What is Kracklac and fell thermony per a efforts. I am Dan Valley coming
at you with a solo, medium sized mail bag. We'd call it.
I'm catching up on some questions that we had in our discord. Go join
our discord for that. And I didn't put out a solicitation for this time
because I'm actually pressed her time and don't want to spend eight hours on a
don't have the not that I don't want to, I just can't spend eight
hours on a mail bag as I do normally. Yes, eight hours is
hyperbole. So we're gonna get to a few questions that strays that I missed,
and that's a plug. Look, join our discord. You can ask
questions too, and I will answer them, or you can give thoughts and
I will respond to them. But let's let let's just dive right in here.
So we'll begin with Mattie L had a couple questions bookkeeping question Why question
number one, why do sign and trades happen? This is a good question
and we've had answers in the discord, but for other listeners who are not
in the discord, and also defeats the purpose of you know, we have
responses to every mailbag question. If they're I'm not gonna answer them. What's
the point? However, sign and trades mostly happen because teams are a player
and team want to link up who are over the cap, like where let's
just use as an example this upcoming summer. I don't think he's gonna leave
Paul George, but he wants to go to the Knicks. He can't just
sign with the Knicks unless he's gonna take a massive pay cut under his max.
If you do a sign in trade, it gives you the ability to
get your max money and go to a team that doesn't have the cap space
to sign you outright. They used to be more appealing in general because in
the previous CBA you could get the full amount of years and raises. That
has since been changed to where sign and trades cannot be more than four years
long and they have to be at least three seasons long. But there is
a loophole to that. We'll get to it in a minute, but they
can only be up to four seasons and you get five percent raises instead of
eight percent raises, where if you re signed with your current team, you
could depending on how old you are. You could sign a five year deal
with up to eight percent raises. I think in George's case that's not actually
an issue because I think five would conflict with the over thirty eight rule.
That's why signing trades generally happen, though. They are a way for a
team to capitalize on moving a player without losing him for nothing. But you
need the player's cooperation, and it's a lot harder to get a player's cooperation
than a team's cooperation, because you're if you're Paul George and you're saying,
well, I'm gonna go here and I'm willing to pay like play for less,
the Clippers should trade you because they should drive and capitalize on your departure.
Whereas if you're a team that's like, well, I just want to
like this player is a free agent. Let's use PJ. Washington as all
that he was a bad example this summer. If you use it, if
you want to get rid of the player because you want to go in a
different you need their cooperation to where they're gonna go, and they might not
want to go to that team that you're talking to that's gonna give you the
value for the player that you want, and so sign and trades are normally,
I would say, especially now, they would be more dictated by a
player wanting to go to a different team and then his incumbent team facilitating that.
Now you can, as a rule of sign and trade only the first
year salary needs to be guaranteed. And so if you're trying to if you're
trying to as a team, let's say I don't fucking know, Let's say
let's say the Knicks again, let's just keep using the Knicks year. Well,
they don't have a free Well, yeah, let's say that you want
to trade Isaiah Hartenstein and use him that money, or Oji Anoby. Let's
say you wanted to trade Ognnobi to get a different type of package. But
og Anobi isn't, per se a great player, or player X is not
a great player, and they're not gonna care where they go as long as
they get paid. You can inflate someone's salary over that deal so that it
helps you get to the necessary money matching. If you were the Knicks and
wanted to acquire and you had a free agent, and you had their bird
rights and you're able to sign them, maybe it's a let's say they're like
a seven million dollar a year player and you're willing to pay them like twelve
or fourteen million dollars a year. Get into the issue of base year compensation
sometimes, but you can drum up the amount of money matching you're sending out
in a trade if the other team is interested more so in well, we'll
take on this one year inflated salary because you're sending us so much drafs vacuity.
Maybe another player that we like and our player wants to go to you
anyway. So that's another reason why sign and trades can happen. It just
doesn't tend to that scenario, eylay out. It doesn't happen as much.
I do think in part because during the offseason, like you're looking at the
cap space guys as more major players, and then seldom if it's a player
who's worth a damn. In that scenario, you're not gonna need to go
to a team to get the assets required. If that player that you're trading
is under contract, you're not going to need to go to a team that
needs to actually come up with money matching to get like the necessary return.
But in theory. That's what you could do is you can sign and trade
a player only guarantee the first year of his deal at an inflated rate,
so that it helps you as the team over the cap match salaries for another
player that you're trying to acquire. Matt. He also asked how do pick
swaps work. Maybe it's been explained, but I've missed it, And just
for clarification, because I think it was mentioned on the most recent podcast,
which was well, we've been we've been putting out the content, so we
were as on vacation, but the content continued to come out. And just
for clarifications, I think it was mentioned on the most recent pod. Why
do teams, example, the Lakers go from having not many to three first
round picks to trade after the draft. Sorry if you did explain this was
doing. Was dodging potholes at the time. Well, one, I hope
you successfully dodged those potholes that are not trapped in them. Let's start with
the pick swaps, so pickswap works this way. Let's use the Thunder and
the Mavericks as an example, because as part of the trade, the Thunder
did something unique in the sense that at the trade deadline they sent the Mavericks
at twenty twenty four. It was a I think it was like the they
sent out a twenty twenty four first round pick in exchange for twenty twenty eight
swap rights with the Dallas Mavericks and the swap rights. I mean that trade
was unique for like way, like a bunch of different reasons. Because you
the Thunder have done it before, but you seldom see a team trade an
actual first round pick to get a swap. But when you have so many
first round picks like the Thunder, rather than have a bottom five first round
pick, do you want to, you know, sort of kick the can
and say, well, we might prefer Dallas's twenty twenty eight first round pick.
Now here's how the swap would work. If in twenty twenty eight,
the Thunder end up with the number nineteen pick, but the Dallas Mavericks have
any pick like that comes beforehand. It could be number eighteen, it could
be number four, could be number twelve. Oklahoma City will have the right
to swap its first round pick, so number nineteen with whatever the Mavericks have,
So you're gonna exercise that swap. If the Mavericks have a better pick
than you as the Thunder. Now, there are sometimes protections on this.
We did a I think we did a segment where we explained protections. We've
seen swaps have protections on it. The Celtics o a pick swap to the
Spurs. I think that's also in twenty twenty eight, maybe that's twenty twenty
nine. Whatever it is, it's top one protected. And so if the
Celtics end up with the first overall pick the Spur and the Spurs have number
five or fifteen, they can't swap because of that top one protection. But
in this case, if the Thunder have number nineteen and the Mavericks have numbers
one through eighteen, because I haven't seen any protections on it, the Thunder
get to swap and they will take the Mavericks pick while sending the Mavericks their
own pick. So the Mavericks would have number nineteen, the Thunder would have
the Mavericks pick. Now, if the Mavericks end up with the twenty second
pick and the Thunder have the nineteenth pick, you don't exercise that swap because
you have the better pick as the Thunder. That like, that's pretty like
that's pretty straightforward for the most part. Where it gets interesting is when you're
the Thunder and you have multiple first round picks in that year, and so
let's just say the Thunder have like three different four different first like first round
picks in twenty twenty eight. There does need to be like, there can
be language in the trade where it's let's say in twenty twenty eight, the
Thunder have their pick, and they have a Houston pick, and they have
a Clippers pick. I don't like, I'm not even this doesn't line up.
Let's just say they have those three picks. There can be language in
the trade that says, we're only swapping. You can only swap us with
your own pick. But you could in theory, if the trade allows it,
the Thunder could use any of the first round picks they own to swap.
And so, just as a scenario, let's say the Thunder own their
own pick that ends up at number that ends up at number twelve, and
then they own Houston's first round pick, which ends up at number fifteen,
and then they own then they own the Clippers's first round pick, which ends
up at number twenty three, and then you have the Mavericks pick in twenty
twenty eight that comes in at number fifteen. Well, the Thunder as a
lottery team, in that scenario, you're not gonna swap your own pick,
but could you. You could swap the Clippers pick if that trade allows it,
but the number twenty one pick for that, And so when the team
has multiple first round picks, the language of the trade does matter there.
I think that this might be just a straight up swap between Dallas and OKC,
but we would have to see the swap in itself, though, was
just pretty straightforward. If that other team's pick is better than the one year
holding, you just get to swap it. And so that's why swaps are
appealing. They seldom do get excised, but it does happen, and I
would hazard we're getting into a point where so many long distance swaps have been
traded by Cleveland, by Minnesota, by Houston, by Brooklyn, by the
Clippers, that we're gonna see some pretty I'm gonna guess at some point we're
gonna see some pretty tasty picks get swapped, and I'm wondering if that forces
teams to kind of recalibrate how they're going about trading these these distant first round
picks. The second part of this question from Mattie l was why do teams
go from having not so many picks to having three first round picks? And
so with the Lakers are a good example. At the trade deadline, they
could have promised one first round pick in twenty twenty nine, or it could
have been in twenty thirty one, but in twenty twenty nine, let's say
because of the because of the Steppian rule, you can't be without first round
picks in consecutive years. And so in theory, let's just say the Lakers
wanted to have traded twenty twenty eight in twenty twenty nine. Well, you
can't do that because then you would be without a first round pick in two
consecutive drafts. And that's why you couldn't trade like more than one first round
pick at this trade deadline. Is that they owe their twenty twenty seven pick
to Utah. There's some protection on it they have. This year's pick goes
to the Pelicans with a right to defer to twenty twenty five. And I
know this can get a little confusing, but that means you can't trade twenty
twenty six, because there's a chance right now, without knowing what the Pelicans
are gonna do, that you could be without a twenty twenty five and twenty
twenty six second round first round pick in that scenario. Now, future drafts
only apply to drafts that have not taken place yet. That disappears when you
get to draft night, and so in the Lakers' case, it essentially disappears.
It functionally technically disappears once the league calendar resets. So when you get
to draft night and you're the Lakers, you now know what New Orleans is
gonna do, and so let's just say they elect to defer, so they're
going to take your twenty twenty five pick. You have your twenty twenty four
pick that you can actually you select a player. You trade that player before
he's ever played a game that counts that technically counts as one first round pick,
especially if you've agreed to the terms of fororehand, the team you're trading
him to winds up making that pick. You're picking the player that they want.
Essentially, so now you trade your twenty twenty four, you trade your
twenty twenty nine that was the pick you already had opened and now because you
can only trade picks seven years out in advance, two thousand and thirty one
is now opened up because that twenty twenty four draft is over, and so
now you've gone from only having twenty twenty nine to having two thousand and thirty
one and then twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five. It doesn't actually matter
what the Pelicans do. If the Pelicans keep twenty twenty four, the Lakers
can go ahead and trade. You could argue that mystery boxes are more valuables.
You could make the argument that having the twenty twenty five pick that hasn't
turned into a player yet is more valuable twenty twenty four. But regardless,
as of draft night, whatever the Pelicans do, you can either trade this
year's draft pick as the actual player or next year's draft pick on top of
that twenty twenty nine pick and the twenty thirty one pick, because that's seven
drafts away, and as of right now, that would have been more than
seven drafts out, because we would have twenty twenty four, twenty five,
twenty six, twenty seven, twenty eight, twenty nine, thirty thirty one.
That's a simple math right there. Hopefully, that answers your questions without
confusing the fuck out of you. Mattiel, Everything Blacks, this is this
is a good one. That's something, or that's stupid, or that's something
stupid. Wow, technical fouls should count as personal fouls, And he clarified
that he was referring that this is how FEBA did it, and so he's
not he's saying that you don't get rid of the free throws that come with
technical fouls. What you're saying is you have this technical. If you get
a technical, you would all a second technical. You would also get ejected.
But like let's say you have one technical foul, it also counts as
a personal foul, and so you've gotten one technical and it counts towards your
your total fouls to where six and your fouled out. That technical foul is
a part of it. Where in theory you could have five personal fouls and
a technical foul and still be in the game. That would eradicate this.
I would do it because, as Everything Blacks pointed out, it kind of
you know, the double technical if they're going to cance Like if you look
at that as sort of canceling each other out, it still counts towards your
personal foul tally. You could also go this way and say should account towards
the team's total quarterfoul tallies. But I like the idea of accounting as a
personal foul because maybe it this way it's players from knowing you know you could
get and if you get called for a foul, you want to argue it,
and you're fine getting it upgraded to a technical because it doesn't really Yeah,
you give up the free throw, but it doesn't do anything to yeah,
put you one technical away from getting ejected, but it doesn't impact your
ability to use the rest of your fouls. I'm all for the gamesmanship of
let's I think that would probably cut down on the amount of complaining after personal
fouls were given out at the bare minimum. Maybe it wouldn't, but that'd
be something I would absolutely that I would absolutely look into. Roumiscal asked,
and this might have been a question part of a larger discussion that was taking
place in the mail bag section of Discord. Why is it when a front
office puts together a squad that consists of three very good players and some decent
specialists in supporting roles, be it through trade or through free agency, we
applaud that front office, Yet when the players themselves seek to have the same
agency to form a team, we dub them as snakes, gold diggers,
and ring chasers. Isn't that why every Isn't that what every franchise is doing?
Ring chasing? I guess pen an entire podcast on this question. There
definitely is a discrepancy between how these are viewed, and there's like the way
that people are pro billionaire owners or at least evaluate their teams through that lens
versus as the players. That's weird, But I also think it's something a
trend that's kind of not that it's not that it's being eradicated, but he
definitely has shifted because we have more people who are fans of players than just
teams, and so a big part of this is you're rooting for a team,
and so when a player leaves, like you're just automatically gonna side with
that team. And so if it's oh, Kevin, let's use just Kevin
Durant as an example. If you're a fan of the Thunder rather than Kevin
Durant, you're gonna be Well, he didn't want to do the work in
okac or he took the easy way out, and that's where that view is
born from. Now. I think the other part of it is, I
mean, there's some uncomfortable elements too, is are is there a racial component
to it because this league is largely a black league with a ton of people
of color in it? And is that gonna skew some of the coverage.
Hell fucking yes, it's going to and that's wrong. So they're could be
that element of it as well. The other thing here, though, too
is and this is probably more of a problem with the discourse championship counts.
Like we're all about trying to distill down player values to this raw data,
and it goes there gonna be box score numbers, it's all star selections,
it's all NBA bids, and then it's well, how many rings did this
superstar win? And when you're going to judge a player's legacy based off how
many rings they win, well, it makes sense. They want to go
Kevin Durant want to go the Warriors win as many championships as possible. You
also, people also want it to be hard not to be a given,
especially the people who don't root for Let's use the Kevin Durant era Warriors,
the fans of other twenty nine teams, they're gonna prefer if it was harder,
or just say, well, he took the easy way out like that
kind of turned the you know, the Warriors along with the Cavaliers of that
eraror turned it felt like every postseason into just sort of this inevitability. And
so that's just gonna rub fans of other teams and media members the wrong way.
They want it to be hard. Whether that's fair or not. There
is something to the effect of, yes, a player earns their agency and
they tough it out in let's just choose Vin rand and Oklahoma City for seven
to nine years, however long it was. At that point they structured their
contracts accordingly, they earned the right to go into free agency sign with whoever
they pleased. The league facilitated that with that huge salary cap jump this year.
But this even gets into you know, trade demands with players. If
they've been with a certain team for as long and they're coming up on the
final year of their deal, it's well within their right to say, hey,
I'm gonna leave after next summer. You should move me before I leave.
You with absolutely nothing, so they earned that right. But there's something
it's a you start to look at. It's not just the number of rings,
but the level of difficulty behind them. And there are a few factors
that go into that. The two that probably stand out is, well one,
who did you play? Who did you go through? That's why some
people have choose last year as an example, think that the Nuggets had like
an easy road, And I think maybe the road was easy or than others
would have than other years. But I actually think it was because the Nuggets
kind of walked through their playoff bracket because they were the only great team in
the Western Conference last year. And now there might be a couple of great
teams, but the Nuggets were great, and so that's why they made other
not great teams look not so great. Go figure. The other thing is
you're going to ascribe more meaning. And I don't know whether this is right
or wrong. I do think there is a level of correctness to it.
If Kevin Durant had won in Oklahoma City, it would have meant more because
he was there longer, and he did it in a market that wasn't conducive
or in a position to get these super big names, whereas maybe he didn't
consider Golden State glamour franchise before Steph Curry became Steph Curry and Draymond Green popped,
it doesn't matter. They became the Warriors and were a team that could
become this destination, even though the Bulls have not been a great team in
quite some time and there's not really like a level of you call them a
flagship franchise, but they're not treated as such nationally. You look at these
markets and it's, oh, you could get why a player would want to
go to New York or Los Angeles, even if they've been bad in the
past. Maybe not Chicago so much. They could be an exception that comes
back to, you know, people rooting for players over teams, and I
don't really know if that's the majority rule by the way. That opens up
a whole different, separate issue. But when you're looking at why, like
how a ring would be harder do I think it would have been harder for
Kevin Durant to win in Oklahoma City because of the small market limitations. I'm
not talking about the James Harden trades specifically, though that would have been part
of it, but you were there for longer. You're in a market that
it's harder to attract talent you don't already have. I think that's the best
way to phrase it. Because you can draft talent and retain talent. Actually
think that's pretty easy. But look at how many years the Blazers had with
Damian, look at how many years Oklahoma City had with Kevin Durant Russell Westbrook.
So like you get like you can get a decade or more with these
players. Talent retention doesn't necessarily seem to be the issue. It's talent acquisition
outside of the draft. So to have done it in a market with a
team that wasn't in a position or had those intrinsic advantages, it just in
theory makes it tougher. And also because you went through more failures with that
core you lost in twenty twelve, You went through the James Harden Tree,
you went through the surge of Baka Tree, you dealt with the Russell Westbrook
injuries. As opposed to going to a Warriors team, there's no I want
to make clear, there's nothing wrong with that, but I do think you
need to be prepared to accept there's some discourse on it. That would be
toxic. By saying the rings don't count or Kevin Durant's a coward, that
is wrong. I go to make that clear. But for to say that
Kevin Durant's titles two championship rings mean less than the one that Yannis won with
Milwaukee, I think it's fair and it's you don't want to that should not
be the end all be on. We're talking about legacies, but I think
it's fair to have that discussion and frame it in that way. Now,
could Yiannis have left if that ring or if the Bucks and trade for Drew
Holliday. That's part of it too, Like you get into this, I've
been here long enough. We can't win. Teams are getting ultimatums, they
feel pressure. It just makes it harder than if you joined another team that
either already had other superstars in place rather than getting them, or the Warriors
case had both, which was the superstars in place, and like championship equity
active championship equity, not just that they had won a title already, but
that they were still the league's foremost contender even though they had just lost in
two thou in sixteen, And so if you getting into calling them snakes.
I haven't really seen them called gold diggers necessarily, but like snakes and ring
chasers, I think, yeah, everyone's fucking ring chaser. Why else are
you in basketball? I mean to if you want to be honest, hey,
I want to score a bunch of points, be the future player,
just make a lot of money. I don't care about championships. More power
to you. But on some level everyone's ring chasing, so it's a frame
it that way is definitely disingenuous, but I will say there is probably some
merit to the idea that certain championships mean more and we're definitely more difficult than
others. And when you leave teams or get traded from teams to team up
with other superstars, those circumstances are inherently, if not appreciably, more favorable
than had you stayed in one place and gone through just this extended cycle of
roster churn, of window churn, having a win within a different window than
creating your own elsewhere. And there are different levels to it where if you
just get traded and there's only one star there, all right, like that
doesn't seem as big of a deal anymore, And maybe you've set the stage
for other stars to come, like Kevin Durant and Kyrie Evern kind of teaming
up and just going to Brooklyn. That's different than Kevin Durant joining the Warriors
what they were trying to do in Brooklyn and then they go out and get
James Harden. That was actually harder to do than what happened with Golden State
and Kevin Durant. There's just different levels to everything. Now, what I
will say is I do think that collectively, while the RINGS discourse hasn't necessarily
changed, we're a little bit more warmer or understanding of players who do this,
do what Kevin Durant did than we were in the past. Now,
does that have more to do with people are a fan of the league and
the players more so than a specific team. Does that go into it?
It does feel like there has been a drive for behind player empowerment, which
is really superstar empowerment when you actively think about it, and so you're okay
with players made. Let's use the Damian Lillard trade request or demand as an
example where there were people inside Miami, of course, but also inside Portland,
outside Portland, outside Miami, who thought, yeah, the Blazers duo
it to Dame to just send him where he wants, and so you have
a player making a one team trade request at that point ultimately doesn't go there.
But there were people who not only were okay with Damian Lillard requesting a
trade or demanding a trade because of how much time he spent in Portland,
it clearly wasn't going to happen, but they were okay with the actual one
team or the limited list. And we've become more accepting of players having lists,
or we've been more accepting of well, they have one or two years
left on their deal, they have the leverage to force their way out if
they want. And so I don't think that maneuver is viewed as negatively as
it was years ago because we're just so maybe we're numb or we've grown to
expect so much more player movement than we did, you know before, basically
before the Lebron decision, and even like maybe like there was the whole Celtics
getting KG and Ray Allen, but ever since Lebron left Cleveland the first time,
it feels like we're more numb to player movement, more used to it,
we expect it and so we're more okay with these things. Does it
change the way Are we then going to turn around and critique these players or
trying tominish or take away detract from their legacies. A lot of that stuff
is still going to come to bear because Lebron hasn't retired yet, Kevin Durant
hasn't retired yet. So there's definitely an discrepancy in the way that it is
framed. But you seldom I will say, it is to me harder as
a as a front office to build up a contender as it is for a
player to just leave and start a new to join forces with an incumbent one,
or just team up with bigger names elsewhere. But again, and I'm
stepping on the toes of my own point here, it's also hard to live
through seven eight nine years of not winning a title, of being the face
of not just the franchise, but of criticism for not winning that title.
And you've now earned your right to go into free agency. We should all
accept that. But I do think there is a like, uh, I
do think there is a level of what we can analyze, like what those
titles mean or what was actually easier, what was harder. And I think
the bigger discrepancy is when it comes to you know, like if we're gonna
talk about payrolls, for instance, when we call players overpaid. That's where
it feels like fans, media members, people who cover the league might be
more conditioned to, well, we're gonna celebrate that, but nos Reed.
Let's say, Wow, the Timberwolves, that was highway robbery that contract,
and it's like, well, that's great, but if Nosren has gotten paid
more, yeah, you criticize the Timberwolves, but Nosreen is the one that's
tied to that contract more than the Timberwolves are, and so they kind of
skate under that a little bit. I feel like there's more of a tendency
to side, or that there's not just more of a tendency, but it's
it might be I don't want to use the word valid because this question is
valid for Rubiscal. There's I have more of an issue where it's, well,
let's celebrate teams ducking the luxury tax. Let's celebrate them getting players at
a discount, but we're gonna go around. We've had this discussion on this
podcast about Tobias Harris, like he's sort of the root of stuff that's wrong
in Philly, or their lack of maneuverability on the trade market. Because he
makes so much money, the sigsers offer him that contract that's not on him,
and he's a really good player, and we don't need to tie him
to his pay grade, and yet we are more inclined to associate him with
his pay grade then we're just are looking at what he's doing in a vacuum
on the court as a useful player. That's the stuff I would take issue
with more than Yes, if you're out there and you're calling players cowards because
they left the Thunder to go to the Warriors, I would call Kevin Ran
an opportunist. Like that's that's what a lot of people are their careers,
that they're going to be opportunists. Not like that doesn't make him a mercenary.
So like and look, I mean the Kevin Durant situation too, is
there's something about he signs an extension to stay with Brooklyn, tries to get
out, they say no, but then they red to trade him later.
That's gonna rub some people the wrong way. The Nets are not blameless in
that, but what he did to get the Phoenix is just like, that's
a lot easier then Well, I left in free agency and toughed it out
with the Nets and didn't sign an extension or get my financial security good.
He made the smart play for himself. But I think that this this discussion,
we're absolutely right that the as when you are rooting for a team,
and I think this is the that's the genesis of signing with the front office
or by extension, billionaire team owners caring about the payrolls, the contracts,
the luxury taxes, is you're not rooting for the players specifically, if you're
if you're a nos Reed fan, it's Obias Harris fan. You want you
should want them to just get paid as much money as possible while playing as
well as possible, regardless of what results turn in or what that does to
the team's flexibility. When you actively root for a team, uh, you
are going to side with that team. And so part of that is fandom.
Now, when you're looking at it from the leeue Y perspective, where
I'm neither a Warriors nor a Thunder fan, I'm sitting there calling Kevin Durant
a coward. Uh, and he screwed over the Thunder this and that they
didn't get anything for his departure, then yeah, like that that shit is
that shit is cringey, But I do think it's a fair discussion. It's
I don't think it makes Kevin Durant. He's not any less great because of
what he did. If you're trying to look at the level of difficulty on
those titles or what those titles mean relative to Steph having won while staying in
Golden State for his entire career to this point, to through navigating through the
thin, through the thick and thin or whatever to get to this point,
Like that's that's objective. What Steph did is objectively harder than what Kevin Durant
did. And I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that. I'm not
saying that Ruby's galler. Anyone else said that what Kevin Durant did is just
as valuable as what Steph did. Some of the commentary round it, though
I'd absolutely agree, is just it's cringey as fuck, and just to call
them cowards, to call them ring chasers, It's like, is that really
did is it? No, It's not like that. That's kind of the
point of we want players care about winning. That's the point of this entire
fucking thing. The problem is is that so many people argue most people not
only want players to win, they want them to win while dealing with a
ton of adversity. And you've windowed down the amount of adversity by going from
a situation like what was going on at Okay. See as good as they
were by the way they were, they were championship contender. They almost beat
that Warriors team that Kevin Durant went ahead and joined. But like, we
want it to be hard. We want to see the failure rather than go
somewhere and look not that what Kevin Durant did in Brooklyn was a failure,
but for different reasons. But like in Golden State, he went there and
they just won. And so that's why issues like that are going to be
deluded. I will say, I really do feel like the trade demand discourse
has changed, though I fell on that. I'm like somewhere in between,
I know, hot taky where it's yeah, Dame has the right to request
a trade. It's the Blazer's right to send him wherever they want or not
to trade him. He signed a contract there, Like that's just the reality
of the NBA, and I think that if you want to give lists,
that's fine. If you want to go through pre agency where you have one
or two years left on your deal, that's fine. You got to give
more than one team as a list, so let's not try and manipulate your
value that way. I would side with that, But again that's the players
and their agents and their their camp's right, and no, we're gonna we
want to be where we want to be. We're gonna try and orchestrate our
way there, my straw away there, And I understand that. But it's
if you really want to get to one place, then maybe don't sign a
contract and do what Kevin Durant didn't, just leave go sign with them.
Uh could do an entire podcast podcast series on that. Rubik's Girl Ruby Scalps.
All right, great, great question. Austin had a couple here,
let's begin with Let's begin with this one from Austin. Can you do a
quick clarification of the differences of hitting the cap versus tax versus second apron and
what the consequences and pros of staying undergoing over each are. Hitting the salary
cap doesn't really mean anything. It just means that you're capped out, and
if you want to sign a player, you have to use an exception or
you have minimums to offer. Basically, if you go into the tax,
those exceptions if you're looking at the mid level, if you're in the tax,
your exception is going to be smaller. Now what's interesting this year is
the first apron, or moving forward, the first apron of the tax,
which I think is like seven million above the luxury tax. You are now
going to be limited in different ways. This year we saw if you wanted
to sign someone in the buyout market, they had to be making less than
the non tax payer's mid level exception for you to sign them. Whereas it
didn't matter. So for an example, if Kyle Lowry broker to buy out
with the Charlotte Hornets, he wouldn't have been able to go and sign with
the Los Angeles Clippers because they were so far they were there in the second
apron, but they were past the first apron of the luxury tax. But
he could sign with the Sixers because they were I mean they were under they
got under the tax, but they also did they get under the text.
Yeah, I think they got under the tax. But they were also they
were under the first apron, so he was able to go sign even though
he was making more than a non tax payer mid level. There are going
to be I think more limitations imposed on the first apron as we kind of
move forward, the salary matching gets a little bit tougher. It's the second
apron is a big one. And so these are all the things that have
already started being phased in, and they will be continued to some of them
will continue to be phased in. So I'll list off some of the more
putative things and this one so next season. Right now, the second apron
is set at about one hundred and ninety million. It's normally supposed to be
like between seventeen and eighteen million above the first apron. And so you have
the luxury tax, which is that's your you know, that's your hard tap,
like that's your or your first apron. Oh my god, excuse me.
It's basically it's also like kind of your hardcap is like you can't if
you're over the first apron, you're not gonna be able to do acquire players
via sign and trades. You need to stay under that if you're going to
if you're going to make a sign and trade. So like, that's kind
of your your hardcap with some other limitations baked in. Now. Now the
second apron, which is again seventeen to just look at the first apron from
now on if you don't want to know the exact number, and then add
seventeen eighteen million dollars that that's your second apron. If you're in the second
apron, you will no longer be able to use your tax payers mid level
exception. So you already had a smaller exception to begin with, and now
you can no longer use use it. If you remain in the second apron
three out of five seasons, your first round pick will automatically move to the
end of the round beginning the very next season. That's gonna be something to
monitor with a team like the Clippers the Warriors. It's it's like a different
form of the repeater at tax basically, except that comes in the form of
fucking with your draft picks. First round pick seven years out. Now,
if you're in the second apron, that's a valuable asset, by the way,
for like, if that's how you acquire players when you're capped out.
In general, is via trades or you get lucky on the minimum market.
You can no longer trade first round picks seven years out. If you're in
the second apron. That's going to start next season as well salaries. This
begins this offseason. They cannot be aggregated or combined to trade for a single
player. So if you're in the second apron you want to trade for two
players, or you want to trade two players from one player, you can't
do it now. That can't happen now. This is look. Teams can't
use trade exceptions that were created a prior year expiration, be damned. Trade
exceptions are valuable because you can help create other exceptions. It allows you to
effectively get a player without having to send anything out like that is the they're
created in multiplayer trades and non simultaneous trades. But to not be able to
use a trade exception, that also is going to kneecap these teams that are
over the cap because those again exceptions, draft picks, those are your best
way of acquiring acquiring talent. Once you're over the caps, when you're getting
into the luxury tax and the different aprons, you're losing all these tools.
Now you can also no longer send cash out in trades anymore. I think
that starts this summer as well. Teams use those to buy draft picks,
they use those to compensate other teams to take on players they don't want to
not be able to do that so that they can cut their tax bill.
To not be able to do that anymore is a big freaking deal. And
so those limitations, these are real, and I think there might be a
level of fucket for a year or two. And we've seen teams kind of
go down that road. Boston, maybe Equippers, a little bit, Golden
State for sure. It wouldn't surprise me if Golden State even tries to get
out of the second apron or the tax entirely before next season, just to
ensure that they're not starting the like that this clock on. Being in the
in the second apron, it's very expensive and that's an addition to the tax.
Bans aren't gonna go up. But when you're in the second aprin basically
as a tax team, this is a roundabout, but I'm rounding up,
and there's different tax right now. But if you're more than what is twenty
million dollars into the luxury tax, which is you know, that's gonna be
second Aprin territory for the most part, every dollar you spend is gonna coount
for like four dollars against Like, so if you sign you know, if
if you're twenty million dollars of the luxury tax right now, and you sign
a player, do a minimum contract, and let's say the minimum salary,
it's like the veteran is minimum comes out to like two million or something like,
that's gonna cost you, like, actually ten million because it's gonna be
eight million dollars in taxes on top of that two million dollar player. That's
like, so there's the financial just the raw financial penalties. And I believe
the tax bans are gonna start going up. They're worse if you're a repeater,
but I think the new tax bans kick in in twenty twenty five.
If I'm not mistaken, I would have to clarify that there's a big difference
right now. Though the first Apron kind of whatever definitely limiting a little bit.
I mean, the stuff with the not being able to sign trades in
a buy out market, you can't get players in a sign up trade.
But that was kind of already true, like with the if you were gonna
come over the hardcap, like like that you always had the hardcap, is
my point. That's what the first apron is functioning as. However you're seeing
and like the salary matching it's dipped a little bit to one hundred and ten
percent. That's you know, of the matching salary like it's it's limiting.
It's the second apron. That's a big deal. So I hope, hope
I outlined those limitations well enough for you, Austin. Other one can can
you clarify how buyouts work financially? Like when Westbrook was making forty million dollars
for the Lakers then went to the Clippers for five million? Is he just
getting double paid? Does the new salary come off the team's old obligation to
pay? So there's buyouts and then there's like being outright waved, when you're
outright waved if you sign a new deal. So there are two ways that
this can happen if you're waived. Let's just I'm gonna use a five million
dollar player as an example. There will be pro rations here these exceptions,
they get pro rated as the season goes on. If you. Let's use
this first example. You waive a ten million dollar player. They are now
on waivers. It wasn't a buyout. It's a ten million dollar player.
That cap it is still ten million dollars. If there's a team that has
the money to just claim his full salary, you will be that offsets.
You will no longer be responsible for that player's that ten million dollar salary.
However, if they clear waivers, or let's say they clear waivers, they
sign a different deal, and let's say the team has the money or the
exception to pay them three million dollars. What you're basically what you get to
offset here is the difference between that three million dollars a minimum contract, and
then you divide it by two. And so let's just say I'm using made
up numbers here. They sign that player for three million dollars, and let's
say his veteran minimum salary would have been let's just say it's like one point
million, So three million dollars mnus one point six million dollars is one point
four million dollars. You slice that in half. That team saves the original
team saves seven hundred thousand dollars in that so the player is still making out
well, but the team gets some of that money back. They're only going
to get all of that money back if that players just picked up off waivers
in general, meaning a team has the space to essentially claim that player's entire
salary or that player which is the minimum salary to begin with. Buyouts are
different because nothing is offset when they sign with a new team because a play
well. It can be, but typically as part of a buyout, Let's
say you're making forty million dollars and you agree with the Utah Jazz, Russell
Westbrook was on to give back five million dollars as part of that buyout,
and then you turn around and you sign with a team for three million dollars.
Let's say the money to give that to you, you don't offset any
additional money for the Jazz or that other team because as part of the buyout
you agree to kind of wave that's set off amount, because the set off
is coming in the form of I'm giving you back this five million dollars now.
And so in most buyouts there can be set off amounts. But in
the case of Russell Westbrook, if you were making forty million dollars and you
agreed to a buyout, you most likely already gave your money back, and
so if you were making forty million and you agree, yes, it's some
of it's already been paid, but you agreed to give back two million to
get the buyout. So your earnings are at thirty eight million for that year.
But then you go sign somewhere because they have the money for five million,
you're actually making forty three million that year, so you're coming out ahead
and your team gets back The original team gets back the two million that you
gave them back. They don't get back anything else. That's kind of the
difference between buyouts and being waived. It's very convoluted and there's exceptions. Sometimes
in a buyout you don't wave the set off amount, but normally as part
of giving back money, like it probably happened with Kyle Lowry and the Hornets,
is that they waive the right to get a set off amount, and
so whatever money he gave back in a buyout, that's what his team gets
back. And even with the set off amount, like, it's not necessarily
the like the player losing money, they're always going to come out ahead or
net net even good question though, for this time of year, since we
are kind of in buiot season, it's already started to unfold. And then
Austin finally also asked, we're the most least favorable teams to play for financially
based on taxes, city, cost of living, et cetera. Assuming equal
contracts. So the lowest income taxes in NBA in NBA markets, So there
are lower income taxes elsewhere, but in NBA markets are Texas, Florida,
and Memphis. And so in theory, if you're dealing with contracts being equal
and yeah, living expenses, they're going to be higher in if you're living
in Miami, you want to live in South Beach, then if you want
to live in Texas, but like if you want to live in the heart
of Dallas, that's going to change things. Memphis would probably be just the
best if you wanted to live in a hub while also having a low income
rate, like, you might make out better there. What's interesting, and
I don't think they changed, is the new CBA is like NBA players pay
taxes in every city that they provide a day of like services in and so
I wouldn't want to have to be the accountant filing those taxes because so when
you're traveling on the road, that gets like sort of caked into where I
believe, Okay, you could play for the Heat, but like and be
in Florida and not be subject to a personal income tax there, but like
you're gonna have to pay the tax rates of other states for when you actually
were working inside that state and traveling for games. That's super complex, But
overall, I would argue that the most favorable teams would then be the Memphis
Grizzlies, and then there's the Houston Rockets, the Dallas Mavericks, the San
Antonio Spurs, the Orlando Magic, and the Miami Heat would be the most
favorable teams just from a raw when you're looking at income taxes, if you
want to come out ahead in that least favorable it's I mean California teams,
the New York teams, like those have the highest income tax rates I believe
of any other NBA market, So like those would be the least favorable ones.
Especially I mean you're looking at living expenses of most places, Yeah,
if you play in Sacramento, you could live in some really nice like you
could, Like Sacramento is not going to be as expensive to live in as
Los Angeles, so to speak, or San Francisco if you want to live
around there, or New York City. But like those are just going to
be the teams financially. That's I think the difference though is negligible enough.
And these guys are making so much money, and you when you're talking about
it, at one in a lot of guys cases, if you're making the
mid level, you might not really have your pickup market. Now if you're
a superstar, you have your pickup market, and you're also getting in other
endorsement deals, and so you would rather prioritize the convenience and location over them
will like my tax trate's going to be different, and so like I think
people could argue, there's you know, the Dallas, Houston, San Antonio,
Miami, even Orlando. I feel like should be a bigger destination among
players than it is that they offer like sort of the best of both worlds
there. I mean, maybe is it or like a situation where you know,
this might appeal to players if it's Utah just because of the proximity to
California and Vegas or Phoenix because of the proximity to California in Vegas and you're
not dealing with the same tax racer or living expenses. So if we were
taking all that sort of into account, I still think if I had to
pick, I think up Miami still comes out ahead. But when you're trying
to factor in cost of living in addition to the income taxes, I think
like it might be the Suns. Like is that is that the answer here?
Very interesting question, and I've always wondered how much that actually factors into
player decision making. Maybe it actually does factor And if you're a mid level
player more and you have multiple mid level offers. But let's say the roles
are equal, the teams are equal, the contracts are equal. But it's
like I could be in Phoenix or like, do I want to be with
the Knicks or the Late Like no, maybe I'll just go to Phoenix and
save like more money in net when it comes to taxes and living expenses.
That's I'd be curious to see which players that factors into the most. I
have time for one more question here. Ooh yeah, love this one.
Shout out to Cosmic Raccoon, one of my favorite discord handles, by the
way, twofold question, Jalen Green will probably lose his starting spot in Houston
before the end of this season. I don't know. Let's see if the
Rockets are healthy enough Cosmic Raccoon, and I anticipate that will be the prelude
to him being traded in the off season. So two questions, what is
the trade value of Jalen Green this offseason assuming he's made into a bench player
for the Rockets after the All Star break as expected? And two, what
would be a team you'd think should take a flyer on trying to salvage him.
So looking at the trade value of jahn Green, I honestly, I
don't want to say have no idea, but it's I would argue it's going
to be lower than you think because he's extension eligible this offseason, and so
you're giving up value to get him, knowing that one he's still an unproven,
if not a distressed asset at this point, and two you have to
turn around and pay him. And so we talk about this when it comes
to player veteran free agencies, who while there's a risk there, there's also
factoring in his next contract into the equation. Jail and Gren, Jalen Green
being less than a known commodity, though, makes it even harder to evaluate
him in that context. I would say, I guess the best way to
frame it before getting into like what would you give up for him? Is
that had you aught like, could you have gotten ogn Andob for jail and
Green? Like, would the Raptors have preferred R. J. Barrett and
a manual quickly just in a vacuum or jail and Green for the og Annobi
trade. I think they would have gone the RJ. Barrett a manual quickly
route. And that's what quickly is extension eligeable or was extenionological. He's going
to be a restricted free agent this summer, so you're dealing with his forthcoming
pay day as well. I think it would be reasonable to expect in a
vacuum if there was a team that was willing to trade a lottery pick that
wasn't like I mean this this draft is so I mean, but that would
be honestly, that would be part of though the Jailen Green that'd before the
Jalen Green trade value because of this draft, because the quality of players up
and down it with that impact the level of draft pick that you would give
up to where, Okay, you're not getting a top five pick for Jalen
Green. I don't even think you would get a top ten pick for him,
Like I guess, like our team's just very low on a Terren Shannon
or a Reed Shepherd and it's just blah. So could you go that route?
I think you could get a lottery pick between nine and fourteen and then
maybe like that as a top end asset or the prospect equivalent, and then
one additional just like, oh we threw this first round pick or this first
round type of prospect in I don't think Jalen Green is on the level of
like I think a manual Quickly honestly at the time, probably had more trade
value then than Jalen Green does now. And because we know that ammanual Quickly
and know some people have been unimpressed with his defense, He's a really good
off ball defender and he can have a grace Greens really well, and there's
been more of an even keelness in net to his body of work on the
offensive end. Even though he struggled in the playoffs last year, he's also
shown that he can adapt alongside other ball handlers, whereas like Jalen Green struggle
with that a little bit in Hute, a little bit, a lot of
it in Houston this year. And if you're gonna bill him as a bench
player, whereas like a manual, quickly it's oh, he's on the bench
and should be a starter. If you're doing the reverse with Jalen Green,
it's going to dilute his value. And so the look these two questions are
intertwined. I think what's also very complicated is the teams that I think should
be taking a shot at Jalen Green are not the teams that are gonna give
up the value for Jalen Green that we're placing on it. I mean,
yes, maybe there's just like you know, if the Spur let's say the
Spurs as an example, end up with the ninth pick, the twelfth pick
from the Raptors, which that would be the Raptors went on a hell of
a went on a hell of a like a a second season, second stretch
or stretch run streak. If they end up with, you know, the
top eighteen record. But if you're the Spurs, you're rebuilding, but you
want Jalen Green, you have the twelve pick, and you still have your
own pick, and there's you have other first round picks coming down the pipeline.
Would you give up that asset for Jalen Green? Maybe if you're lets
you the Wizard, certainly, Yeah, you give up the twenty twenty four
like second least favorable pick from OKC Houston LAC that you have in your back
pocket. But is that enough to get Jalen Green? The types of teams
that should maybe take flyers on him, you're not going to get their top
of the line assets out of them. And so this feels very much like
a scenario where it's is Jalen Green either a throw into a very large not
a throw in, but he's attached to other first round picks to get the
Rockets a star. Or if you're trading Jalen Green independently, is it like
a three team scenario or are you selling low? And it feels like if
you're trading him independently, you're almost selling low. I don't know what,
like, what is the three team independent scenario that mean getting a rotation player
who's not a star that would still amount to selling low. Whereas I think
if you're trading him as part of a larger deal, you build either oh
look the nets Mchael Bridges as an example, you're getting Jailen Green some of
your own first and swaps back. Oh that matters in net combined in the
aggregate. Or it's a scenario where well, we want who might become available
this summer. I don't even want to throw a name out there, but
we want Oh my god, why I need a good trade? Can we
want Zion Williams in, but the Pelicans just don't want Jalen Williams. And
it's there's a third team that's coming in, and so they're going to give
the Pelicans value for Jalen Green. So that Jalen Green can we move to
them as part of that value like that, That is a scenario you could
see unfolding. But I think he's actually most likely to be moved as part
of this Macro straight up deal, or it's his next team. We'll find
a third party facilitator to come and get him to where they're okay selling low.
That's what I was getting. I'm sorry stumbled through that. I was
confusing myself with that scenario. Whereas if you're trading jail In Green is part
of a star an inbound star package. You're sending him to a team that
maybe they could use him because they're clearly pivoting, but maybe they don't want
to deal with his next contract. He's not their guy, but they could
still get Maybe it's two lower level first for him, and they're willing to
accept that. I think I would place his value at one okay first round
pick or prospect and then maybe another like bottom ten first round pick or the
equivalent in prospect form. The upside is still there when you look at his
ability to create shots, his athleticism, the hope that he can kind of
turn into this just like the hybrid between of Devin Booker and Zack Lavine feels
like that ship is saled, but skewing towards one of them. Where do
you get Devin Booker's passing feel or feel for taking the right shots or you
just get Zack Lvine's shooting and raw explosion and ability to play off others.
There's hope for him there and if you're a team to buy into that,
but it's just like now you run into Let's talk about the teams that should
go after Jalen Green. We know Detroit was interested in zach Lvin. Does
that also mean that they should be interested in Jalen Green? Maybe, but
because zach Lavine when healthy is more of a proven commodity, you're not good
Like, would the Pistons have been willing to give up one of their own
future first for zack Lavine? I have no idea. Would you've looked at
giving up je and Ivy for zack Lavine? Again, I wouldn't have.
I have no idea. Though you're certainly not getting that for Jalen Green from
that team. It's even the Wizards, Yeah, they'll trade you wanted like
that lower level first round pick that they now have, but you're not gonna
get Bala Cool Bali, you're not gonna get You're not gonna get any of
Washington's own future picks unless they're like they'll be like protected until Kingdom come.
They might never convey. And so now you need to get in an instance
of well, can we spot any teams that because like even Toronto, he'd
be very interesting in Toronto. But it's like Toronto really shouldn't be giving away
any of their own future first. At this point, they already have one
leave it in the Spurs without knowing how good they are, you could protect
it if you want a Toronto twenty twenty six first round pick, but they're
going to lottery protect it. Does that do it for you? They're a
team though that I would at least, you know, investigate Washington Ruddy as
Jordan Poole. But jayhen Green is exponentially better, So there would be a
team that could I wouldn't mind him taking a flyer there. I can just
see if the cost was low enough and like, and they do kind of
need I've said it, like someone else who can give you some jiggle and
joggle on the ball and addition to spacing the floor and playing off others.
Like if okay, see just came in with like two or three whatever first
round picks and took the flyer on Jaalen Green, maybe it's a part of
getting out of the Josh Giddy experience. It would be very out of character,
but I mean him within that defensive ecosystem and then you're all of a
sudden the third option. How do you adjust to that? It's not an
Oklahoma City Thunder move. It's not a Spurs move either. They're a team
that could maybe use the flyer on him. I don't know why I'm like
warming up to the idea of seeing him in Detroit. As we're sort of
having this conversation, I feel like I need to maybe get off off of
that. But like, so, what do we have? We have Detroit,
we have Washington. I think that like a most in Toronto, I
just don't know what they'd be willing to give up to get him. I
like, Utah, no, not really the Pelicans unless they're making a wholesale
shift away from cjbi's eye on, they don't make a ton of sense either.
The Nets will be a team that that should definitely investigate this, Like,
you've already fired your coach, what's going on with Sean Marks. I
know that you have picks committed to Houston, but hey, maybe you get
Jalen Green some of your own picks back, and you're sending mcl bridges out,
and you do need like another capslock shot creator or you need a capslock
shot creator. And Jalen Green profiles is that like if you extrapolate his ninetieth
percentile outcome, he profiles that more than even a Michale Bridges. At the
moment, there's some overlap with Cam Thomas. But Jalen Green I trust him
more kind of at the different levels, like the peak version of him,
and he will be a better a better playmaker. I think you could also
argue that he's a better defender there as well. You know what'd be an
interesting team And it was just part of like, oh, things haven't gone
according to plan. This might really fuck with our defense more than we wanted
to. But if the Rockets are looking to get older, so like some
sort of other salaries need to be involved. But depending on what happens this
year with the Bucks and Chris Middleton, Like do you kind of look at
that and like, oh, we kind of want like another scorer here.
I guess Joannison Dame with Jalen Green that makes that redundant, so perhaps not
kind of think of like contending teams that might come in and be like,
hey, we'll give you the first round. I could see Miami trying it.
They already have Tyler Hero. But are you maybe making it as part
of a separate deal or are you just like, hey, we just need
another like capsock scorer in here. We already have Terry Rozier, so you're
not gonna keep Hero Rosie or Butler and Jalen Green. If Jimmy Butler requests
a trade after this season because you play out of the playoffs, that might
be a team that gets super interesting with Jalen Green. I could see Charlotte.
I don't hate the idea of him LaMelo and Brandon Miller. I just
don't know what you're getting for. I'm not trading Brandon Miller. I trade
Mark Williams, but I don't know why Houston would want him. You're not
gonna give up your first round pick, which is gonna be so high.
So that's where it gets super difficult. Wouldn't you even in Minnesota. I
just don't know what you're giving up in that instance, Like I'm not giving
up Jade McDaniels for Jail and Green like that value. Maybe I'm lower on
jail and Green. Cosmic Raccoon or Rockets fans, anyone listening to this could
let me know. Maybe I'm lower on jail and Green long term than the
consensus. But when you look at the year he's had his contract situation,
I do think you'd be lucky to get the equivalent of like two real first
round picks for him and by real I mean, like not even just bottom
five once and so could you get a lottery pick and then something else for
him? And I'm used, and I might consider going that route if you
believe that it's really going to benefit your ecosystem, and you could then repackage
those assets to go somewhere else. So if I had to pick favorite destinations,
and I'm gonna like, there's a level of if we're just throwing trade
assets out the window, I like Toronto and Brooklyn the most. Brooklyn might
feel the most realistic because of just the setup with the trade assets where they
have McHale bridges and jail and green plus other stuff from mckel Bridges continues to
make a lot of sense. Would the Bulls make sense if they want to
move on from Zack Lavine and Demarta Rosen's gonna leave in free agency, that
could be something to look at just to take a flyer. What do you
give up for him them? I don't know. Does Houston want Zacklavine?
I mean their devnsive slipped, But that's because I mean, by the way,
what's going on with the tarry east and lower left leg injury. There's
been he's missed a ton of time. Hasn't played since January first. We've
seen the defense slip since he's been out, and they've dealt with other injuries,
including the Fred Van Fleet. Something's weird just going on. We even
had Ima Udoka said that he what was the word he use, fabricated the
amount of pain he was in. Uh, players will do that. I'm
hoping that the Rockets have a better understanding of this injury. We know he
had the stress reaction in this leg in the preseason, so he's working his
way from that. I hope they have a better hold on it behind the
scenes than they do front and center. Because public it was he was returning
to practice. I think it was reported like January thirty first or February first,
and then there was a report like the other day that he has not
even yet been clear to play. And so now that's three weeks. I'm
recording this more than three weeks after that initial report that he's nearing a return.
I wanted to come back. He's a really fun player to watch and
super valuable about what the Rockets do. Digressing on that, but John Green
and Orlando as sort of just like fitting their timeline doesn't make as much as
Anthony Simon's just yet they have the defensive ecosystem to insulate him. They could
actually kind of stand for him to freelance, like maybe where the Rockets want
him to be a little bit more structured. They could probably Orlando could probably
use his freelancing. I don't need Orlando. I like Orlando and Brooklyn might
be my kind of favorites here. And if there was just like a really
outside the box one, sign me up, like can Okase just reboot his
value with Jyn Williams, Shake Gulers, Alexander and Chet Holmgren, and then
you also you can play jale and Green with Casey Wallace. I don't care.
Or lou Dort? Would you give up lou Dort for Jalhn Williams in
a vacuum? Like could you even get lou Dort for Jalhn Williams Right now,
I'm not in a vacuum. I'm not saying the Thunder would do that.
I don't know. I don't know. You have to let me know
if you'd like any other I know the Kings were looking for another shot creator,
and I guess if do they get bored that trade? If Malik Monk
leaves in free agency. I don't know. I don't love it. The
Grizzlies don't need him. The Blazers certainly don't need him if they're gonna hang
on to Simons and they have Sharp and Scoot. He's just not a Spurs
player, even though they could probably use if he was more of a facilitator.
He'd be interesting if Minnesota could get him. I mean, they're gonna
have a pick in theory as a player to trade this year, and like,
if you could get him for that and nas Red, do you consider
it? Probably not. They didn't want Timberwols. Fans were mad at me
because I proposed nas Reid and Salary to get Malcolm Rockden. They didn't like
that. So maybe you're not going that much, like is Houston sending out
something a little? But he could be interesting in Minnesota, just as like
they need someone who can get in there get up threes. I think they
could use another like perimeter shot creator. He's just not good enough. I
think to say, hey, nas Read might be my six man of the
year right now, so I get like plus a first round pick. But
like that might be the type of package where if it was just trading Jail
and Green independently. That might be the best you could do is did we
get lou Dort? Did we get nas in a first and we also had
to send out something in addition to Jail and Green. I think that's where
I'm at when you look at kind of his contract situation, and the Wolves
aren't gonna do that because they're giving away two cost controlled assets for someone who's
about to make probably more of a boatload of money. I'd really like to
see him in Toronto if trade assets weren't an issue. I think Brooklyn feels
more realistic. There. Hope you that answers your question. Cosmic Raccoon,
This was a fun mini moderate mail bag. We'll have to get to a
point where we do a larger one, maybe Grant and I if we can
get enough questions and I'm okay going to twitter of points, but if we
can get enough questions to do Eastern and Western conference ones, we'll split him
up, maybe week by week or do two in a week, like let's
tackle questions for every team. You could throw those mailbag questions to us if
you have a question specific to a player or team and we could sort them.
Email hardware knocks at gmail dot com. You can get at us in
discord, join our discord, follow us on the socials. Those are in
the podcast and YouTube descriptions. Please sub if you haven't already, hit the
sub on YouTube like subscribe, tell people about us. We really could use
some ratings and reviews on Apple and Spotify to help drive us up the charts.
Those help us out, I think more than a lot of people know.
I appreciate the support for every single one of you. As always,
and until next time, I leave with the shout out to the one,
the only, the indelible, the legendary, the one who does have more
trade value than Jalen Green, even though he's not currently on an NBA team, Frank Helo