Hey everyone, I’m Dan Woike and welcome to The Times’ Lakers Newsletter, where this week I’ll answer questions posed to me on social media, but not the ones I get asked most often (“How dare you?” and “What gives you the right, dummy?”)

Anyways, a lot of trade chatter in here so I’ll do my best to shed light on a situation that remains really fluid as we move toward the Feb. 6 deadline.

You’ve got mail

Remember mail?

Now it gets delivered via Elon Musk.

Off we go.

I think the only way “both” happens is if the Lakers end up trading a first-round pick. They don’t really have the contracts and the second-rounders to make multiple moves of note unless they were to part with a young player that has value around the league (either Max Christie or Dalton Knecht). One or the other seems way more likely to me — and I think playmaking help would have more utility for the team than a center who would have his minutes severely limited in a playoff run because Anthony Davis is going to play a ton at center.

The sense I’ve gotten on Brandon Ingram is that there’s a gap between what fair value for him would be because of his talent and what teams have been willing to offer because of his pending free agency. Whoever trades for Ingram would have to want to pay him this summer.

Also, this is a perfect example of the kind of trade I mentioned last week. New Orleans would have no interest in taking on long-term contracts like Rui Hachimura’s or Gabe Vincent’s unless the Pelicans really wanted the player. And as they languish near the bottom of the West, their priorities are going to be elsewhere.

I don’t think both first-round picks are getting traded because I don’t think there’s a return worth the two picks that’s actually available. Like if “move the needle” is the bar that needs to be cleared for the Lakers to trade both picks, there’s just no way they can get either the singular piece they need or the package of perfectly-tailored role players while somehow sending out matching salaries. And if those players actually existed, they probably wouldn’t be on the market for a team like the Lakers anyways.

Brooklyn’s Cam Johnson is a good example of this, a sweet-shooting forward with size that would solve some problems for the Lakers. But is he really worth their last two tradeable first-round picks? Does he make them a favorite in the West? Is that what “moves the needle” means?

These are difficult questions to answer.

The general sense I’ve gotten is that it’ll be an active deadline around the league, but it’ll probably mostly be role players that get shuffled.

OK, so I spoke with a league executive today about this and I want to try to shed light on how “trade targets” actually come to be in most cases. Usually teams first identify the kind of player they want or need and then they get to work on building a list of guys who have those qualities at the right price. They then call teams and touch base on a lot of players while trying to figure out who is actually available and what they cost (both today and in the future).

The Lakers’ primary trade target was Dorian Finney-Smith because they aggressively pursued him and probably gave up slightly more to get him a month before the trade deadline.

Like I wrote last week, I think toughness, athleticism and versatility are the traits they value most. They’re certainly looking at depth options at center. And ballhandling is expected to be another area they pursue. But a lot of the “targets” won’t totally shake out for another few weeks or so as the trade market gets clearer.

Cheap really has nothing to do with the situation the Lakers are in (they’re over the first apron of the salary cap threshold and, if it meant they could add another ring, I’d bet that they could be convinced to go into the second apron. I do think people — and I’m guilty of this — want trades to be easier and more frequent. But the reality is that trades are difficult to pull off because both teams have to feel like their needs are met, and it’s tough to agree on ways to make that happen — particularly if you’re operating from a position like the Lakers’ where you have limited draft capital and not a lot of players who are deeply valued around the league.

Fun question. I asked around on this and teams definitely have their own value charts for what picks are worth in terms of other picks — similar to the NFL draft cards you hear about that help teams decide what are fair costs for moving up and down.

In terms of positive/negative/neutral, I’ve come to understand that some executives see “available” players with years on their deal as either negative or neutral assets in trades because if they were positive assets under their contracts, well, they wouldn’t be so “available.”

If you’re a team trading out talent, you generally don’t want to take back longer contracts without be compensated for taking them, usually in the form of more draft picks.

As far as players go, a lot of it is situational. If you’re a young team without a clear star and you believe in your medical staff, maybe a gamble on a player like Zion Williamson makes sense for you. If you’re on the cusp of something special and you don’t want to disrupt what you have, it probably doesn’t.

In terms of Zach LaVine, I still get the sense that despite his terrific season, there’s just lingering concerns about his health that could keep the Bulls from getting a significant return. And if you’re not getting a significant return, why would Chicago want to trade one of its most productive players?

As far as the Lakers’ top-four protection with their 2027 pick (which Utah owns), there’s definitely been chatter about the Lakers trying to figure out exactly what it’s worth. The sense is that it would matter most to Utah because it would free them to use that pick however they wanted in a trade without that protection attached to it.

To Utah, having that pick outright would free them (though the Jazz are hardly light when it comes to future picks). To other teams, it’s more of a lottery scratcher — could be something, probably is nothing.

Remembering Kobe Bryant

Jan. 26 will mark five years since Lakers legend Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna were killed in a helicopter crash along with baseball coach John Altobelli, his wife, Keri, and daughter Alyssa, Sarah Chester and her daughter Payton, basketball coach Christina Mauser and the pilot, Ara Zobayan.

We’d like to hear from you. Where were you when you heard about the crash, and what effect did Bryant’s death have on your life? Selected memories will be published at a future date. Please send them to colleague houston.mitchell@latimes.com.

Song of the week

“Apply Some Pressure” by Maximo Park

We’re coming up on the 20^th anniversary of this song, which is by an English band and not a Spanish footballer (Maximo Park absolutely sounds like a Real Madrid midfielder). It’s a jam (and it’s also how teams are guarding Austin Reaves).

In case you missed it

Lakers seek relief in return to court, but Spurs offer little solace

Hernández: In first home game since wildfires, Lakers reflect on a ‘bittersweet’ night

Lakers and Clippers games for Saturday postponed because of L.A. fires

Lakers coach JJ Redick vows to help rebuild L.A. after losing home in fire