What is up, fellow thermonuclear affers. I am Dampa Valley coming at you with the first hardwoodknots mailbag of the twenty two twenty three regular season. I guess two twenty two, two thousand and three regular season. I don't know why I abbreviate it when I when I voice it. We have not had a mailbag in a while, a couple of months while I was going through those team by team look aheads and doing a bunch of other stuff. So it's exciting to dive back into these mailbags. Before we get started, the usual reminder or please subscribe to us wherever you consume us. Hit that sub button on YouTube, like in comment as well to help the algorithm love us back, help us just continue to grow this community on YouTube or over two k subscribers, but I'd like to just exponentially grow from there. Subscribe to us also wherever you get podcasts. If you're not watching them, listening to them on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, and let's cross subscribe. If you're listening to us on Apple, Spotify, Google, Stitcher, head over to YouTube subscribe comment like videos anyway. If you're on YouTube, please the links are in the YouTube description. Go ahead, subscribe to us, follow all our socials those are in the podcasts and YouTube descriptions as well. Join our discord that's in the podcast and YouTube description too. Great discussions already happening in there for the regular season. And if you're on Twitter, retweet our promos, shout us out. A bunch of you have already done that, Retweet you or acknowledge you if it's not really a situation where I should be retweeting it, and then tell people about us word of mouth. I've gotten some dms, as I mentioned last time, that people said they were they did recommend us, or that they were that we were recommended to them. That's always really super cool to hear. Like it says in the little thing that plays over on YouTube, this is a very seriously unserious NBA community, and I have a ton of fun, which is really the only reason why I do this. We're not, you know, getting rich. I'm lucky enough to cover the NBA full time, but this is more of a passion project than a necessity. So let's continue to build. That was way longer than I wanted. Let's dive into the mailbag. Grant Hughes might be joining us for and why'd I full name Grant? You're in trouble if you're listening to this, apparently, Grant. I think it's going to come on for the mailbag next week. I kind of want to have two. I haven't really put out Twitter solicitations because we get a lot of discord questions throughout the week, and I'm gonna give those priorities. So join our discord you will get priority on the mailbag questions. There's a room you could ask it. I bookmark it, try and get to it later. But I will throw out Twitter solicitations. And so maybe they'll be two mail bags a week, and I don't know if I'll backstop them and publish them one right after the other, or maybe we'll do one on Tuesday one on Friday. I don't necessarily have the cadence of these episodes down just yet. I'm trying to figure out how much I want to go out per week with episodes at least twice. I would ideally like to do four or five, but I have to be realistic with my actual job time comuitment's at Bleacher Report, So hopefully three to four might be the new cadence we'll figure it out though the hopefully we'll be at least one mail Bag episode per week unless a bunch of shit happens. Now we can get to the actual mail bag. Have a bunch of great questions. As per usual, we will start with we also had a few on YouTube. I'll start with the ones from from YouTube. Chris Curtis asked the future of the Phoenix Suns clearly revolves around Devin Booker's all NBA ability, which makes me wonder after the CP three era, do you think the Suns will look to pair a book with another traditional point guard or would they orient towards more of a point book team. Also, what would you do in this scenario and would it differ from what you think the franchise would do. Ps here's a reminder that Hollie would have been the perfect successor to CP three and would have solved a lot of our bench role woes. Love the show as always, Thank you, Chris. This was a fantastic question that I thought a lot about. I would re orient the team around Devin Booker because I'm that high on him as a passer in his decision making. When you look at what he's able to do after coming out of a ball screen, or just the change of speed that he can give you with the ball in his hands, even the live your bill passing. They're not these super complicated, flamboyant passes, but they are two players that would otherwise not be open or reads that if he wasn't on the court, or reads that other players just wouldn't be making. And we've seen him get more of a share of those, like true I'll call them floor general reps, and not even always just natural Okay, Devin Booker is the only floor general on the floor, but just even when CP three or Cameron Payne is there, we've seen him get more of that agency. And I just think he's really freaking good at it so and probably still underrated in that area. Might I would then re oriented around him, just because I look at this team and say, Okay, you kind of need more of just like that bigger wing guy, and let's go out and let's get you know, who had just whatever, a starry, bigger wing mcal Bridges is not going to be the next Jalon Brown. It just doesn't seem like he has that offensive gear to him. I'm even talking about you know, Jalen Brown being able to work out a post hit, the fadeaways and the step backs. Michael Bridgie just goes through these lolls still where it feels like he doesn't want to take three pointers a ton. He should still even juice up that volume when he takes a quick fire three or makes a quick decision with the ball in his hands as a score, I get excited. I would you'll rejigger the team around that type of player if you can go out and find that type of player. That being said, I don't know what the franchise does or will favor in large part because this is the beauty of the situation where we get there. Devin Booker is so translatable or scalable as one of my favorite words. I get made fun of for that all the time on this podcast. Like you look at the way he moves off the ball. There's like a complicated simplicity to it, but he's comfortable doing it and effective doing it. So he can be on the ball, he can be off the ball. And when I say he can be off the ball, I don't even mean it in the sense of like when you look at Kyrie Irving and Kevin Durant for example. They can be on or off the ball. But like the way it works with the dynamic is it's your turn, my turn, and we saw it with Chris Paul and James Harden a little bit to compare it or a lot of it that your turn, my turn stuff. Devin Booker and CP three don't even exist like that because of the way that Devin Booker is able to flow without the ball in his hands through the half court. He doesn't make it feel that way. It's just so organic and natural, and it just makes him so much more scalable, so much easier to drop into any offensive ecosystem, I would argue and just be a star. And so if you need to reorient your team around him in the post CP three era, you just go out and you say, okay, whatever you do we need. Could they get another if you know, let's say, a ball dominant guy like Shay Gil just Alexander who's not going to be just such a natural fit off the ball if they needed to, I don't know what the defense would look like, even though Booker has improved, Like, they need to go out and get Trey Young if he ever became available. That type of that type of player, you can do that and it's not a problem. We're also seeing Trey Young do some more stuff off the ball in Atlanta. Although I haven't watched a ton of the Hawks yet, they're one of my deficit teams at the moment, them and the balls. If anyone care about cares about that, so he can he can play alongside whoever. And I think what's probably even more important than that is he gives you flexibility in the sense of does your next star have to be better than Devin Booker, And the answer is no, because Devin Booker has probably been the best player on the Sun's for majority of the CP three era. If you want to argue that first season CP three was maybe just more instrumental, and maybe he's been better in crunch time through a lot of the you know, his first two seasons in Phoenix, that's fine. But I think Devin Booker gives you the flexibility to say, Okay, we don't need that next move. Deandreton doesn't need to be a megastar number one, same with Michael Bridges. But if we go out and trade for the next guy, he doesn't need to be better than Devin Booker, and that's huge because other teams that are would be left with one star, one building block should someone leave, or even just currently. I mean, look at the Knicks with Jalen Brunson or Julius Randall. The next star that they get or develop has to be better than both of those guys, otherwise they're just not going to reach contention. And so Devin Booker is sort of on the think Calves are a weird situation because if you want to call Garland and Mitchell equals, the context is also changed by the fact they have Jared Allen and then Evin Mobley might be the best of those four long term. But it's like having Luca in Dallas, except he's probably harder to fit in because you're not gonna want to displace him from the ball. I guess you could try it. It's just something we've never seen from James Harden and those who get looped together because there they have such monopoly over their offenses. For Luca specifically, it's been a necessity for his entire career when you look at the players that they've they've put around him. So I think that's the beauty of Devin Booker I'm not here to say that he's, like, all of a sudden, the best player in the NBA. But when Monty Williams said this, and I actually, I need to throw this in the discord, or if people want to respond to this, maybe throw up a pull on YouTube or whatever. I should do a TikTok or ig short on it, or you YouTube short posted all three. Monty william was called Devin Booker the most complete player in the NBA right now. And I really thought about it. It wasn't the egregious statement that you think it would be. It does sort of feel like it's the new way of saying, well, this guy's the best two way player in the game. He's not the best player in the game. That's how they sort of we sort of identified with Kawhen Leonard at points, or maybe it's how you identify with Jannis if you want to put Steph above him or something. But when you say complete, there's almost the Steph curryness to it. When you look at his passing, when you look at him moving away from the ball. Steph is, for the most part, been a better defender throughout his career than I think people believe or not believe, but have have painted him as And now Devin Booker's reach that level, He's to trust him fairly, you know, fairly strongly on the ball right now, and then all the things he does on offense, he can be the primary engine as your passer or playmaker moving without the balls. I keep coming back to score at every level, change his speed. You'd probably like to see him score at the rim more. But this is just someone who does all things, and he is there's an understated completeness to his game. And if you're asking, well, who's more complete? I think you know, is Lebron still up there? That would certainly be one the list? Does kind of Could Steph Steph Curry still beyond that list? Yeah, for sure? I think it also matters. Does complete just mean balanced to where the gap between their offense and defense isn't that far apart when you're looking at the context of their entire game, Because then that's not going to be Devin Booker his offense or Steph Curry their offense is so light years ahead away from their their defense. That might be more of the framing of the two way player. When you look at a complete Maybe it's just does the most amount of things on the court possible at both ends. If you want to say he's the most complete offensive player. Again, I don't know if you that makes it tough because how is the answer? They're not Steph Curry when you look at some of the screens that he's able to set too. I just think Devin Booker is to make that statement is actually not absurd. It's not obscene and it definitely doesn't seem as obscene as it would have you know, certainly three or four years ago, but maybe even two years ago when you had questions about his defense. And so Devin Booker provides the Sons with the ultimate flexibilities. They move with their their timeline both alongside CP three and then after the CP three era. And I don't know if he needs to get more credit for that because we're still in go the CP three era Sons, But like that that matters because Chris Paul is in his age thirty seven season and like you know, that clock is ticking and he started to hit his threes in in that win that they had on Tuesday Night. I think he's going to be better overall. He's still been able to set up guys for passes, but it's just like, he can't be this killer forever and they're probably gonna be limitations to him defensively, particularly when you get into the postseason. And so if I'm if I am the Sons, I probably lean towards like, well, can we find someone who's just bigger, an actual wing, a secondary playmaker wing, or at least someone who could operate with the ball in their hands since that is even one of their weaknesses now looking at the supporting cast, and so you know, a jail And Brown would spring to mind there, but it can be anyone if you want it to be like a more I don't use the word traditional, but let's a pure point guard. Or if it's a smaller point guard, fine. If it's like a swingman or a bigger two guard or four general type who needs to have the ball in his hands, that's fine too. If it's someone who's gonna spend most of his time playing off Devin Booker, that's great as well. Could even be I'm gonna argue it's not going to be a big man just because it gets really hard to upgrade from DeAndre. And at this point, I would say, if if I was looking at it as Okay, well this is the one player that I can't be. I almost want to say, like, well, then don't waste it on a four unless Yannis becomes a vail like a pure four. But like even if you threw Pascal Siakam on this team with DeAndre a in two, like if there was a avenue to get they just be fucking like incredible. So Devin Booker, given the Sun's ultimate flexibility both now and later. That was a great question question, Chris, thank you for it. I Glasgow on YouTube ask what are the top three NBA mascots? What are the bottom three? Or logos? I did both because why not? This is my personal opinion. I base it a lot. Let's do logos first. I based a lot on esthetics, and I prefer logos when it comes to mascots get ups if you want to call them. That are just louder and take more chances. My bottom three NBA logos at the moment, the Pistons, the Sixers, and the Nets, they all just feel really plain and that just doesn't do it for me. There and there are like alternative I did it on the current logos that the teams have on their NBA dot Com websites like that that alternative Black Houston Rockets logos really freaking cool. But I didn't pick it as the best logo just because that's not their primary logo. So those are my bottom three and then my top three. I have, Okay, see that, like there's is just like the having the lightning bolt in there, and then the orange and the blue sort of clash, but they don't they they mesh. I like that the hornets, I mean, kudos are just making a hornet seems super intimidating. And then I love sort of the teal and purple that gets looped in there. And the other one was the magic, like that's just you know, like there when you look at them in the Wizards, like where the Wizards could have had like this wild warlock or something like. I feel like the magic made the most of the sorcery aspect with that sort of just like jet of light coming off the ball or not, like it feels like actual magic when you're when you're looking at it. And so those were my three I didn't really have again that Black Houston Rockets logo would have made it. Did I consider any other teams for the worst or the best, though I don't know, those are pretty easy for me. I think you can make a case that, Like I like the way that they stretched the font out, so the Knicks is fine with me. I do like the Blazers one. That's the Wizards one I definitely considered for for bottom that's without question. But yeah, those would be my top three best and worst. I'm just I thought about, like, I don't know if I I don't like the Calves Plane C one, like when they had the sword going through it to go bottom three. The Lakers one isn't very creative of just the yellow ball with the purple lettering, and so maybe I should be willing to bounce that for I don't know Brooklyn's or Philadelphia's because at least they have that, like that little sparkle to it. But yeah, my top three, let's do my bottom three mask bottom three masks, like I don't bend the Bison, and I mean you were like bumble the Bison. I guess that's too much of a hornet's thing there. Brick the Bison would probably just be really terrible one that'd be like super funny, just like, let's at least get some like alliteration with the name, and then it's also just I don't not from Oklahoma City, but like, are you passionate? Are they passionate about bison there? If you, if any of the young contested folks are listening to that, feel free to to answer that for me. And then finally slams in the Lion with the kings, I kind of like the name, but there was more ways that you could have gone. It didn't have to be an actual king, but like so I understand what they're going for, but there are more ways that you could have gone where it's like an actual king or just anything that really sort of had the crown. I know that the lion is part of their low like some of their logo stuff too. I get that, but the actual lion face it kind of looks like if retired age Simba from the Lion King moved to Florida and spend too much time out in the sun and just got like this leathery, droopy skin look, and it's just I don't know, it's it doesn't do it for me. So those are my bottom three kings, Celtics and the Thunder. I'd probably like the thunder one the best. Out of those three, though, the aesthetic anyway, the name without question is is the King Slams and the Lion. The Celtics missed the mark on both. I get Lucky the leper conscious like an easy, low hanging fruit there, but like, let's make the actual Lucky logo better, something that Kyrie Irving won't want to stomp on, you know, like, let's let's respect the sanctity of that mask. My top three mascots, this was tough, so I'm gonna give you my tough cuts. First, Gee Wiz for the Wizards. I actually like that mascot as opposed to not really loving Washington's logo. Rocky the Mountain Lion for the Nuggets just a great entertainer in my opinion, and he looks he looks fun too. He's like just this friendly lion mountain lion. Betty the Bull's iconic, and so maybe I'm just overexposed. And then the Raptor does some you know, pretty daring stuff. Maybe I'm just like whimsically dreaming of I think that was the no Fans season where he's getting in trouble. I don't think it was the bubble. What is time anymore? But my actual top three. The Coyote for the Spurs. That's just a no brainer for me. That dude knows how to knows how to at Washington say that dude, But that mascot knows really how to entertain. And I love the the actual costume. This one might surprise some people, but Chuck the Condor. It's just so sort of for the Clippers. It's so random. And I'm not Zach Low. I don't know the stories behind all these mascots putting the looks like a Pelican like he could easily like maybe the Pelicans should have him as the mascot, but he just looks like cool border on scary sometimes. And then the easiest one for me is Stuff the Magic Dragon. And I love that he got involved in the Aaron Gordon Dunk competition, so that was a big one and that was super cool. But he just like Stuff looks like it's like this mythical acid trip incarnate in bodily form, and I love it. So there's my top mascots. No scientific way to choose them. I will say the actual worst mascots are and I think these are the teams if I'm correct. I don't think I'm missing anyone but the Nets, the Warriors, the Knicks, and the Lakers are all cowards for not having a mascot. Glad ass. When you're watching bad slash young teams and players, what do you look for and figuring out if players actually good or just as the opportunity to put up numbers. Is it just an efficiency thing? Is it a self creation thing, a decision making? The real answer is probably a mix of everything. But is there anything specific that helps you or that you look for? So, yes, Glad's right, it's a mix of everything that they just listed. I will say two of the things I watched for the most is the one is the context of their role. And it's just like with Kay Cunningham last year and even this year, just being saddled with so much responsibility as a rookie within the confines of terrible floor spacing, and the same thing with Shay Gilbert Alexander for a lot of his time in Oklahoma City. And so if you're tasked with a lot of self creation or navigating these tight spaces with the ball in your hands and not having the same passing avenues open to you, I'm gonna be able to separate any let's say turnovers amid bad spacing like Kate had last year. When I'm looking at your vision and you're able to see these passes these open these would be open players technically before they develop or you're still threading these ridiculously difficult angles or getting through tight crevices, and then the other one. For me, it's not necessarily an efficiency thing, but it's also just like a I value self creation, and so when you're evaluating young players, the self creation and then the decision making that goes into it. The passing can fall under that as well, for sure. But I think I go back to Shay here because he's been the big one. It's not like a like Luca, this is how the offense is designed and the MAVs are going to be top ten offense when he's on the court, YadA YadA, out of balls always in his hands. But it's just like, is there a variability to how they can play with the ball in their hands? And maybe that's sort of what I mean, Like Luca has that variability and you knew it to finish at every level, to have finesse but also force to be able to back down players if he needs to or just body through contact to be able to hit stepbacks or dribble into pull up jumpers, or have floaters or hit these ridiculously tough finishes. And if you're able to do that when you're you're younger, I actually view that it's not even just an efficiency thing. If you're efficient while you're doing it on a bad team, you know less than less than ideal. Supporting cast Hell Yeah, like Shay during the first year without CEP three in Oklahoma City, for instance, would be a good example. There just gonna keep throwing it back to Shay here. But I still look at Kate Cunningham and I see the feel for the game and the form on his pull up jumper this season, and I just like it, And so that would be what I watch for. It's I will say, it's definitely easier to do with the should be higher end options or guys who are a focal point. And so the other thing I would look for when you're sort of looking at supporting cast players is can they fit seamlessly into a larger offensive ecosystem despite won their team's perfections and then maybe their own flaws. And I would point to Jeremy Sowing early on with the Spurs has not been great a lot of the time. But the things he's already doing defensively, the way that he can still just be a ball mover, some of the finishes that he's already had. He hit a three against the Timberwolves on Wednesday, but because everyone hits threes on the Timberwolves these days. But like that is the stuff that I'm looking for the role players. And then it's also and I'll stick with the Spurs here a Devin Vassell type where it's, oh, you know what he can do? Look at him move off the ball, look at the set three, look at the work he puts it on defense. But is there more more to plumb there? Like what happens when they give him a little bit more responsibility and try to scale up. And that's what you get to see a lot on these teams that are rebuilding or being purposely bad. And we've seen Devin Missel is just a great example there where they threw more ball screens last season, They've done it more this year. I think he's is he yeah, they did it more to start the season this year. I think he got injured and I did not pay attention to the the Spurs over the past two days, to be honest, Well, actually that's not true because I went back and watched their Timberwolves game. Uh yeah, Devin Wasssel dealing with the he did not play Wednesday. He was dealing with the knee injury. That is correct. So, but like when you look at the games that he's played in, and I was watching his possessions for something that I was writing the other day, he's more comfortable doing this pick and rolls stuff, and so I fully believe, no, that he's not going to turn into just like a Chris Paul level manipulator when he's coming out of the pick and roller, or even a Devin Booker since they're more like sized then he and CB three would be. But can you look at a player scaling up like that when it's when it's again a non star Kelvin Johnson would be a good example something to monitor. I still have a great feel for like how he fits into like sort of that, Oh, let's give him more on ball stuff. There's definitely more directionality to what he's doing on the ball this season. But that's sort of what I for the especially the first, like definitely the first two seasons of the player's career, and then if they're trying out a different role where we're seeing Vassell graduate to something now, then you know, moving beyond three and four years. And so I do throw efficiency out of the window a lot when I'm watching those players on bad teams. And do you get burned by Michael Carter Williams every now and again, for sure, But I do think that when you go back, it is easier to identify players that might be able to impact winning even when they're on a bad team. And with Michael Carter Williams, he was just surrounded by such an extreme example and we've probably just sort of seen it because he kept coming up in all these just terrible, historically bad efficiency returns. But you get wowed by the counting stats and it's just like I still do, I'll site points per game, but like I can't remember the last time like that, I've just leaned on the counting stats to dictate, oh, is this player a good passer? Necessarily? Like you can dig deeper now and to see like, okay, well, like how many of his passes are actually leading to shots and what percentage of those shots or players making or are they even leading to free throws? So you go into things like that, but I do think aesthetically when they're that early in their career, if it's the first two seasons or the first three or four, or even I guess if it's anytime someone's graduating to a role, how does there feel in that role? How does it look? And even if you're not some XS and no savant, which I am not, you can still get a good sense of a player like that, and I think identify that they're going to be useful. And it's like I said, I think it's easier to TechEd in some of the higher end guys who are going to get a lot of control over the offense specifically, but like even a Dyson Daniels in New Orleans this season, or a Trey Murphy coming on last year, like these complimentary players, if you just watch and see how they fit in even despite their shortcoming. He's looking at Dyson Daniels, you know, as someone who does have his offensive limitations right now from the perimeter, but you look at what he's able to do when he's getting up and down the floor. If he keeps the ball moving on offense and so or being able to put the ball on the deck like that, Like that's a big one. I not necessarily fumble it all the time. Those are just I guess that's the azillion things I watched for. But I do think there's a difference on what you probably need to watch for with if someone's going to be a primary or a secondary. Just like engine for an offense, you're watching for different things as opposed to a role player or more of a complimentary mentory player. And so, yeah, that's just what I watched for. I think that's how you find enjoyment in bad teams. It's like Jail and Green last year. Even Jail Green to start this year in a couple of games that I've watched, being able. Yeah, there're limitations to his game, and I'm I kind of thought that maybe he could be a primary pastor now or only a few games into the season, I'm like, eh, I don't see it anymore. He's just telegraphing too many things and feels too sloppy, willing passer, but doesn't look like he's gonna be a great one. I can't say that though, when he's just a season and change in his career. But look at the ridiculously tough shots that he has needed to hit just because of Yeah, there's talent around him, but it's not really proven talent right now, and so you can look at a player and be like, well, that guy sort of has it, and then at Tyrese Maxie last year, where it's oh, look at how many different roles he thrived and he steps up from rookie to sophomore is easily Philly's second most critical player. Last year, James Harden comes along and he just becomes this blindingly fast straight line driver who's banging in catching shoot threes at forty five plus percent. And so the being able to adapt is also a big one for me too. We all know whoever, anyone who listens to pockets same way that I value scalability. Great question, Glad, You're always making me think. Jt Alexander. We have two questions here from jt Alexander and from Glad that focus on the Lakers and Russ, so I'll loop them together. Jt Alexander asked, what do the Lakers do to be competitive? Do they take the hit on their first round picks to get Russ off and get a couple of decent role players, whereas there's just no hope for the current iteration of this team. I'll answer this one first, because I do think Glads is a little different. I at this point, I wrote that I would have just moved him, and I think that the default is you just move him. Like, what is the best offer you could get return for those two first round picks right now? Or is there a way to get one of those deals while only giving up one guaranteed first, like miss it one first and a swap at twenty seven first and then the twenty twenty eight swap, or you can even do a twenty six swap as well. And I would just do it because Lebron's in his age thirty eight season and you're just even if you're not a contender, you are obligated to treat yourself like one. That being said, I don't think moving Russell westbrook solves the Lakers issues. They're not going to get enough quality talent back. If they're waiting this out, and for some reason Kyrie Irving becomes a l we'll get in Brooklyn, They're able to pull out pull off that deal. I mean maybe, and but you do that, I don't know if it makes some contenders, they're still really shallow there. Barring something like that, though, the fact that you didn't do anything to address this over the offseason after knowing it didn't work going through last year, after you should have already known it didn't work before you even made the initial trade, there might just be a take your play in or worse exit medicine. At this point, why double down and mortgage your future for a team that doesn't even have an immediate future. I mean, Anthony Davis is battling back stuff and looks at Russell Westbrook's did with hamstring stuff. Now he doesn't play against the Nuggets. The Lakers don't look that much better without him anyway, and so he like, it's not to say that you should ride it out with this group. If there is a trade that comes along where it costs you one first round pick in twenty twenty seven, or it doesn't cost you a first round pick, because maybe there's a team that just so values getting off longer term money and you don't care about your cap space as long as you get to keep your first round picks, then yeah, do that trade. At this point, I wouldn't give up first, like if it's again, if it's one for knowing the rumored deals that are out there, So I'm basing this or could be out there if it costs you one and a swap. Yeah, maybe I'm reevaluating the Buddy Heel Miles Turner situation. Maybe I'm reevaluating what the Spurs would be doing if it's a Josh Richardson and then you know Yacu Peardle. I think that's probably for them to get only one first round pick for Yacca Peardle and Josh Richerson while taking on Rushes. Russ is fairly white as well. But if you can do something like that, then do it Otherwise, I just I don't see the pathway to this year's Lakers being more than a first round exit, almost by way of the play in. I just don't even see a path to them getting into the top six this year. And so reset over the summer, have your first round picks. Russ comes off the books, you will have cap space. Yeah, Lebron's going into his age thirty nine season, but he's still pretty damn good. Maybe you just you cross your fingers and hope for the best. There and then also hope that either you know, I guess you know you have it for Trump pick this year, but you just hope that the Pelicans are worse than expected, so that even when they exercise their swap, you're still getting a lotto pick or something. But the Pelicans aren't going to be worse than expected. That's been pretty clear. I'm glad on this same subject, as with all the Russell Westbrook tradees and arras being brought up, is there a team he gets traded to where he actually ends up playing minutes for the rest of the year. For the most part only the only reason teams are trading with the Lakers is to get their picks and move off big contracts gained Westbrook's expiring none for Westbrook as a player. The popular trade ideas with Indiana San Antonio both have young back courts and players they want to give minutes to, and I presume would waiver or send him home. Maybe my enemy would play him, but I really don't see that happening. Charlotte if they send Razier in Heyward, since they would be tanking if they decide to do that. But also if a tankie team decides to trade for him and play him. Would he actually end up playing well enough that's for the team to win a few extra games that they shouldn't. I don't think teams are going to risk it, especially at the end of the year for the most part of teams that wherever he goes, we won't be seeing him playing till next season. If that so, I would disagree with the ladder. If I think he would get if a team is going to welldn't say that if in all likelihood they're like they'll broke her a buy out or they'll waive him. If it's late enough into the year post trade deadline, Like if it's at the trade deadline, then yeah, like you could just you know, you're not getting off that money anyway. If it's before maybe getting the game of what we're holding onto his contract to see if we can move it. So he's not gonna play for us. But I would guess that he hits the waiver wire and then signs with a team that I don't know if that gives him a big role, but that's just desperate for point guard help. In terms of team that I could see training for him and actually using him. It would be Charlotte for me, just for the Jordan brand connection. And if you're giving up Rosier and Hayward, when's Lamello coming back from that sprained ankle and you're still I know, Dennis Smith Junior's kind of balling out, but does rust put bodies and seats? Like how much does Michael Jordan care about that? And are they not doing it to tank or further their tanks? How much as we want the longer term money of Hayward and Rosira off our books, I don't think Rosier when you look at the new Calf climate, that's just not a big deal. But if you're getting Lakers picks, and then it's also what we haven't really damaged our chase for the ten seed all that much, and we can play Russ. We can surround him with well not a bunch of shooting, but three shooters on the court, even without Rosier and Heyward, although I guess not if it Ubra's there, you do have Cody Martin still. But just because the Jordan brand connection. The other one I did see is Utah, just because depending on who they're moving out in that deal, like if they're giving up Conley and Clarkson. Do they want a veteran to steer things. You don't want to play with Colin Sexton. But if it's Danny Age that's before the trade deadline, this would be my point. Maybe Rush doesn't report to the Jazz, that's always on the table. But if you're Danny Age this before the trade deadline, you're you're not in the business of one. I'm going to give up this expiring contract now. I'm going to see if anything materialize leading into the trade deadline. And if as long as Russ is not, you know, submarining the mood, the vibe of your team, you can play him and not damage your rebuild in the sense that Utah specifically, you're not dealing with guys who need to get these touches, like if he's eating in to Sexton and Lowry market usage, I would argue those two guys probably aren't going to be on the Jazz in two to three years. That would just be my guests. But maybe I'm wrong. Lowry marketing looks good enough to headline of Dynasty right now, but you can stagger minutes play Russ in a bit role. Maybe the idea is, oh, if we show that he can play, especially within Utah's offense, the way they were able to spread the floor with a bunch of people, with a bunch of the players that are there right now. Do you just play him and see if another trade materializes, if it's there for the deadline, No, absolutely not. He's not reporting to Utah, he's not reporting to Indiana. So in all likelihood, whichever team he gets traded to is doing so with the intention of just recooing assets and then just getting him, you know, paying him to essentially stay home or go away. And then at that point though, as long as like I do expect Russ if he's traded to play again this season, so I will say that maybe it just takes longer because it happens before the trade deadline and then he doesn't want to waive him or broke or a buy out. They want to see if there's other moves to be made using Indy. But it could hold true for the Spurs as well. Would the Spurs even play him, Probably not just because you want Devin Vssl, Kellen Johnson, Josh Primo to get those on ball reps, but like maybe just because they're so barren of an offensive organizer, proven offensive organizer right now, and would would Russ want to play for Pop? And would Pop? You could see Russ giving Pop a headache, but would Pop sort of just like the challenge and appreciate having sort of the older head there, especially if you know two or three of the players going out on any Westbrook deal or Peartle Richardson and Doug mc dermott. You're just bankrupting yourself of veterans who are not named Gorgi Jang at this point. So yeah, that would just be my stance there. There There aren't teams that are going to acquire him with the intention of playing him, but I could see a scenario in which he gets traded to a team that actually winds up playing him. But I do expect him to play again this season if and when the Lakers do move him. That's going to do it. For part one of this mail bag and ended up being so long, I'm gonna put it into two podcasts. I will probably be the goal per week is two mailbags. Maybe they'll be separate, maybe they won't. We'll have to have to see. Please remember to rate, review and subscribe to us if you're listening Spotify or Apple that goes a long way. Retweet our promos. If you're on Twitter, shout us out. I will engage once I see it. Word of mouth helps as well. Recommend us to people if you think they would enjoy this podcast because they hate to hear good basketball takes and want to hear some really bad ones and so sub on YouTube. If you've made it this far, you haven't it liked or been in a comment section or you know again, sub, I don't even know what you're doing here. Take that extra five second step to continue growing this community until next time. I leave it to shout out to the one, the only, my forever, my heartbeat, Frank Latina