One day and people are already making Celtics/Nets comparisons.
Anyone comparing this one to the Bos/Nets trade must not have understood that trade or doesn't understand the Pels/Lakers trade, or the NBA, or basketball, or life, or they're a Celtics fan.
The Lakers didn't stupidly give up major assets for a couple of over the hill stiffs, not to mention the fact that the Nets didn't have one of the top five players in the league waiting to pair up with a top 3 acquisition.
The Nets failed to see that trading for Garnett and "Wheelchair" Pierce pretty much insured the picks they gave up would be made more valuable (not that Ainge has done anything with those picks

).
Not saying this deal can't fail, but save for the Nash/Dwight fiasco in 2012, whenever the Lakers have made a bold move like this it has resulted in championships. If things even partially work out, and there is a much better chance of that than the Nets had, the picks we gave up will not be worth much.
People all over the internet are having to scramble to fit this into their flawed narratives, including Adrian Wojnarowski who said back in Feb, the Lakers' young core wasn't good enough to get the deal done. Now he's saying that the Pels acquisition of those same 'average to below average' players represents a "steal" for the Pels. Same with ESPN's Bobby Marks.
If things work out right, and it's complicated, the Lakers could have enough cap to sign another max or close to max, free agent. Or we'll use that money to fill out the roster.
Needless to say, I'll miss Zo, BI, and JHart, and I expect them to ball out in NOLA, but the fact that we got AD makes up for the loss. As for the draft picks; picks represent a possible future. With LeBron on a 3 year deal, the Lakers' real future is right now.