Finding LAL’s Next MARK WILLIAMS. (6 Trades for YOUNG, Former LOTTERY Picks)

The Los Angeles Lakers don’t need another reminder that their margin for error is thin. In the post-deadline reality of a roster built around immediate contention and a looming transition into a post-LeBron era, the front office is operating in a narrow lane: improve now without sacrificing the future entirely, and add pieces that can scale next to Luka Dončić and Austin Reaves if the team’s timeline shifts.

That’s why a recent idea making the rounds in Lakers media circles has gained traction: find the next “Mark Williams”-type trade.

Not Mark Williams specifically—because that deal never became official—but the shape of that deal. A needle-moving, asset-heavy package for a young, early-20s player, ideally a recent lottery pick, who can become part of the Lakers’ medium-term core rather than a short-term rental. A player whose value is high enough to justify spending real draft equity, but young enough to still be developing.

On the Lakers Legacy podcast, host Jonathan Hernandez framed it as a blueprint the Lakers have already shown they were willing to execute: a trade that would have sent out the team’s premium future chip—the 2031 unprotected first-round pick, plus a prospect (Dalton Knecht was cited), plus a pick swap, in exchange for a 23-year-old center in Williams, who would have fit the Luka/Reaves timeline and served as a bridge into the next era.

The Lakers ultimately rescinded that trade, leaving them with their major assets intact—but the concept remains relevant. If the Lakers ever “go big” again without chasing a top-five superstar, it might look a lot like that: a major future pick used to acquire a young player with upside and contractual runway.

So who fits that profile across the league?

Hernandez proposed six “Mark Williams-like” trade targets—players who are young enough to grow with the Lakers but meaningful enough to justify sending out a rare unprotected future first. The proposals were not presented as guaranteed or even likely; they were framed as an exercise in identifying the type of player the Lakers could realistically prioritize if they decide their next move is a timeline and infrastructure play, not a star-chasing swing.

Here’s the updated sports-news breakdown of the concept, the logic behind it, and the six targets Hernandez floated.

Why the “Mark Williams Blueprint” Matters for the Lakers

The Lakers’ asset situation is more complicated than casual fans often assume.

The common belief is that Los Angeles is sitting on its draft capital waiting for the next mega-star to become available. But the counterargument—central to Hernandez’s thesis—is that the Lakers already signaled they were willing to spend big on a non-superstar if the player fit the future timeline and filled a structural need.

That’s what the attempted Williams trade represented: a bet on a young big, rather than a veteran patch, at a price that looked like an “all-in” move relative to what the Lakers had left.

The appeal of that model is straightforward:

You’re not only buying present-day improvement.
You’re buying a player who can remain relevant when the roster turns over.
You’re aligning the age curve with Luka and Reaves.
You’re potentially avoiding the trap of spending assets on older players who peak out before the Lakers’ next roster iteration is ready.

In other words: if the Lakers are going to spend their best remaining trade bullets, one way to justify it is to spend them on someone who still fits when the team’s identity evolves.

But the risk is also obvious. The 2031 unprotected first is the kind of asset teams guard fiercely because it has asymmetric upside for the receiving team. The Lakers don’t know what they’ll be in 2031. That pick could end up in the lottery—potentially high lottery—depending on how the next era unfolds.

So the Lakers’ next “big” trade, if it happens, would likely need to return someone who is:

young enough to be a long-term piece
impactful enough to move the needle now
valuable enough to justify unprotected draft equity
and (ideally) under contract or under team control long enough to make the risk rational

That’s the lens Hernandez used. Then he went team by team, identifying young players—often recent lottery picks—who might be theoretically “gettable” if the Lakers attached their premium future capital.

Proposal 1: Washington Wizards — Bilal Coulibaly as a Defensive Wing Bet

Target: Bilal Coulibaly
Concept: Use the “Mark Williams package” to acquire a long, defense-first wing aligned with Luka’s timeline.

In Hernandez’s first scenario, the Lakers pivot away from the center spot and target a different kind of foundational piece: a rangy wing defender with size, length, and developmental upside.

Coulibaly fits that archetype: long, athletic, perimeter-capable, and already flashing defensive value. The offensive profile is still developing—especially the three-point shot—but that’s exactly where the Lakers would be betting on environment, role clarity, and the gravitational pull of a heliocentric creator like Luka to simplify reads and create easier shots.

Hernandez’s hypothetical package included the kind of “matching salary plus premium future” structure that defines this concept: expiring money (Gabe Vincent was mentioned), a young prospect (Knecht), and the 2031 unprotected first (with the possibility of a swap). He also included a “sweetener” name—Justin Champagnie—as an additional rotation-style piece.

Why it makes theoretical sense for the Lakers:

They need long, playoff-viable perimeter defenders.
A defense-first wing can scale next to stars without needing the ball.
If the shot develops even to “respectable,” the value jump is significant.

Why it’s hard in reality:

Washington may not want to move a young lottery wing unless the return is overwhelming.
Coulibaly’s development timeline may be longer than the Lakers’ patience.

Still, the Coulibaly idea represents the cleanest version of the “young core” pivot: spend the premium pick on a player who could become the defensive spine of Luka-era rosters.

Proposal 2: New Orleans Pelicans — Yves Missi as an Athletic Center of the Future

Target: Yves Missi
Concept: Use the big package to secure a springy, defense-first center who can run, switch, and finish lobs.

If the Lakers want to revisit the center upgrade concept without returning to Williams, Hernandez argues a name like Missi fits the profile: young, explosive, high-motor, and potentially scalable in a playoff environment because rim protection and vertical spacing translate.

The appeal of this archetype next to a dominant passing engine is easy to see. Centers who can sprint into screens, roll hard, catch in traffic, and finish above the rim tend to become premium “ecosystem” players next to elite creators.

Hernandez’s version of the deal also layered in two rotation names—Jose Alvarado and Saddiq Bey—framed as players who could help in the present while Missi represents the future bet.

Why it makes theoretical sense for the Lakers:

A young rim runner can become a long-term starter without needing touches.
A high-motor big helps cover defensive gaps on nights when the perimeter leaks.
The timeline lines up.

Why it’s complicated:

New Orleans’ internal roster priorities would determine everything.
If the Pelicans see Missi as part of their own long-term build, it’s a non-starter.

This proposal is essentially a modern NBA thesis: if you’re building around a star playmaker, one of the best uses of resources is to acquire a center who makes the game simple—screen, roll, protect the rim, sprint in transition, repeat.

Proposal 3: Houston Rockets — Tari Eason as the “Wing Version” of the Bet (Three-Team Concept)

Target: Tari Eason
Concept: Spend the premium pick not on a big, but on a two-way forward who can defend, rebound, and—if the shot holds—space the floor.

Hernandez’s third idea centered on a different kind of value proposition: a young, versatile forward whose production in limited minutes hints at larger impact with expanded usage.

Eason’s appeal is structural. For playoff teams, two-way wings/forwards who can defend multiple positions, rebound their area, and knock down open threes become lineup glue—the type of piece every contender tries to stockpile.

Because of salary and roster dynamics, Hernandez framed it as a three-team construction involving Brooklyn as a facilitator, with the Lakers sending out their standard “package core” and Houston receiving the premium draft asset.

Why it makes theoretical sense for the Lakers:

Athletic forward depth matters more in the playoffs than fans often admit.
A two-way forward can be a “third or fourth best player” on a contender.
Youth keeps him relevant in the post-LeBron transition.

The major issue:

Eason’s contract situation (if expiring/extension eligible) changes the math.
If the Lakers pay a premium pick and then face a big new contract immediately, the deal becomes as much about cap strategy as it is about talent.

This is the category of trade that separates casual roster-building from real front office calculus: if you’re trading an unprotected future first, you need to be confident not only in the player, but in the contract path that follows.

Proposal 4: Indiana Pacers — Bennedict Mathurin as a Scoring Wing Swing

Target: Bennedict Mathurin
Concept: Use the premium pick to acquire a young scoring wing who can pressure the rim, hit threes, and potentially grow into a larger two-way role.

Mathurin represents the most offense-forward bet in the set of proposals. The pitch is simple: the Lakers still need athletic juice—players who can create rim pressure and get their own shot when possessions get sticky.

Hernandez framed Mathurin as someone who could be acquired if the Pacers are reluctant to commit to his next contract. In that case, Indiana might decide to monetize the asset rather than risk losing him or paying a number they don’t like.

The proposed deal also included taking on T.J. McConnell’s longer salary as part of the trade logic—effectively making it easier for Indiana to rationalize moving Mathurin while giving the Lakers a steady veteran guard who can stabilize lineups.

Why it makes theoretical sense for the Lakers:

Athletic scoring wings are among the hardest players to find.
If Mathurin becomes even an average defender consistently, his value spikes.
He fits multiple lineup paths: starter, sixth man, or eventual Reaves contingency.

The key risk:

Trading a premium unprotected first for a player who might require a large new contract quickly is inherently risky.
If Mathurin’s defense never catches up, he could become expensive offense without playoff reliability.

This proposal is the clearest example of the “bet on talent” argument: you spend the pick because you think the player can become something bigger in your environment.

Proposal 5: Detroit Pistons — Ron Holland II as a Defense/Motor Prospect

Target: Ron Holland II
Concept: Acquire a young, high-motor wing defender and trust your development environment to build the shot over time.

Holland represents the defense-first, shot-later archetype that teams keep drafting because elite perimeter defense with size is so valuable—if the offense becomes passable.

Hernandez’s argument mirrors the Coulibaly logic: if you can develop the jumper and keep the motor, you might have a long-term wing defender who can guard high-end scorers and run the floor next to a superstar creator.

Why it makes theoretical sense for the Lakers:

Perimeter defense is a chronic need.
Youth and athleticism fit the new-era roster identity.
A high-motor defender can play in playoff series even without big scoring.

Why it’s unlikely:

Detroit’s competitive timeline and internal valuation matters.
Young recent high picks are rarely moved unless the player is clearly misfit or the return is overwhelming.

This is the kind of trade that would only happen if the selling team believes it can replace the player archetype and values the unprotected pick more than the player’s development.

Proposal 6: Utah Jazz — Walker Kessler as a “Buy Low” Move (Injury + RFA Leverage)

Target: Walker Kessler
Concept: Exploit the lowest point of a player’s market—injury plus contract timing—to acquire a high-impact center before he gets paid.

Kessler is the biggest name in the set because he’s been linked to the Lakers in trade rumors before. Hernandez’s angle is that the window might finally open if the Jazz face a difficult choice: pay Kessler long term, or pivot.

In the hypothetical, the Lakers take on additional salary (Kyle Anderson and Simone Fontecchio were mentioned as rotation fillers) while acquiring Kessler with the expectation of re-signing him in restricted free agency at a meaningful number.

This proposal is explicitly framed as a long-term play: you don’t get the player’s on-court value immediately if he’s injured, but you “secure the asset” before the summer market sets his price, and you keep him as a future anchor next to Luka and Reaves.

Why it makes theoretical sense for the Lakers:

Rim protection plus rebounding remains one of the most stable team-building foundations.
A young center can be a multi-year defensive identity piece.
RFA structure can give leverage if you already have the player in-house.

Why it’s risky:

You’re spending the premium pick on an injured player.
You may be committing to a major contract without seeing full fit in your system first.
Utah’s asking price historically for Kessler has been high.

Among the six proposals, Hernandez suggested this one—and the Mathurin concept—felt the most “remotely realistic” because the mechanisms (injury timing, contract decisions, RFA uncertainty) are the kind of real levers that can create trade openings.

The Real Question: Would the Lakers Spend the 2031 Unprotected First Without Contract Runway?

A critical distinction runs through these proposals: Mark Williams would have been under contract, giving the Lakers more time to evaluate fit before a major payday.

Several of these targets, however, would place the Lakers in a different situation: trading for a player who is nearing restricted free agency and then essentially paying draft equity for the right to pay the player next.

That’s not necessarily wrong—teams do it—but it raises the bar for certainty. You’d need clarity on:

the player’s market value
how he fits next to Luka/Reaves
how his next contract affects cap flexibility
whether the team can still pursue other needs afterward

In other words, these aren’t just basketball decisions; they’re cap and timing decisions.

What This Suggests About the Lakers’ Actual Next Move

Whether or not any of these exact names are realistic, the bigger takeaway is the strategy shift it represents.

If the Lakers decide they’re done waiting for a theoretical superstar and instead want to build a sustainable contender around Luka, the next major trade may prioritize:

age curve (under 25)
scalability (defense, shooting, vertical spacing)
team control (rookie deal/RFA)
playoff translation (skills that survive postseason scouting)

That is the “Mark Williams” blueprint—less about headlines, more about infrastructure.

The Lakers, historically, have leaned toward star chasing. But the modern league has punished teams that ignore depth, defense, and continuity. If Los Angeles uses its premium future pick again, it may not be for a Giannis-level swing. It may be for a young piece that can be part of the franchise’s next five-to-seven-year identity.

And if that’s the direction, the search for the next “Mark Williams-type” trade isn’t just content—it’s a preview of how the Lakers might actually operate.