He was dead last in wins produced according to ESPN's real plus-minus (RPM).

A poor start to a 19-year-old's career hardly dooms them, but I wouldn't value Knox as highly in a trade as New York -- or another team that liked him before the draft. The same goes for the No. 3 pick. There's a substantial drop-off after the top two prospects (Zion and Ja Morant) in my projections this year, so I'd rather deal it to a team that views consensus No. 3 prospect RJ Barrett as a future star. As you know, Bobby, adding teams to a trade increases the difficulty exponentially. So my assessment of New York's prospects might make a deal a non-starter.

Are you more optimistic about the Knicks? And do you see a wild card?

Marks: The deciding factor for the Knicks' chances will be how high the Pelicans are on RJ Barrett. If the New Orleans front office feels like Barrett can become a franchise player, then the No. 3 pick along with both Dallas first-rounders (unprotected in 2021 and top-10 protected in 2023) has real appeal.

But I agree with you on Knox, Dennis Smith Jr. and Frank Ntilikina. Flipping them in another deal could be enticing, though it makes an already complicated trade more muddied -- increasing the likelihood that a deal would collapse like a deck of cards.

I would peg Denver as the lone wild-card team here. The Nuggets have the right mix of players -- Gary Harris, Torrey Craig, Will Barton, Michael Porter Jr. and Paul Millsap -- that would give the Pelicans the option of retooling instead of rebuilding. Nikola Jokic, of course, is untouchable, and I would be hesitant to offer Jamal Murray in a deal. We have seen a trend in back-to-back seasons of surprise teams taking the risk of acquiring All-Star players on expiring deals (Paul George and Kawhi Leonard). In both cases, the reward was greater than the risk, and Toronto's run within a game of the championship might change teams' thinking about acquiring an expiring contract.

Should Denver try to enter the mix?

Pelton: Despite the Leonard example, it's too unlikely Davis would re-sign in Denver to take that kind of risk with a core that can be together for years to come. To me, the wild-card option would have been appealing if an unexpected team jumped up and moved into the top four of the lottery. Well, two teams did, but they were the Lakers -- not a wild card -- and the Pelicans themselves.

Do we have a conclusion about the most desirable possible trade packages for Davis?

Marks: It comes down to the Celtics and the Lakers. If the Celtics are willing to part ways with Tatum and their best draft assets, New Orleans should take that offer. If the strength of the Boston deal is contingent on Irving, then the Lakers' package of No. 4 and Ball, Ingram and Kuzma becomes more appealing.

Pelton: The rapid timetable for a Davis trade seems advantageous for the Lakers, who don't have to worry about a star player potentially leaving (Irving) or figuring out exactly who's going to commit in free agency this summer (like the Knicks). Hard as it might have been to believe after talks broke down in February, the Lakers now look like they could be the favorites to get Davis.