The rumor that the Indiana Pacers could potentially trade Pascal Siakam in exchange for Austin Reaves, Dalton Knecht, and Jarred Vanderbilt is both intriguing and, in many ways, implausible. On its face, the deal suggests a shift in team direction for both the Lakers and the Pacers, two franchises currently at very different stages of their respective arcs. To fully understand the layers behind this potential trade scenario, we must examine the backgrounds of the players involved, the current construction and goals of both franchises, financial implications, past trade trends, and the logic or lack thereof that may be driving the speculation.
Pascal Siakam is an All-Star forward who was traded to the Indiana Pacers during the 2023–24 season from the Toronto Raptors. That move alone took significant capital from Indiana, including multiple first-round draft picks and several rotational players. Siakam’s arrival in Indiana was meant to bolster their lineup and provide a veteran presence to support Tyrese Haliburton and Myles Turner. By the end of the 2024–25 season, Siakam proved to be an essential piece, elevating Indiana deep into the playoffs and arguably helping them become legitimate contenders in the Eastern Conference. Indiana not only committed resources to trade for Siakam but also demonstrated their long-term confidence in him by signing him to a lucrative multi-year extension.
Given that context, the idea of the Pacers now turning around and trading Siakam for a package centered around Austin Reaves, a promising but still second-tier guard, Dalton Knecht, an unproven rookie, and Jarred Vanderbilt, a defense-first role player, raises more questions than answers. It’s difficult to see the incentive for Indiana to part with a player of Siakam’s caliber, particularly when he has already integrated into their system and helped push the franchise to new heights.
On the Lakers’ side, the motivation is easier to grasp. Los Angeles is always in pursuit of stars. With LeBron James continuing his twilight run and Anthony Davis in his prime, the team is constantly searching for ways to remain competitive while bridging the gap to a post-LeBron future. Acquiring Siakam would instantly add another dynamic forward who can score, defend, and make plays—qualities that would fit well alongside Davis and potentially allow LeBron to preserve energy throughout the season. Siakam is a known playoff performer, and having a third star of his caliber could shift the Lakers back into title contention, especially in a Western Conference that remains loaded with elite teams.
But the reality is that the Lakers’ offer as outlined in the rumor likely does not meet the threshold of what Indiana would expect or require in return for someone of Siakam’s stature. Austin Reaves, while popular and productive, is not a franchise-changing player. He plays hard, is efficient, and has a well-rounded game, but he’s not someone you build around. He is on a team-friendly contract and has shown flashes of brilliance, but he hasn’t shown he can carry a team or serve as a foundational piece for a playoff contender.
Dalton Knecht, the Lakers’ 2024 first-round pick, is a solid shooter and wing prospect, but as a rookie he has yet to prove anything at the NBA level. His potential is still speculative. Jarred Vanderbilt is a versatile defender who can guard multiple positions and brings energy and hustle, but offensively he offers very little. While all three players could serve useful roles on a roster, none of them project as future All-Stars, nor do they move the needle significantly on their own or even as a group.
From a financial standpoint, such a trade presents additional complications. Siakam’s contract is substantial, now sitting at over $40 million annually. In contrast, Reaves is earning around $13 million per year, Vanderbilt is on a modest deal, and Knecht is on a rookie contract. The Lakers would need to add additional salaries or use trade exceptions to make the money work under the collective bargaining agreement. Even then, there are luxury tax and roster construction issues to consider, particularly given the restrictions placed on teams above the first and second tax aprons.
Beyond the financials, there is the question of direction. The Pacers have just invested heavily in Siakam. They traded real value to get him, watched him perform at a high level, and then committed to him with a new deal. Indiana’s front office, led by Kevin Pritchard, has expressed belief in the Siakam-Haliburton duo as a legitimate path forward. To pivot away from that in exchange for three players who, at best, fill support roles, suggests either a major change in team philosophy or behind-the-scenes issues that have not come to light—neither of which seem likely given recent developments.
Historically, Indiana has been hesitant to blow up competitive rosters. The franchise rarely tanks and generally prefers to remain relevant. They operate in a smaller market and are known for seeking stability, even if it means staying just below championship level. The acquisition of Siakam was a bold swing for a franchise that doesn’t often make blockbuster moves. Undoing that progress to stockpile role players doesn’t align with their typical behavior or with their current aspirations.
From a basketball standpoint, removing Siakam from the lineup would leave a significant void. He is a skilled scorer in the post and midrange, can hit threes when left open, passes well for a forward, and defends multiple positions. He takes pressure off Haliburton offensively and can create his own shot in isolation—a skill few Pacers possess. His presence allows Indiana to switch defensively, and he often guards opposing wings and forwards in crunch time. Removing him and replacing him with players like Vanderbilt or Reaves would require other players to step into roles they might not be suited for, potentially setting the team back a year or more in development.
Even if Indiana were interested in young talent, there are arguably more attractive packages they could pursue elsewhere. If they decided to move Siakam for future flexibility or draft capital, other teams could offer more appealing assets—high-upside prospects, multiple first-round picks, or players on cheaper deals with higher ceilings. The Lakers are relatively depleted in terms of draft assets and prospects after years of star-chasing, making them a difficult trade partner for any team looking to rebuild or retool.
It’s worth considering that this rumor may stem more from speculation than substance. The NBA offseason is often filled with hypotheticals tossed around by fans, media, and even agents trying to generate leverage or create buzz. The idea of Siakam joining the Lakers is a classic example of a big-market team being linked to a high-level player simply because the narrative fits. But real trades rarely align with surface-level speculation. Front offices spend months planning and coordinating moves, taking into account personality fits, contract structures, health, team dynamics, and long-term goals. A trade like this would raise red flags on multiple fronts.
