Speaker 1: What is Fellasiko's I'm damn for Valley coming at you
With my certified fantabulous co host, mister Grant Hughes. We
are joined together as we've only ever been like once
or twice before, all three of us together. Everyone's excited
by Mort Jensen of the NBA podcast, fame of Yahoo Sports,
fame of Forbes fame, and of course OnlyFans celebrity impromptu
live show because what the heck? I don't feel like
editing a video when we put up a podcast tomorrow, fellows,
So this is exciting. I'll start with you. Oh, as
the quick note, we're gonna talk quippers, We're gonna talk
restricted free agency again, and anything else that comes up.
If there are any volume issues live and there's anyone watching,
since I just put this live without scheduling it, let
us know, we'll try and adjust the volume accordingly. Since
our levels are always all over the place. Let's begin
with you, Mort, How the heck are you doing?
Speaker 2: I'm doing well. I'm actually doing well rough weeks. You know,
last time we spoke, I was sick as hell. Didn't
really get over it. Still like the viruses today are
just bad. Outside of that, I'm doing pretty damn well.
I'm looking forward to the new seast. I'm enjoying euro
Basket like. There are lots of a lot of hoops
going here in the late summer early fall. Can't complain.
I hope you guys are doing well.
Speaker 1: Grant, how are you?
Speaker 3: That's none of your business?
Speaker 1: Have I done that before?
Speaker 3: I always kind of like tempted to just meet your
sincere concern for me with just being a dick about it.
I'm doing great, Happy to be back talking to you guys.
I will say, it does feel like we have come
together and formed a powerful triumvirate to tackle the topic
of the day or the topic of the like what
is it a week now, give or take? This is like,
I'm fascinated by this. I think it's so fun and
so interesting just because mostly because we don't know enough
to actually draw real conclusions, but we get to speculate,
and that's a good time.
Speaker 1: I think the trio we've put together to talk about
this is some might say aspirational. There's there's your dad.
Joke of the day fells from someone who has no children.
So I'll go through the cliff notes before we'll throw
it to Grant. Grant will be out of here at
some point, everybody who was watching or listening since he
has a heart out. But August twenty twenty one, I
just want to get the timeline here.
Speaker 4: KWHI.
Speaker 1: Leonard extended with the Clippers in September. In twenty twenty one,
the Inuit Don't breaks ground. In November of twenty twenty one,
k L two Aspire LLC is registered and in December
twenty twenty one, Steve Bomber joined oak Tree Capital Management
in investing three hundred and fifty million dollars total into Aspiration,
which was then valued at two point three billion dollars.
Now The Poplotry finds out podcast on Earth that Kui
was able to receive twenty eight million dollars in four
installments I think the last of which was not paid
according to their bankruptcy filings, but seven million dollars a pop.
It was way more than any other celebrity endorsers were receiving.
It was essentially a no show act. As they can tell,
he was never asked to do anything, promote anything. There's
a tweet out there in which he was tagged. It
was wishing Leonard a happy birthday or something, and Aspiration
was tagged or whatever. April twenty twenty two is when
the deal between him and Aspiration was signed, so what
we're dealing with. He also had a twenty million dollars
in stock options, which, since the company has now defunct,
I assume turned into nothing. There's a lot of other
stuff we'll get to, such as Mark Cuban's response, But Grant,
just you're kind of we're now a week in change
removed from all this. What are your thoughts on everything here?
Speaker 3: I mean, it's hard to know kind of where to
tackle this from, what angle to approach from. I think
my thoughts are that the two things that strike me
as most interesting, and we can if this details things,
or if you want to stop me or whatever, we
can we can talk about this more granularly. But the
fact that the fifty million dollars from Balmer's personal LLC
is so close to what is essentially forty eight million
that Kawhi is getting from this company to do nothing
that strikes me as interesting, definitely suspicious. Maybe the idea
that uh Leonard as a as an endorser of a
product is worth this much is beyond insane to me
because like he was one of the best players in
the league for a good stretch and can't sell shoes,
doesn't do any media, Like just is not someone that
you would view as a valuable addition to your pr machine,
Like doesn't raise awareness, doesn't make things cool. So like
those are the just the dollars, and like what they
were purportedly for strikes me as odd. The other thing,
I'll say, and you can take you guys can jump
in or take this a different direction. It's so I
just saw Adam Silver talking in a press conference and
he was essentially discussing this whole thing as if it
were a legal matter, except that this isn't. And so
there is no resumption of innocence until guilt is proven,
as it would be in a criminal case. There's no
beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof, which would be
the criminal standard. There's no preponderance of the evidence, which
in the American system is the civil standard of proof
if you're trying to prove something civilly. This is almost
backwards based on the CBA, which is to say that
you're sort of guilty in the Clippers case until you
prove innocence. Because the Commissioner has such broad discretion to
view circumstantial evidence like all this stuff I just brought
up and the things we'll talk more about and just
decide this looks fishy. The burden of proof is on you,
Clippers and Steve Baumber to prove that there's a rational
explanation for all of this, and I don't see the
Clippers having the ability to do that to meet that standard.
Speaker 1: So I'll leave it there.
Speaker 3: Those are my disjointed sort of overarching thoughts, just really interesting.
I don't know what what are you grabbing onto here
as sort of the most interesting aspect of this, or
or if you have a more global take on it,
where where's your head at?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 2: The first thing I did when I saw like the
volume of the money involved, like the twenty eight and
potentially forty eight million, right, was google how much Kauwhi
was learning from his New Balance contract to just to
kind of compare it. And the latest data we have
was he signed like a four year extension with the
New Balance in twenty eighteen, worth twenty two million, so
like that, and that's over four years. To me, that's
almost a smoking gun in enough itself, because it leans
into your point, grand that he's not necessarily viewed as
this you know, magnificent pr product, Like no one is
standing in line to hand him hundreds and millions of
dollars to be the front facing figure of whatever the
hell some type of you know company like this is
so even new balance, Like that's always like shoe companies
are always like the secondary or for some players, like
the primary source of income. So if he can only
squeeze out twenty two million over four years, by the way,
from them, then twenty eight million for a no show
deal or a no play deal, whatever you call.
Speaker 4: It, that just it just seems fishy.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to sit here and say anything that
gets us into llegal trouble, but oh my god, does
this just look so bad?
Speaker 3: I'm just gonna ask, Like, I mean, I agree, it
looks very bad. And maybe the fair thing to do
would be to try to construct the case that's that
is all on the up and up. So like, what
is the exculpatory case for the clippers, Like what set
of circumstances could we put out there that seems semi
realistic that sort of explains all of this, Like, because
I struggle with that, I think you can get somewhere
by saying that this is a company that has had
what appears to have been rampant fraud, and maybe there's
some book cooking happening with Will somehow. I don't know
how it benefits a company to give someone forty eight
million or twenty eight million and then twenty million in stock,
But like, do you guys have any sense of what
the a rational argument would be that everything is above
board here or that at the very least the Clippers
are not. You know, this doesn't reflect poorly on them somehow,
because I struggle with that part of it.
Speaker 1: Don't the Clippers seem like they're already trying to make
it where Steve Bomber has that basically home court interview
with Ramona Shelburn and I didn't. I didn't understand that
or the optics of that from the perspective of if
you were so confident in your stance on this, why
not talk to Pablo tore Pablo Torre finds out in
the first place, rather than immediately go on ESPN when
you know the optics are gonna be viewed that they're
throwing you softball questions. They've also since put out Perromona Shelburn,
that they refused a more lucrative endorsement deal from or
sponsorship deal from Aspiration. Then they got with the Inuit
Dome name wasn't like five hundred and fifty million or
something like that, and they decided to go with the
more established company, And they're essentially using that as cover,
which I think, on the surface probably looks okay and
I but what I guess I'm struggling with is at minimum,
isn't aren't they I don't want to use the word guilty,
but aren't there's like negligence at play here because you're
gonna say, all we did was introduce Kawhi Leonard and
then got out of the way, and we didn't know
anything about this, and so like a couple of things
just quickly are not sitting right with me, is that
this team was already docked for trying to get DeAndre
Jordan a two hundred thousand dollars sponsorship way back when,
like in a way that they weren't allowed to. You
have Mark Cuban going on the PA Pablo Tory finds
out podcasts. I sorry I can't talk today. As usual,
nothing he said, really person I thought I applaued Pablo
for pushing back against him. I thought they had a
good dialogue, but Mark Cuban sort of say, you're not
giving the scammers enough credit and this isn't enough money
the fifty million initially for Steve Bomber to care about.
Maybe he just had nothing to do with this, and
I just his stance was like, you're never gonna know
everything that's going on with your own team. That's not okay.
And we saw that with Mark Cuban and the Mavericks.
It was a different thing. But like the sexual assault
allegations and harassment allegations going throughout Dallas while he was there,
like during his tenure, and he says he knew nothing
about that, that doesn't really make it okay. And so
I feel like a lot of the Clippers' defense, either
directly or indirectly, is kind of boiling down to will
for ignorance. And the final thing I'll say is there
may not be a smoking gun, but when it deals
in when it involves the player whose representation slash uncle
in Uncle, the infamous Uncle Dennis, his requests around the
league have been ludicrous and been known for something we've
heard about some of them with the rat and with
the Lakers. But isn't it like more, isn't there something
to the effect that, like, we're investigating salary cap circumvention
among the parties. And I'll use that as Kawhi, Uncle Dennis,
that whole camp who have been again I don't want
to use the word guilty, but most notorious for trying
to circumvent the salary cap.
Speaker 2: I mean you have to consider all those factors. I
think when if the League has started an investigation, right,
they hired the same law firm that they used for
ironically also the Clippers with the Donald Donald Sterling case
and one more case that I'm completely forgetting the case.
Speaker 4: As well.
Speaker 2: So I think those concerns are completely valid. I think
the League is going to basically line out a bunch
of things to that law firm and say, look, there
are a lot of things that we need to get
to the bottom of here. The Uncle Dennis factor of
it all that has to play a factor in some
type of way. It just has to, because everything is connected,
or at least that's the connection they have to be
looking for. At the very least, it's it's all just
an ugly case of the Clippers right now, trying to say, oh,
I didn't know, did you know?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 4: I didn't know. Oh did you know? No, I didn't know.
Speaker 2: And that's going to be their primary defense, I'm guessing
is that, like you said, the ignorance part right. And
I'm sure there's also going to be some people who
haven't the faintest idea just because of like plausible deniability. Honestly,
we'll see how this all shakes out, But I, like
Grant said, it is so difficult to sit here with
the information that we have now and try to come
up with even a remotely reasonable explanation for how that money,
how that whole situation came about. The justification of the
amount itself, first and foremost, that's like ridiculous. The internal
structures Steve Balmer having invested in the oak Tree Capital
Management part and that pump money into like everything just
weeks right now to the point where it's so difficult
to like see how those wires can get like untettered
and to just like put in line, I don't see
how that's going to be made reality.
Speaker 1: Grant, what are you one of them? I'm not sure
if you listen to the Mark Cuban and pabulatory discussion.
But what do you make of sort of Mark Cuban
saying if Steve Bomber or the Clippers themselves knew about
this or were culpable in this, why let that company fail?
Wouldn't you pump more money into it to kind of
hide your salary caps or convention? Did you? Are you
persuaded by that part of the argument at.
Speaker 3: All, less so than I was by his questions about
you know, the Aspiration employees that Pabulatoria has on record
saying this was for caps circunvention like that that was
compelling to me because you do need to find out
and this is what the investigation is for. How are
those people possess of the knowledge to say that? Like
where did they get that term?
Speaker 1: Even?
Speaker 3: Like what does Aspiration know about the NBA salary cap?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: Like they're just paying some like so that kind of
thing that's interesting to me. But no, not not really
just because like if you're Steve Baumer, yeah, maybe you
make a mistake and invest in something, why are you
going to throw for one, throwing more money at it
kind of makes you look more guilty. Like in addition
to doing this, this shady deal. You're gonna throw more
good money after bad to like to cover it up,
like you know, the whole of the cover ups worse
than the crime aspect of it. And maybe you're just
smart enough to realize that, oh, this is not a
real company, Like why am I? I think we should
just dust our hands off and walk. I think both
of you kind of touched on this, do you to me?
The one of the ironies of all of this is
the the sort of demonstrated shadiness of the Uncle Dennis
of it all might be the way that the Clippers
can absolve themselves here because they're like, look, this guy's
got a history of asking for the moon, right, like
he just he it's just this the guy that is
running Kawhi Leonard's businesses and his quote unquote agent because
he doesn't really have a real agent. He's done this
sort of thing or something adjacent to this, or tried
to do this several times over the years. Like we
can't police that guy, Like that's not on us. Now.
That doesn't change the fact that Balmer is investing in
this company or had invested in all that stuff. But
you can at least point to you know, if you're
doing like a suspect lineup and Balmer is one of
them and Uncle Dennis is the other end, you know
a few things about both of those guys, You're gonna
be a little bit more persuaded that maybe Uncle Dennis
and the Kawhi side of it is where the like
malfeasance actually happened. But then that gets back to the
other thing of I do think there's a way that
Balmer personally could sort of come It does have some deniability,
like it is not realistic for him or like, as
Cuban says, for any owner to know everything that's happening
with your organization. I don't feel like that absolves the
Clippers of potential punishment, right like, because somewhere somebody in
the organization probably if if the allegations are true, was
on board with this, and maybe that wasn't Balmber, maybe
that wasn't even a very high level person. But it's
still the Clippers. And if you're the commissioner, if you're
Adam Silver, I guess maybe it's not as bad. If
it's a lower level person that that is sort of
how you tie the Clippers to this, But it doesn't
get you out of jail. I don't think right, like,
shouldn't it still like you as the owner, you are,
if not aware of everything, you sort of are responsible
and the team is you know what I mean? Like,
I don't I feel like Bomber can look okay if
things go a certain way here, But I don't feel
like the Clippers are going to get off off the
hook entirely? Does that do? What do you guys think
about that?
Speaker 2: I just think I need to ask Deve Balmber how
much he'll be's willing to pay for a full guy.
Speaker 4: Basically, I'll take it. Can I get Can I get you?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 4: Is?
Speaker 1: I just I would agree with you grant that I
think something is going to come from this. And as
you mentioned at the top of this entire podcast, like
the CBA kind of lays it out and Zach Low
did a good job of breaking it down that you
don't need everyone's like the smoking gun isn't out there,
but like the yeah, the burner, you just don't need
it in this situation. I just don't know. Like Adam
Silver in his comments too, which he had today at
the Board of Governor's meeting, was very we believe in
due process playing out, and this seems like a situation
where that they will not drag this on, but this
will take a while. They will let it fall out
of the news cycle and maybe it comes back in
if the clippers are so good and it's like, oh,
they shouldn't be allowed to be doing this right now,
and then the punishment isn't going to fit what I
think a lot of people believe is happening here. But
I also don't while the burden of proof might be
lower more or I'll throw out the ball of you
like what is smoking gun in this instance, look like
there's not gonna be people liking this. To the Joe
Smith thing, there was a signed agreement like between him
and ownership. It doesn't seem like that is going to
come up here. And so short of what if we
don't believe the Aspiration employees, we're not gonna believe the
Joe Samson guy, whoever he was, like that's going to
be and uh like if he came out, it's like, yeah,
we did this, Like as no one's gonna believe him
because of the way that that everything that he did
and what happened to that company. Short of Kawhi or
Uncle Dennis or Steve Bomber just admitting to it, Like
what would what does a smoking gun, whether it's a
document or admission look like in this case.
Speaker 3: I I don't know that there is likely to be
something like that one because like you just who's that dumb?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: Like I just say, you can't these are these need
to be phone calls, These can't be emails, These can't
be meetings with the minutes taken.
Speaker 1: Like I like one thing when Mark Cuban said that
if Steve Bomber did this, then he's like super dumb.
Why would he ever do that? And I was like,
my first months is it's like almost as dumb as
thinking that you could sell your control and retain control.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, No, I think I don't think
there's something like that. I as we're kind of hashing
it out, I do think some of the language in
the contract that Leonard or the agreement that Leonard had
with Aspiration, specifically the stuff about if any of this
is against your beliefs, basically granting him the right to
say no to literally anything for any reason, which is
just like to me, like you know, contracts, contract law
requires that, like there's offer acceptance. Something has to be
given as consideration or the otherwise there's no real bargain.
And in this instance, the way that's worded is it
feels almost like an unenforceable contract because Leonard has to
do nothing, and in fact can can rely on the
document he's signing for this money to as the basis
of him declining to do anything. And so that that's
so just beyond the pale to me in terms of
like what a what a regular contract in any walk
of life would look like that like you you could
points to that, if there isn't a real smoking gun,
you could point to that as just so absurd that
like that might be your starting point. Like if you're
presenting this case to a jury, any nor any layperson
is gonna be like, that's not even like what that's
not a contract. He's not obligated to fulfill anything. So
so that's weird enough on its own to maybe especially
if you're the commissioner and you're like, you don't need
you don't need the smoking gun, you don't need actual proof,
circumstantial evidence just kind of mushed together and like you know,
mixed in with some like logic could get you there.
And that that might be all it takes.
Speaker 1: I don't know if either you listen to Michael McCann
also going on the Zachlo post and talking about how
other teams the reactions. It seems like we've heard from
other insiders analysts that teams are just kind of in
dismay and that they're angered by this. But Michael McCann
kind of warned them, you don't necessarily want something major
to come of this, because then it's going to change
how you interact with your own stars or your perspective
signings to where will every sponsorship deal that technically is
supposed to fall outside the purview of the league now
be under review. And my initial reaction to that is
when you're dealing with teams that are going to have
these like so many of these teams are now basically
real estate companies or like tech companies, and if you're
going to have like you know, look at the Warriors
with Chase Center, the Clippers now with the Inuit Dome,
you have these multi use developments where it creates gives
them a leg up in their revenue stream. If I'm
another team or most other teams, I probably want something
to come from this because if the Clippers, I don't
want to say get away because we don't necessarily know
what happened here for sure, but if nothing does come
from this, it's kind of a license for someone to
push the bill even further, and that's going to inherently
give these other teams that have access to not just
because of their market, but again, like the real estate stuff,
it's going to give them a leg up in this
instances when we're journeying. This wasn't just you know, whether
it's aspirations the company was actually willing to give Kawhi
Leonard this more like if it was their idea or
something like Steve Bomber might be an anomaly because of
how deep a pockets he have. But we're going to
get to more nominalies to where there are just teams
with more off court revenue at their disposal that they
can either give to sponsors to get back to players
or just something along those lines.
Speaker 2: What about the NBA's role here, By the way, this
to me feels like another thing you kind of said
it before, Dan, in terms of like they might bury
it if the Clippers get off to.
Speaker 4: A good start and whatnot.
Speaker 2: If the league is like trying to put a lid
on this because this doesn't reflect well on the league
at large. Right, if the Clippers did do this, it's
going to raise so many questions. It's it's it's basically
the entire Oh, we believe the NBA is fixed. It's
the draft lottery all over again, just in terms of
like the deck is stacked and like some teams just
don't have a shot.
Speaker 4: Regardless.
Speaker 2: The NPA, I presume, would love it if those concerns
and that talking point just went away. Could we be
looking at a situation where, even if they do find evidence,
even if they do find everything that we talked about
over the past twenty minutes, that they just basically decide
to just short change it from start to finish.
Speaker 3: Well, what would the fallout be in that instance? I suppose? So,
I guess related to that, one of my first thoughts was, well,
the commissioner works for the owners. Maybe there are several
other teams that are engaging in similar practices. How hard
are they really going to push for a punishment here
or an investigation here because they don't want their books
opened up. It sounds like most of the reportings to
just like they're very much pushing for a punishment and
an investigation because it seems like they're not doing this
kind of thing. So that's one side of it.
Speaker 1: I do.
Speaker 3: It's hard for me, I think again, because this isn't
like a true there's no true legal standard here. This
isn't like adjudicated by a judge, This isn't a court
of law. I do think for that reason, the public
outcry and just like how big of a the difficulty
of tamping down this story I think speaks to the
increased likelihood that there will be a punishment because in
some sense, what you're talking about more like concerns of
the public along the lines of you know this, it's
not the same as like fixing games or anything like that,
but the integrity of the competitive spirit is being compromised
to some extent here. Again, if this is what's happening
with the Clippers and so like, if the public I
think is pissed off enough about that to like not
let this go away, don't you think, Dan, Maybe that
like that increases the likelihood that there's a punishment, almost
regardless of how strong the evidence is, just because the
NBA cares so much about how it is perceived like,
look what they do with gambling, like they they care
about that, and this isn't that, but it's sort of
adjacent to it.
Speaker 1: But what looks worse if they were to do like
because what if it just feels like they're issuing a
punishment for the sake of winning that press conference to
where the Clippers are docked a second round pick or
two second round picks. Wouldn't that in some ways? Couldn't
that be worse than them taking a strong stance one
way or the other where it's Adam Silver comes out.
We know that people are annoyed by this and that
this is how the optics look. But according to letter
of the law, whatever it is, based off what we found, Like, no,
Steve Bomber isn't guilty of anything here. The Clippers themselves
aren't guilty of anything here. I would have i personally
more and I don't know if are you the same?
Am I wrong?
Speaker 2: Hair?
Speaker 1: But I would have more respect for them taking a
firm stance rather than this, you know, dock a second
round pick bullshit that we've seen because it then it
becomes this is salary caps or convention. But we all
think tamperings a joke now, right, because the NBA is
just it can do all these things. It's at Adam
Silver's discretion and it chooses not to and so it
just it just happens. Now they like they kind of
submitted to tampering when they moved away. That like free
agency was reported now too.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, I look, Seth park Now went on Blue Sky
a couple months ago during free agency and he was
kind of laughing at people who were complaining about, you know,
the obviousness of tampering with contracts, and he was basically saying, guys,
it is so much worse, like you have no idea.
So yeah, that you know, growing skepticism that was never
nipped in the butt. Quite the opposite, Like the league
really didn't do anything about it, and no one took
it seriously because if they can forget a max contract
player in and it costs you a second rounder or
even two second rounders, look, that's a pretty good fucking
deal right at the end of the day for the team.
So so no, I absolutely agree with you. I I
too would appreciate the hammer getting thrown down big time.
I just wonder if that is going to be a
thing like if the league has the balls to it
first and foremost, or if they fear that this would
be a problem for them, you know, from an optics perspective,
because I have no idea how the league views itself,
they might believe because of all the negative media that
they've gotten over the past many years for virtually nothing,
as well, like ESPN will always find some shit to
talk about, you know, the inside the NBA crew would
always find something to bitch about. Like I think the
league is also tired of all that, you know, negative
media fluctuation that's been so they might be even more
panic now and go, oh, you know what, we can't
We just can't have another thing. And like I again,
I'm with you, but I don't know how the league
review is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I agree to you. Like I want
if there is an investigation that uncovers whatever it uncovers,
I want the sort of the right result, right like you,
you should punish the conduct according to what the conduct
dictates as far as punishment goes, Like, yes, we want that.
I just think I just can't get over the idea
that this isn't like a true judicial system. This is
essentially several business owners that work together collectively to grow
the lard the greater business that is the NBA. The
owners are very much in control of what Adam Silver does.
He works for them, and so the the what they
want to happen, I think has a pretty high likelihood
of happening, and the investigation will strongly inform what they want.
I'm not saying they're going to say barry the Clippers
regardless of what's found. But I do think this isn't
like a perfect closed system that just cares about justice.
There are business interests involved, and there are optics involved,
There's all this other stuff right like that. So that's
a highly cynical way to look at it, but I
just think that's that's reality.
Speaker 1: I do want. Can I ask you question, though, Grant? Well,
first of all, we all view I think the NBA
is the arbiter of morality, and if you disagree, you're
out of your mind.
Speaker 3: But can we get the dress code back? While we're at.
Speaker 1: I'd like them to police what music the irena music?
Speaker 3: There's too much dancing involved.
Speaker 1: Can we what, Grant? What should the other owners want
to happen? Then, when you're looking at there was the
Michael mccannon from Sportico going on the low post and
saying they need to be careful about this, versus what
it seems like being reported that, oh no, the Board
of Governors are actually really angry about this, So put
yourself in just like the average NBA franchise issues, or
maybe just try to look at it from the macro perspective.
What should the what should Steve Bombers peers want to
come up this?
Speaker 3: I think they should again, I think they should want
the investigation to give them something or nothing, and then
if there is cap circumvention, I think they should want
the just the maximum penalty because this is one of
the richest guys on planet Earth and like for him
to be the one potentially and for his for Steve
Bomber's team to be the one that is abusing this
set of rules feels a great Just doubly agree. If
I if I'm a small market owner, I want, like,
what what else can you give me? Punishment wise? Because
this is like something I will never be able to do.
So I understand like the idea of like the be
careful what you wish for take, but I think the
only thing you really need to be careful of is
if like if this turns out to have been caps
or convention and there's then there's a punishment, and then
there are policy changes to the effect of dan what
you were talking about. Like, so, now as a team,
I gotta like be scrutinizing every endorsement deal that my
players sign because maybe I'm tied to that company somehow.
Like that opens up a whole series of complications that
teams probably don't want to have to deal with, and
players certainly don't want more oversight over like what kinds
of money they can make and from whom right. They
just want to be able to conduct themselves like the
sort of individual businesses.
Speaker 2: That they are.
Speaker 3: So what you should want is again this isn't like
a justice system, but as another owner, you should want justice.
You should want punishment if it's warranted, But then maybe
there will be downstream effects that are undesirable. I think
you would accept those though if you do get a
punishment here that that is appropriate, right, Like you just
have to be prepared for whatever the other fallout is.
You got to get this part of it right though
from the other owner's perspective, and what.
Speaker 2: Is an appropriates punishment. Here, let's assume for a second
they do find a so called smoking gun, everything is like.
Speaker 1: Well, sorry, shouldn't it be more so based off what
we know right now? What should the punishment be just
because we don't know if because if they don't find anything, more,
damn it. Because I mean the other thing, by the
way of this too is I don't know that I
like the timing. I guess it aligns properly with his extension,
but I think that people are assigning I guess this
is like pro Clippers for a moment, Mark, don't you
feel like they're a signing too much value to QUI
signing this team friendly max extent because he had a
torn ACL at the time. Him signing a shorter deal
and getting back out onto the open market didn't necessarily
serve his best interests either. And so I don't know
that I've necessarily understood because it's just been repeated and
then kind of taken its fact in a lot of places,
And so I don't understand that as well, which is
for all to say, like, I think some of the
case presented could feasibly get weaker, So I'd be more
curious as to you know, more like, given everything you
know right now and how you're looking at this, like,
what is the appropriate punishment or do you think there's
enough here too? I guess according to the CBA, there
is enough to levy a punishment, but like from your perspective,
like what would be a fitting punishment based off everything
we know right now?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 2: So, I actually hadn't noticed that people were trying to
like couple this together with his extension and trying to
say that he took a below market deal. I have
not been super online as of late. When it comes
to like what people say, what.
Speaker 1: Was set in I think in the initial unless I'm
I know you guys listen to it, I think it
was said in like the initial podcast as to where
it's Kawhi signed a team friendly deal with the the
guys being and if I'm miss speaking, someone could call
me on the comments, but the justification being, oh, he
could have signed a shorter deal and then re entered
free agency sooner, and it's I know it was different
at that time, like we were closer to prime Kawhi
Leonard than we are now. But I don't think that
that necessarily was in his best interest given his myriad
health issues.
Speaker 2: But does it even matter. Honestly, does that really matter
in terms of what he signed for, like his NBA
contract I feel is so detached from this thing. Like
I understand that the idea is, oh, compensate him further,
but you know, whatever he earns from the NBA side,
that like, that's that's one thing. The entire point here
is looking at what he's getting paid allegedly under the table, right,
So so yeah, I'm just I don't I don't want
to connect those two personally. But in terms of like
what we know right now, obviously you need to go
through the investigation. But if everything comes up and like
if we find out we learned Steve Balmer had knowledge
of this was in any way involved here, I mean
we have to be looking at the voidance of the
entire contract right.
Speaker 1: To the clippers of favor.
Speaker 3: Isn't that a fun element of all this? They'd be like, oh, nuts,
you mean we don't have to be.
Speaker 2: No, But okay then, Like also the forfeiture of draft
picks thorough fine, I presume, But like, what is enough
of a signal as well to send to.
Speaker 4: Other teams that you don't fucking do this?
Speaker 3: Like what is it, Dan, Do you think they have
enough right now for there to be a punishment if
we learn nothing else?
Speaker 1: I mean I do, but I might just be too narrow.
I just don't think you could come with what David
Stern did with Joe Smith and say five first round
picks based on what we know right now, and I
think only three they ended up being doctor afterwards. But
you can't sit here and the something untoward happened here
because I like, maybe the Clippers didn't fully know about it,
but it just feels like there's kind of too much
smoke for there not to be some sort of a fire.
I just don't without having that confirmation that either Steve
Bomber knew about it or like the Clippers actively knew
about it. I don't know how you go the you know,
lay down the iron fist type deal, but I felt
like we just need to look at and but the
thing that, by the way, more the reason I was
trying it back to the contract is because this is
such weird timing. It's not when he signed his free
agency deal that they're doing this. They're doing like were
they worried about losing him? Like if you were the
Clippers what did you really stand to benefit from setting
this up now like that, like or again on this
time if it was twenty nineteen, that would make way
more sense to me because it's, oh, he's a free
agent you're trying to get did you promise him something
three or four years into the future about this company
you didn't know was going to exist at the time.
Speaker 3: I was gonna say the reason the contracts, I agree
with you, mort and I think Dan, you're saying the
same thing, like there's verbiage in the CBA that So,
just as a counter example, if if Kauwhi had signed
for ten million dollars a year and then there were
there was this same set of facts out there, that's
that's worse, Like that's that's what would would because I
think that there's the words are something like substantially below
or above market or something like that, and you could
argue that I don't think you could argue the deals
Kawhi has signed with the Clippers have been substantially blow market,
this endorsement thing with aspiration substantially above market. If he
also had a substantially blow market NBA contract, this unquestionably
looks but maybe that would have been the smoking gun, right,
because that's just like that's absurd, and that's where so
to contrast it, Jalen Brunson's name keeps getting thrown out
or referenced or mentioned. Like that type of situation where
a player takes markedly less than he could have otherwise
gotten and then has this other source of income that's
tied to the team, somewhat tangentially, somewhat directly. That's really
that's a different set of circumstances the game. I feel
bad because he just keeps catching strays and there's nothing
out there to indicate anything untoward happened. Uh, but you
know what I mean, Like that would be just just
to push back on the people talking about Kawhi's contract
as like, oh, he took a sweetheart deal or no,
I don't, I don't think that. Yeah, that's not persuasive
to me.
Speaker 1: The I mean, and I with Jalen Brunton there, I mean,
there was clearly the connections to the franchise. If we
find something's happening compensating him off the court, It was
easy to envision easier to envision him signing that sweetheart
deal because of like kind of how he entered the
league and how small guard like, he's never been considered
the best player in the NBA. It is yea and
who I was. But granted, since you asked the question,
do you think there's enough here for the NBA to
implement some type of punishment?
Speaker 3: I think that by based on the way that the
CBA is worded, I would argue that Adam Silver does
have enough. Again, it's his discretion really to to levy
a punishment. I would be shocked if it was a
Joe Smith level thing, because that was basically everything that
was allowed under the rule as far as punishments go.
That's me saying I think there's enough here for Adam
Silver to punish if he wants to. Is not the
same thing as saying I think there will be a
punishment if we learn nothing else. I think I think
they're gonna have to find something else in this investigation,
and or there will have to be like an increasingly
loud public outcry, whether that's from fans or other owners
or whatever, for there to be punishment based on what
we know right now. I don't know that that's like
the right result. That's just kind of what my gut says.
Because like as it is, like, yeah, there's no direct evidence,
there's coincidences, there's some shady stuff with a business and
uncle Dennis. That's like, yeah, of course, weird things happen.
I think you could, speaking of the term, I think
the NBA and Adam Silver could have plausible deniability and
say like, yeah, not quite enough. You know we needed
with the investigation, didn't cover uncover more. Uh, we're not
persuaded and we're gonna walk away. Yeah, so long, long
answer short. I think there's enough that if the Commissioner
wanted to, he could punish as of today, right now,
unless more comes out, I don't know if I don't
think I'm confident he would.
Speaker 1: I don't think they will. If this is if everything
we know right now is all we end up knowing,
I don't think anything's gonna come of it. I would
actually be pretty surprised if it did.
Speaker 3: Because think of the precedent you'd be setting right you
like then talk about the other owners being concerned, Like
then if this is all, if this is what it
takes to to get you doctor drapped, first round draft
picks and find and all this other stuff and contracts voided,
like I mean, that's that seems like a little bit
much me.
Speaker 1: Where are you at with this? More?
Speaker 4: I think it's tough.
Speaker 2: I think it's really tough because again, we don't know
the exact parameters of anything. We don't know what Steve
Balmer knows, we don't know what the lower end people know.
Speaker 4: This is all theoretical.
Speaker 2: I think what Grant said earlier is something that I
really lean on in terms of like the it's just
such an it greaches external contract to be signed where
to why basically has to do virtually nothing to get
paid you know, approximately up to fifty million dollars like
that to me, if we were looking at the smoking gun,
would be the one thing to say, look, justify this
in some capacity. And that's where you run into this
whole thing like looping in the clippers, Like are the
clippers the one who have to justify that? Or is
that aspiration? Like I that's the tough one for me.
If you can loop the clippers in any capacity where
they have to justify it, if you're already getting to
that point where you as the league can have that
sit down with them and say, okay, look now the
burden of proof is on you the Clippers to prove
how he deserves forty eight up to fifty million dollars
on this external deal. Yeah, then I think you're in
line for potentially giving them a fine or some level
of punishment.
Speaker 4: But to what extent, I have no idea.
Speaker 1: I think we can all agree that naming the LLCKL
to Aspire was probably a terrible idea, though on Uncle
Dennis's part, because we probably aren't even talking right now.
If it's more subtle, right, yeah, could be.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this has felt pretty clumsily done overall. But you know,
the one thing, the last thing I'll say, because I
gotta jump off. I don't think like Kawhi Leonard doesn't
really strike me as looking bad here, because like you
get presented with this deal from Aspiration, You're like, yeah,
all right, sounds good. I'll take your fifty million dollars.
This seems great. I don't have to do any you
know what I mean. Like it's shady, it's like mora
like questionable. But it's like if a company wants to
pay you money to do nothing, I think you're gonna
say yes, I would.
Speaker 1: I mean, if we're being honest, Uncle Dennis has done
quite well for Kawhi. Great job, great job.
Speaker 3: He's a as a as a strategist. He really has
position Kawhi pretty well.
Speaker 1: Uh, Grant, we will miss you as we get to
talk about More's favorite player signing one hundred million dollar deal. Though.
Is there anything you'd like to say to the kids
before you sign off?
Speaker 3: Uh? Just try to find the uncle Dennis in your
life and let him take the reins. I think that's
probably the takeaway here. Get you someone that loves you
like Uncle Dennis loves Kawhi.
Speaker 1: All right, thank you to you later. All right, Grant
is gone. We miss him already. Moore. Do you have
anything to add on the Kauhi stuff or questions that
you still have before we sort of move on?
Speaker 2: Oh no, I don't look oh well questions. I mean again,
it's just the ti in right I. I this seems
so preposterous. It just seems it greaches whatever word you
want to use, to the point where I think Grant
used a good word, logic, Like you have to just
approach this with a sense of logic, right, Like who
in the right mind goes in and says, oh, or
we'll give you almost fifty million dollar mister NBA Superstar
without you having to do a goddamn thing for us,
Like it just it utter reeks from start to finish.
Speaker 1: Do you think that there's like really just a chance
that my uncle Dennis was just like they just kind
of they were introduced to aspire and like he just
ran with it. I just don't know. I know, I
don't know what the sales pitch would be as to
why or like it was a spire that invested in
the Clippers' success, like to the like thought it was
going to be so good for them that because that's
That's what I can't square away is that I think
a lot of what Mark Cuban was saying is like
you're you need to give the scammers more credit, or
like this could have just been an entire thing on
the side with Uncle Dennis and like working on behalf
of Kawhi. And then I wonder, like how much knowledge
of it does Kawhi have, Like he has to realize
that seven million per year for a no show gig
is is a lot, right, or we just to believe
that like, oh that's not that's he knew enough about
his Wingstop sponsorship. I think for him to take an
interest in seven million dollars per year coming his way
that he wasn't doing anything for. So I don't, as
Grant said, oh go ahead, Sorry.
Speaker 4: I don't know, No, I know, I'm just like, do
you think when you've earned that much money at the NBA,
when you've been you know, practically the best player in
the league, You won multiple championships, you have multiple final
semip Awards, do you think that you might, like mentally
have reached a point where you just don't question, Oh,
I got a deal worth seven million years, you don't
think like you?
Speaker 1: Do you think most thing that you looked at his
new balance contract? Why does he think that he's getting
twenty to twenty two over four for that where he
actually has to do things versus twenty eight over four
for something in which he I.
Speaker 4: Know, I know, but like, I just don't know if
a player thinks like that. Though.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I don't necessarily view Kauahi any differently here.
Like we said before Grant hopped off, Uncle Dennis seems
like he's done quite well for KAUWHI I mean, like
you could say what you have about the request he's
made to other teams, But like Kauhi has still signed
deal after Deally, so he's been a great NBA player.
I guess I'm just having trouble there. Definitely seems like
something untoward happened here, But I just I know you're
saying not to assign too much ties to the contract.
I just don't like. So they didn't need to do
anything like this when he first signed, like to get
him to come to LA, but then where they worried
about losing him, which is why the timing of that
that Like that honestly might be the Clipper's strongest defense
to me is that we already quote unquote circumvented by
trading for Paul George. Basically like he didn't do anything
illegal there, but like Kawhi coming to LA was conditional
upon them getting Paul George. Why did you need to
do I just don't know. I don't know what the
benefit here was of the Like what did they risk
by not doing this? I guess is my like, if
I'm the Clippers, that, like, what was our risk by
not setting this up for Kawhi Leonard and I would
say absolutely nothing. Where was he going? We knew he
wanted to be in LA. He was on the I
just that's why I'm having trouble squaring away.
Speaker 2: Well, I again, that's that's what we know, right, I mean,
if they were worried they were gonna lose him to
someone else, you could make that case as well, like oh,
getting him an extra twenty eight to fifty million, that
that might sway his you know, his John Hancock's future contracts.
But again, this has to be proven. Can't sit here
and make you know, major assumptions. Although, god damn, it
just looks so bad. It looks so bad the optics here, however,
we want to frame them. Whatever the league finds out,
even if it was just uncle Dennis doing a great
job as an agent slash uncle slash business partner, whatever,
the whole thing. Just the optics will never look good.
Speaker 1: No, they don't look great. And do you think this
is Let's say they find something else and this is
proven every is this worse than what happened with Joe Smith?
Do you.
Speaker 4: Yeah? I would yes? I think so.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: This this is like a player who can't like I'm
not saying Joe Smith wasn't like a perfectly reasonable rotation
player for the Wolves back then. This is when healthy
and absolute top tier superstar who potentially could make the
difference on a championship ship level team, like if that
player is being signed under some I don't know if
this is the right term, false presenses or well, with
CBA circumventioned and the Clippers win a title, all of that,
does that not raise even more question? Does not that
that not, like from a historical perspective, just put the
league at a really bad position, Like, oh, that's right.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm just wondering how having the benefit of hindsight
now actually impacts it. Because the thunder just won a
title with the stuff the Clippers gave up to put
themselves in this position with Kui And how many playoff
series has LA won with Kuhi three? Right, So it's
not like they've enjoyed they would have to now go
on and win a title as the basically the oldest
team in NBA history to do so or whatever. What
I actually do think is would also be part of
the optics is let's just say you found out that
New Orleans circumvented the salary cap to pay Derek Queen
even more than his rookie scale because we know that
they love him. Wouldn't you almost had more respect for
it because like that market, not a glamour market, had
more like figured out a way to get around like
the bad optics, the limitations of his situation because it's
LA and because of you mentioned the caliber of player
that QUI. But if this was Kawhi in New Orleans,
if this was Kawhi with Toronto, I know he won
a title there, you would almost have more respect for it, right,
or it wouldn't seem as just it would I want
to be clear, It seem more itchy. But it's like, oh,
these big markets, these flagship markets that already have all
these other advantages, are now doing this on top of it.
I think it looks worse because of that. I'm not
saying I would have excused it if it was New Orleans,
but it worse because it is Los Angeles and because
it is the richest owner in the league as well.
Speaker 2: I guess that's not actually a perspective I've had personally,
because I think whether that it would have been the
Raptures or the Pelicans paying Hawaii under the table, I like,
I hear you, I hear you, but no, I think
what you're saying as well is we know the bomber
has the deepest pockets of anyone in the League's for him,
it's just a natural, you know, an element he can
go to.
Speaker 4: That's it's.
Speaker 1: Getting away. It's so I think that's why the optics
lookit worse. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
The final thing before we get into we're not even
gonna talk about Josh Giddy first. We're gonna save him
for for third topic on this list. How long do
you expect this? Like Adam Silver said, he's a big
fan of due process, he's got did he have the
due process cap on the logo? Due process on it?
I expect this to take a while before they do
an They're gonna they're not gonna want the perception to
be that they rushed it. They're also not if something
is wrong, They're gonna want to spend their time digging in.
If we hear about this even by the All Star break,
like a final verdict, I'd be that would be another
thing that would surprise me.
Speaker 4: Doesn't the half the All Star Game?
Speaker 1: I forgot about that. We heard him and said it's
into this, but yeah, they do.
Speaker 2: That would be funny, Like if something came out in like.
Speaker 1: Up on All Star weekend is what needs to happen.
Speaker 4: Oh, that would be great. No, that'd be so funny,
Like yeah, no, I think it's gonna take a while.
Speaker 2: Maybe they actually want to do a post All Star
break just to like get everything squared away and then okay,
now comes the punishment in March, which is the.
Speaker 1: Actual like so as, I mean, what if the Clippers
are just they're the one seed in the West, but
like or something wild, don't you think the outcry to
get from the public to get to the bottom of
this will be louder at that point because if they're bad,
I feel like people wore just for like whatever, Like,
look what's happening now they're reaping what they sell again,
even when we don't know the results. But if they're
really good, and then, by the way, I did the
Clippers look ahead like eight to ten hours before the
news broke on this, the Clippers might just be really
fucking good. If there are any semblance of healthy, I.
Speaker 2: Think I think you might be overestimating the attention span
of the average sports fan.
Speaker 1: Thank you for telling me that fifty one minutes into
a discussion on one topic.
Speaker 2: More I know my apologies, but like I do, do
you really think that if the Clippers are the first
seed in on like March second, do you think that
a lot of people by then are really thinking about
that like that that's top of mind? Or because at
that point in time, you know, the NPA this is
a crazy ass league. They're going to be what fifteen stories?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the NBA just filtered out heaves. Why
aren't we spending fifty one minutes on that something you've
been able to do right on my basketball reference for years?
They're yeah, Yeah, I'm fascinated to see what becomes of
all this. But I think there's gonna be outcry no
matter what. I think that you probably playkate the masses
if there is a punishment, because I think people want
there to be something wrong here or the NBA to
find something even worse here. If they end up finding
nothing and they don't issue a punishment, I think that
there will be You're right though, the attention span. I
think it'll be a short lived news cycle, but I
think that people will be they'll be angry if nothing
comes of this. Let's talk Cam Thomas from from Salary
Caps Circumvention to Free agency restricted free agency circumvention. That's
not actually what happened. But he signed as you and
I argued that he should mort. He signed his qualifying
offer worth six million about He now has vetal rights
over any trade this season that the Nets try to strike.
His bird rights do not transfer if he gets traded,
So his new team could give him one hundred and
twenty percent rays next year, which would come out to
seven point two million, or they need to use cap
space slash an exception to sign him. Before I throw
it to you, the reported offers, there's been like some
different numbers out there, but it seems like the Nets
basically were prepared to guarantee him one year and fifteen
million with a team option on the second year. So
he gave up nine million bucks and guaranteed money, give
or take. It seems so what do you knowing what
the mL is in years to come like next summer,
two years at the mid level, thirty one million, three years,
forty seven point seven, four years, sixty five plus what like?
What do you make of his decision to sign the
qualifying offer? Were you surprised? Do you think it was
the right move? Where are you at?
Speaker 2: I think it was the right move. Look again, I
understand that the league has a general skepticism level, high skepticism,
sism level of a guy who is like six y four,
who's stuck between positions, who really only does one thing.
The thing about it, Dan is the one thing that
he does do he does at such a fucking past level.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like he he is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he is such a great score and it's so
multi faceted as well. I still think people haven't come
around to the fact that he has significantly improved as
a three point shooter while maintaining his ability to get
to the free throw line like you can. You can
just ask him to go get twenty twenty four, twenty
five any given night and he will do that. So
I and I refuse to believe that that somehow doesn't
have value in the NBA anymore. If that, if we
are pivoting all the way from like bucket getters to
oh we need you know tool see switchable Wings score
nine points per game, And I'm out on this league
because that sounds boring as hell, sir, that that just
sounds really really boring. I don't want a league full
of Patrick Williams's. That sounds horrible, absolutely horrible. You need
guys who can just late in games or over the
course of a game. Frankly, just go get you a bucket,
Go get you several buckets, Just go get you points.
And I think there are going to be teams out
in free agency next year who fully recognize that, hey,
you know what you know, order to win games, you
actually have to outscore the opponents. Cam Thomas can actually
help us do that. So for him to take this
play and say, you know, the Nests, they don't value me,
they have no intention of being, you know, my long
term team, so let me just get out of it
as soon as I can. And this is the best
way to do it. I respect it.
Speaker 1: It looks I think it was the right decision too,
because I find it hard to believe that he won't
be able to get like two guaranteed years at the
mid level exception next year. My one concern would be, yes,
I think it's important to go out there and get buckets,
but when you also see how much of a value
you put on people who are supposed to space the
floor get up threes in volume, maybe without cannibalizing on
ball offensive possession. We've seen their markets in a lot
of cases kind of drop off to where Look at
what happened with Gary Trent Junior. Look what happened with
Malik Beasley before the gambling pro even he topped out
at three years and forty two million, looked like he
was gonna get. Is Cam Thomas inherently more valuable. He's
a smaller player. I'd argue he's probably worse on defense.
Is he inherently more valuable because of the front scratch creation?
Because this might be a good gauge of does the
NBA appreciate plug and play three point shooters more or
someone who can get maybe he's on the small but
can go get their own buckets. And I think you
get to a certain level where it's okay Jalen Green
getting like three years one hundred plus million. Sure I don't.
I'm curious to see all pans out either way. I
still think it ends up he'll get better or at
least guarantee himself more money by waiting. But I am
kind of clocking, Oh, you know, we have seen some
drop offs from what we thought were desirable players.
Speaker 2: Look, there are players out there who fit a certain
level of archetype where it seams are skeptical of whether
they are pluck and play, you know, capable of playing
pluck and play basketball.
Speaker 4: And I'll agree with you on that.
Speaker 2: Like, give me a guy who can get you twenty
four per game unpluck and play type of play instead,
someone who can come in and play off ball on ball,
who can get to the line, who can consistently score
within the greater flow of the offense without dominating the basketball,
without taking positions away.
Speaker 4: Yes, but how many.
Speaker 2: Guys are realistically out there in the league who can
do that?
Speaker 4: Right now? Kevin Durant, that's probably it?
Speaker 1: Yeah, really, I mean that's like, yeah, okay, that feels
like the extreme. But you're right, I'm trying to I
can't come up with a different name that's going to say.
You know, the closest you might come is like a
John Brown. Do you consider him plugging player? No? Does
that skew too far towards the.
Speaker 2: See Yeah, I actually don't. I actually don't because he's
like his three point shot. Do we really trust that?
Speaker 4: I don't. I don't think he's any I.
Speaker 2: Think in order to be a pluck and play player,
you need to have the off ball, you know, spacing
gravitas to be able to absorb that level of attention.
We've seen Jalen Brown get left alone rightfully, so like
he is not a sniper, and I think that's part
of it. Like if Cam Thomas comes back this year
and on this volume, like a threes per game instead
of like hitting forty five, if he hits forty nine,
if those bets like forty nine percent of those bad boys,
and he dripples less, just like you were talking about improvement,
just driples slightly less and ups the three point the
catch and shoot three point rate. You could make a
realistic argument that he would be far more valuable than
Jalen Green right off the bat.
Speaker 1: Do you think that this makes it more or less
likely that the Nets trade him? Well, they can't, well,
not before the season, but he has a no trade
like he can veto a trade. They could still come
to an agreement, like in January, agree to send him somewhere.
Do you think this makes it more or less likely
that it happens? Because if you're Cam Thomas, you could
ask yourself is it better that? Because I think the
issue with Brooklyn too is we're saying that this is
a good bet but if they are inherently more invested
in all these other guys on the rosters, quite a
few of which are whom that when they drafted they
could opt right with the ball in their hands as well.
Does that do anything to adversely impact your role or
does it even make more sense to maybe you go
somewhere with less volume, but you're contributing to to winning
or at least a better product.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean giving up your bird rights.
Speaker 2: That's the tricky one, right because not a lot of
teams generally have cap space. So if you want to
get to a place, and I know Cam Thomas by
because he can veto trades, he can say, well, I
want to go there because this team is projected to
have cap space in the summer. But we know the
NBA Dan like that scene could then make a trade,
that line deal or whatever, extend a guy and all
to a contract that triggers that every season that very
summer lo and behold suddenly they won't have the cap
space available to like sign him to a major deal.
So oh, it's gonna be one of those situations where
he has to like figure out, is there a fit
that catapults me into a different type of conversation where
I know I'll get the minutes, where I know I'll
have the impact where I can then go out on
the open market and I can just get my money
that way. If that situation is out there, I would
be open minded if I'm cam Thomas for a trade.
If that situation does materialize, then I'd just rather hang
on to my bird rides just in case.
Speaker 1: That's interesting, because it does feel like that would be
a risk, because what if let's just say he's healthy,
but like the Nets decide to really maybe they're too
good again or they have to lean into the tank
and where he's just not playing a ton after the
All Star break? Can he help his value enough in
that truncated sample. But I get what you're saying, where
if teams need to pull off certain trades, like he
could get a contract that way. At the same time,
the Nets are like one of the teams that are
gonna have a boatload of cap spaces of right now
next summer. Still, so how important is like the sign
and trade scenarios, especially when you look at base your
compensation issues. Since his salary is still so repressed, I
think if I'm him, I'm probably even more open minded
to it than you're suggesting he'd be, just because I
want to be in a position to where can I
be in the rotation of a team that is playing
basketball that matters more than Brooklyn nets basketball after the
All Star break. I'm not saying a contender, but or
even a situation like I don't know what the package
look like looks like, but maybe it's a means to
get them out of the luxury tax midseason. If you
end up on Boston, who needs a possessions either this season,
they're probably not going to be a contender. Who knows
that they're even going to be a playoff team, But
like if you could go somewhere like that where it's
an interesting organization, Like, no, they're not going to be
able to keep you just because they're not going to
have your bird rights, but can you make more of
a more of a case for yourself to other teams
from a team like Boston than you can with Brooklyn
this season?
Speaker 2: I was thinking of a different Eastern Conference team, the Cavaliers,
Like if you could get in there, and because no,
there's no time to your own anymore, lonso don't know
and we just we don't know how much he's gonna play.
There might be a real need for guard production. Yes,
it would be off the bench. But look in Cam
Thomas's situation right now, as you outlined, there's a risk
that he's not even starting for the Nets this year
because they want to invest in the rookies.
Speaker 4: Like who knows.
Speaker 2: He's probably not gonna start on a lot of other
teams either, not because of lack of talent, but if
he wants to go somewhere like where the spotlight is
going to be on him a lot of nationally televised games,
those are usually pretty good teams where they have their
starting lineup in lock. So a Cleveland Cavaliers team, for example,
they're not gonna say, hey, Donald and Mitchell go to
the bench because we just got Cam Thomas like that,
that's not gonna be a thing. But they have what
I would assume is a pretty broad opening at the
guard spot. Because if Lonzo, like I think you and
I said this that we would consider forty games out
of a Lonzo like a good season, we would consider
that like a slam dummy. Yeah, are we gonna sit
here and say that Sam Merrill is gonna play over
Cam's Thomas.
Speaker 4: No I know.
Speaker 1: Here, No, no, no, this isn't the Thomas thing. Hold on,
hold on, it's a roster construction thing to where you
already have Mitchell and Garland and in moments where one
or if you want both of them off the court.
Having Sam Merrill around Evan Mobley as you're trying to
grow him as a creator does more for Evan Mobley
than it would is replacing that with Cam Thomas. That's
not a Cam Thomas thing. I wasn't saying, Sam, I
just but to our points, it's just the Cavs are
interesting because then you would be on a contender, and
can you contribute off the bench to a contender? I
think if I'm him, I probably want again because you're
giving up your word rights. I need to go somewhere
where I'm guaranteed to be like the sixth or seventh man.
I don't know if he would be that in Cleveland.
I guess because Struce and Hunter, assuming they're both well. Wow,
if once Struce is healthy, Hunter or him will be
the sixth man over Cam Thomas and then like they yeah.
Speaker 2: But you said six or seventh, Like I would have
to assume that if DeAndre Hunter is the sixth man
and Thomas, but I see I.
Speaker 1: Could see them like favoring Lonzo and Sert just because
you have Darius Garland and Nonovan Mitchell. Like what about
about Denver as an example, they don't have that like
other shot creator coming off the bed.
Speaker 4: Oh that's fun, that's fun. I like that.
Speaker 2: Okay, they've already traded with each other on the Michael
Porter Junior matching.
Speaker 1: The money gets difficult at seven million because I'm assuming
they're not gonna want to take back Zeke Naugy, but
you could. You could figure out a way to do it.
And Denver does have it's twenty thirty two seconds still,
so like you could probably and again Cam Thomas is
the no trade cause the Nets just might want to
wash their hands of it if they're not planning on
paying him. There are ways that you could figure it out.
Speaker 2: That'd be fun. That'd be fun too, because to your point,
he would get minutes. It would be a great situation.
Is like the perfect little step ladder type of situation
for him going into next summer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they come So he's making about seven million and
they still have six point eight eight zero million left
from the MPJA trade exception, so close that's rough stuff.
You could still make it work, is my point, especially
because they're more flexible with the types of trade they
can make now. But do you think so? But I
guess it's fun to throw out destinations. But do you
think that could actively help him more than staying in Brooklyn?
If like, I don't even want to say that, we
know he's gonna have a role, but knowing what you
know about Brooklyn and maybe the risks involved later in
the season, or maybe they just don't emphasize him as
much as they're trying to groom these other youngsters.
Speaker 2: No, yeah, in that situation, yes, I would also throw
the pacers in there as an example, like just turn
andrewing them hard into the point guard he played most
of the last season at the two. Then throw Cam
Thomas right in there, into the thick of things, like
having having him gullbubble lot of minutes for a team
that's going to have a certain level of attention on
it would be far more interesting than the nets, because
let's just be real about it, there are not going
to be a lot of people watching the nets this year.
Speaker 4: It's it's going to be stand up growing pain.
Speaker 2: YEP, I like, okay, interesting, I am not there. Yeah,
all right, that's fair. I always hope the best for
every young player coming in. I'm a little skeptical of him.
I don't know if I trust the jump shot. I
I don't know. I need to I need to see
a little bit more before I'm fully sold.
Speaker 4: But yeah, assuming Milwaukee.
Speaker 1: You like, would you prefer what they have Ryan Rods
and Kevin Porter Junior and Trent but like none of them,
Aj Green, Cole Anthony, they don't have.
Speaker 2: Oh these should play. He should play over a bunch
of those guys. If Milwaukee can get him, that is
the least a very interesting way of, you know, restructuring
their entire roster after the whole Damien little waving stretch
from the summer. That would be fun. That would be
a smart way to actually go about it. They would
get significantly younger.
Speaker 1: I mean, he could be their number. I mean it
would have to be mid season when they unless you're
getting rid of Kuzma now. But I don't know why
the Nets would do that unless the Bucks are including
a first round pick. But at mid season you have
a bunch of smaller salaries, to play around within camp.
Thomas can't be traded until January at this point anyway.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he'd be their second option offense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, no, absolutely, I mean right now their second
option is either Miles Turner or Colin Kusma.
Speaker 1: That's maybe even KPJ. Anything else on cam before before
we move on to your guy.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, uh no, I just I like him. I
think I'm higher on him than consents and and look
if I'm wrong about him, that's fair.
Speaker 1: Josh Gitty, Sir. Four years, one hundred million dollars. He
initally wanted thirty million a year. The Bulls were offering
twenty two and a half. They came in the middle
of twenty five. As of right now, I haven't seen
any options reported. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
It's it's on an ascending scale. It will top out
the value. People are worry about how it's going to age,
which we're gonna have a discussion about, but it will
just for you know, notation's sake, it will top out
as fifteen point one seven percent of the salary cap.
Right now. So let's start here. Your impressions of how
this ended. How do you think this deal is gonna
take take it wherever you want to more. This is
your arena.
Speaker 2: Well look, I mean this is uh the play ninth
seed of an NBA contract, So you know it's fine ish.
I mean, look, Josh Getty got paid. That's cool. It
doesn't I wrote about this over at jahuo it. It
doesn't in any way alleviate concerns about the floor speaking
like the on court product. Whether Giddy was gonna be
paid eighteen million a year or forty five million dollars
a year, it wouldn't change the fact that he's still
someone who struggles to play in that plug and play
role that we talked about before. Because the spacing issues
aren't what they are pretty prevalent. People look at the
oh and say, oh, he shot forty eight percent from
three this last year. Yeah, those most of them were
painfully wide open and spot ups Like it's not let's
let's be real here, it's he wouldn't cross guys up
and just drain threes in their faces. In fact, when
he took pull ups, it went down to the low
to mid twenties in terms of efficiency. So like, let's
not pretend to say if Josh Gitty has somehow become
this great three point shooter. Those spacing issues, they still
remain defensively. We'll have to see how he looks this year.
Last year was bad, he was really bad. He got
burned constantly. So at the end of the day, we
can sit here and talk about the contract, like does
it matter. It only matters for the structure of the
Chicago's Chicago's books. And we know Dann well, they're never
going to go into the tax. They're never gonna do
a B and C. They'll find a way. If things
get too expensive, they'll find a WAYE dump guys. So
I'm really moving past the whole Oh will the solary
structure look for Chicago? The salary structure for Chicago will
look as it always does for them. They'll be over
the cap under the tax. Ho hum, that's it. So
I have to look at what does this change anything
for them? Yeah, that's great. That that'd be fun. That'd
be fun. This is just it's it's a continuation of
a plan that's not yet fully fletched, fully developed, however
you want to RaSE it. This is this is just
them doing virtually nothing and expecting it to magically pan out.
Speaker 4: Like and we knew this coming in. We knew this
back in July.
Speaker 2: We knew this back in June that that would be
the case, because they made it pretty obvious that they
did not want to lose Josh Gitty. I think a
lot of people, particularly Bulls fans, were hoping that he
would take the qualifying offer and then he was signed
somewhere else next year.
Speaker 4: Now that's off the table.
Speaker 2: So I guess Bulls fans enjoyed Josh Gitty and the
middling efficiency and the midsier results that's he's going to yield.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this doesn't I'm this is uninspiring, But I don't
know that if you were a Bulls fan or from
our perspective, I don't know you could have looked at
this and expected a different outcome. I mean, I guess
the fact that there's no player options on it is
like a win for the Bulls optically, So there's that.
This is just sort of I would you use the
word ho hum like this is sort of what There's
a chance it doesn't age into a bad contract, but
I don't think. I think for the value he provides
to a franchise in their current position, if you aspire
to do anything more than contend for play in territory
or carve out a path to get there. I don't
think that this is a good contractor a good fit.
Maybe they have other moves up their sleeve, but this
is not. But that's the point though. It's just like
it's uninspiring, but it's not unexpected, and I think compared
to what they could have done, this is like a
better outcome than having giving him five years at thirty
million a pop or with a player out or something
along those lines.
Speaker 2: Right right, No, no, absolutely, And it just it's further
proof Dan in many ways. And this is funny because
we were talking about like the Cam Thomas situation right, like, oh,
the league is on so that caliber player, you know,
the undersized shooting guard who doesn't really add a whole lot,
but you know where the league isn't caught up yet
to the ross stats, like Gidea had tremendous ross stats,
but his influence just wasn't there. So that's good news
for guys coming into the NBA. Hey, look player in
college who's gonna be a first round for next year.
If you can get into the NBA and just average
fifteen five and five and it doesn't matter about efficiency,
defense or any other fucking thing, You'll be golden. You'll
you'll sign for eighty ninety million, just because you have
that magical all around line. Like the raw stats is
still king baby, don't don't get it twisted. It's no,
it's it's it does nothing for them, it doesn't. I
would argue that the best course of event would be
someone else, you know, the Nets, for example, just signing
him away, and then the Bulls just not maging an
offer sheet, because I think the Bulls, honestly would be
far more interesting if Kobe White, Kevin Hurder, those guys
Iyodusumu became sort of the lead guards, like that shared
lead guard position where everything is like you have shooters,
you have guys who can bend defenses. You can actually
create a three point oriented offense, whereas here you're forced
to tailor your entire offense around Josh Gitty. Whether he
earns fourteen percent of the cap or he earns twenty
five percent of the caps, it does not fucking matter
because you still have to play through him because that's
the game that he has. It's just all so pointless.
Speaker 1: Do you know what I also thought about when I
saw This is that if Josh Gidty is worth twenty
five million per what is Kobe White gonna get next summer?
Because his extension right now is less than Josh Gitty got,
So you're not gonna extend it. If he signs a
four year, ninety one million dollar extension or reveren ends
up being because the whatever that league average salary estimate
comes out to be, that would be a heist on
Chicago's part.
Speaker 2: Oh look, then the NBA able to have to go
immediately from the Clippers to the Bulls to investigate.
Speaker 1: So he hits the open market next year. I'm not
saying he'll get this, but a three year max would
run about one hundred and sixty two million, A four
year max runs about two hundred and twenty four million,
a five year max runs about two hundred and ninety million.
What does he get now? You could play, You could
say the whole Well, we don't know how many teams
are gonna have cap space. Nobody ain't cap space this year,
and Josh Giddy still got twenty five million per and
if he had minimum leverage, we agree. Okay, Kobe White's older,
he's smaller, he's better. So what does What does this
say to you about his march? Like, are we looking
at someone who gets like, I don't know, thirty five
at least million a year?
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, that was the number I had. That was
the number I had, forty five thirty five a year.
Here's the thing about Kobe, right, we were talking about
pluck and play guys. We were saying, Oh, Kevin Durant
is like maybe d one Kobe White might be a
guy down the line to from a guard position, specifically,
like that dude is pluck and play great off the
ball has really taken strides on ball, not necessarily someone
who is that shot happy that he won't be able
to make the right read like he is tremendously underrated
and partly because he plays in Chicago and everyone has
given up watching the franchise, which I relate. He's going
to get a shit ton of money, rightfully, So I
think the Bulls are still in that very weird sphere
of things where they expect him to return. And I
can't figure out dan if I'm just looking at the
Bulls going oh honey, no, like if they really believe
they have a chance here, Like why would Kobe be White?
Even if they offered him forty five million a year, Like,
why would he want to stick to a franchise that
is just so unambitious?
Speaker 4: Like why would he?
Speaker 2: He's he's a borderline all star, He's about to enter
the prime of his career. Why would he want to
just waste that away on a team that just has
zero aspirations? And remember, he has no obligation because he's
an unrespected free agency.
Speaker 1: There are two things could play a role here. The
Bulls giving him a fifth year are worth so much
money to where what if it's a five year, two
hundred plus million dollar deal fair you're Kobe White. You
have to think about that. The other thing would be
is Kobe White gonna have suitors next summer? And so
there's about ten teams that project to have cap space.
I think it will end up being fewer. It just
works like that. But there are teams like the Nets
when they don't control their own pick twenty seven Detroit
depending on what happens with Jade and Ivy. I know
Pistons fans probably want someone bigger as that secondary option
to Kaid, But because Caid is so big, I think
it gives you some flexibility there again, just saying if
Jay and Ivy doesn't pan out, Charlotte could have cap space.
I mean, they have a ton of guards there already.
And the other thing is is that in this instance,
you could look at signing trades, although base your compensation
oddly enough could become an issue with him because he's
so cheap right now. So again, we already kind of
have the base. What's that the Lakers, I don't think
they're gonna have cap space next year. I think that's
I've kind of written them off. I don't think they're
gonna end up working with cap space. That's like Lebron
retired situation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it'd be interesting to see, right That's that's the thing.
I just he's such a wild card. I think after
this season, with those the burps that came there, like
if he wasn't interested in retaining you know, his position
there and whatnot.
Speaker 4: But like that's a team I at least have.
Speaker 1: Strateg So I think that would be if you're Kobe,
is the leverage going to be out there as of
right now? I don't think we could say for sure,
but I definitely think he will have more leverage than
Josh Giddy did this summer, and so if you're setting
me over under at thirty five million dollars a year,
or let's say, I think you have to go over
as a breath unless the Bulls maybe he gets traded,
Like is that do you think that's at all gonna
be on like a Chicago gonna have it's sort of
come to reality moment or are they gonna decide Because
the other part of this too is I really like
Kobe Whitemore. But if you're the Bulls this time next
year and you're sitting here, we're talking and they just
have like sixty sixty five million dollars a year committed
to Kobe White and Josh Giddy, I know the cap
is going up, but that's not the most inspiring like
combined investment.
Speaker 4: Do you think the Bulls look at it that for that.
Speaker 1: Life everyone's getting extension. I'm just gonna get extended to
like I don't see, You're right.
Speaker 2: No, but but like, honestly, I'm not I'm not even joking.
I mean, this is a team that has made it
painfully away like obvious, and have made fans aware they
care about like the ticket stuffs, right, like they don't
care about you know, viewership.
Speaker 4: They care about getting people.
Speaker 2: In seats, and the Bulls like it's still a ticket
in Chicago because it's cold in the wintertime.
Speaker 4: It's a seat. It's like entertainment.
Speaker 2: They have any of the bull all that this is
not a franchise that particularly cares about the basketball aspect.
And I'm not saying that to be mean or to
be you know, someone who takes a stand against the Bulls.
I'm saying this because that's actually what is happening right now,
Like the Bulls are never gonna look at it. You
could argue over the past couple of years with Vouch,
for example, like why stick with him, Why stick with Booch?
Why even give him the extension? Why not trade him
proactively when it came became pretty obvious that the current
eneration Lavine and him and Derosan wasn't working right, Or
why not pivot off DeRozan when he was getting pretty
obvious that he was not going to stick around, Like
Kobe White, like just freaking Kobe White when he was
a great value contract and they could have squeezed the
everlasting fuck out of his value in terms of extracting
draft picks. They don't want to go that route. They
want to have solid players who are a bit of
a name. And I promise you they are going to
present Josh Giddy as if he's fucking Lebron James this year.
That's that is just how they're going to go about this,
because look, come and watch Josh Giddy. It's a circus
for them. It's not basketball, it hasn't been for years.
Speaker 1: Have any good arguments against what you're saying. I would
argue that the Josh Giddy extension is good news for
Kobe White because one way or the other just ensures
that he's going to get paid by them, or maybe
they trade him and he ends up in a better situation,
or Yeah, the biggest winner in all this might just
be Kobe White. I mean, he might still have to
play for the Bulls, but here's hoping.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean Josh Giddy became a winner here. I mean, look,
one hundred million, when when you're not a great shooter
and when you're that poor defensively, GOK is your money.
Speaker 1: I guess I still wonder how I how much of
this is just the raw dollar amount of sticker shock,
because I think you could say, look, when you look
at it from Okay, well, what are the Bulls doing?
Fifteen percent of the salary cap seems like a lot,
but it's also not. It's just, yeah, he's He's a
tough case study because I don't think he's like the
worst NBA player alive. I just think for a team
in the Bulls situation, if you were going to invest
in the player Josh Giddy is or who you think
he's going to become, this isn't the move. And that's
why it's tough to separate. That's the problem is it's
tough to separate Josh Getty the player now and what
he could be versus whatever it is that the Bulls are, like,
the Bulls are doing fuck all right now? So, and
I think that's what's really difficult about this, right.
Speaker 2: Maybe that's a more interesting discussion too. What is it
that we expect Josh Getty to eventually become? Like Again,
he would have to and I cannot over emphasize this enough.
He would have to have to dan become this very
very very strong off ball shooter to gain the necessary
advantage being an off ball player. So that opens up
the floor for more players.
Speaker 4: If he is.
Speaker 2: Still going to just to be like a spot up
guy who can't create create his own looks from three
and if he has to be wide ass fucking open
to take them and make them, that floor spacing is
going to be a night to night sack crific that
you're gonna have to live with in the year twenty
twenty five soon twenty twenty six. That I just don't
see a pathway here unless that three pointer becomes an
outright strength of his even off the dribble, where what
he gives up spacing wise and defensively, not to talk
about the defense as well, What do you how.
Speaker 1: Quick you want to see the three point and become
a strength you're talking about off the dribble specifically, Look,
I think there's a chance because he's had stretches before
that he'll hit catch and shoot threes at a good clip.
Like I think that's totally within the realm of possibility.
When you're talking about off the dribble, you mean you
want to see him like Dipsy doing off the balance
and firing step backs. Or is it he gets a
ball screen, is able to just take one two dribbles
into a pull up. Okay, the second one probably not
outside the realm of possibility. Look, he does have in
the aesthetics of the floater game, and so if he's
able to work off the ball, catch, make quick decisions,
and drive get to his floater, he's probably not gonna
be someone who puts a ton of pressure on the rim.
I'm just trying to think of, like what would be
a good player as a realistic exemplar for him to
turn into that would make you feel better about Josh Giddy,
both on and independent of the bulls.
Speaker 4: I actually I actually have one.
Speaker 2: I think you can appreciate this, but we're gonna have
to go a little bit back in the memory bank
for this one. Remember when Tyreek Evans came into the
league and you know, also an all round guy right
like that, he was one of the he I think
he was, what one of the first players alongside like
Mike Lebron big O or something to have like a
twenty five to five rookie season and he won Rookie
of the Year, one of the major opsticles for him.
That was the same with with Josh Gitty, Like he
couldn't he couldn't shoot. Then he came to was it Memphis.
I'm gonna have to look this up because this isn't
an old reference. But he made it to Memphis one year,
and that was before he got uh suspended by the league,
right because because of the some sub since things. Yeah, exactly.
He made it to Memphis in the twenty seventeen twenty
eighteen and he started hitting a three ball f well,
thirty nine point nine percent, so forty percent clip on
five and a half attempts per game. And he was,
you know, averaging close to twenty five and five and
wasn't even starting full time, like he was finding his
game there. And I remember that year in Memphis, the
way that he played, given that he could suddenly hit
the three pole both off the bounce and off the catch,
like he had that capability that all of a sudden,
when he had the ball in his hands, he had
to get picked up further, like further along the court,
right like you just couldn't back off of him anymore.
That opened up the slashing game that gave him like
that secondary layer of oh, I can get into the
teeth of defense, I can make a drop off like
that is the that pathway, although that was very a
rough pathwork for Tyreek specifically because that was like I
want to say, eight years after his rookie season where
he had like the twenty five to five thing, but
you know that pathway of being the all round guy
who suddenly realizes, oh, you know what, I actually have
to integrate myself into the office in a way that
optimizes other players, where if I don't have the ball
in my hands, I better goddamn be a threat so
defenses can't cheat off of me. That has to be
like the player in my mind, that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it does feel like Tyre Gebbans had more on
ball as a scorer, but I think that so that, Yeah,
but I can't My point was, I can't even come
up with a good one. There's like, what about like
a less physical Deanyovdia might be potentially one, Like can
you hope he turns into something like that? But defensively,
he's never was.
Speaker 4: Theanny not a good a decent shooter, like right off
the bat.
Speaker 1: I mean like then even now, I don't you're not
trusting him to drill a ton of looks off the dribble,
like jumpers off the dribble like he could. He's gotten
a lot better, right, Yeah, So I just don't have
like the great and it's so you know, what really
I struggle with is because his on ball archetype is
a little unique as well, because there's a passivity there
as a scorer. There's a not getting all the way
to the rim there as a scorer. So that like
just increases the var because like Danny Avia can get
to the rim and then he has Tyreek Evans is
your example, had a different cadence to his game. I
don't know what like, I don't know what to say.
Josh Giddy should view this player as sort of aspirational,
like to do something but not you know, skill for skill,
but something along those lines.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm. I just don't think he's a point guard
at the end of the day. I would much rather
see him.
Speaker 1: It's like you want to see him as like John.
Speaker 2: Collins, No, not a playfing shirt, but like a playmaking.
Speaker 1: Four less physical Julius Rant.
Speaker 2: Again, maybe that's actually not a bad one all things considered.
I because what I want at the guards spot and
the primary wing spot is a lot of interchangeability, a
lot of floor spacing, a lot of shooting, a lot
of like you know, explosive offense.
Speaker 4: To way capabilities.
Speaker 2: If you put Josh Getty in a role where he
isn't like the de facto point guard that everything has
to run through, I think there's a situation there where
you can sort of squint and see, okay, this actually
tracks a little bit like that makes sense that he's
not the primary dude, that you have a bunch of
guards on the floor, a lot of ball handlers. Because
if it's Josh Giddy as your primary ball handler and
he has to play with a big man like let's
just say, booch, what's again, what's the upside there? Where
do you get the secondary at CHURCHI or ball handling?
Where do you get the positional flexibility? Where do you
get the defense? Where do you get a b CD E?
It's I just think I don't think point guard is
his spot. Also, we've seen him try to defend point
guards because the bulls apparently keep letting him try to
do that.
Speaker 4: And that's let's.
Speaker 1: Wrap up here. Jonathan Aminga Quentin Grimes remain moret do
any one of them. And I think you could look
if I'm quitting crimes, I see, I know my sample
size is smaller, but it's smaller in a good way.
Josh Kitty might have too much of a sample of
telling us one thing. If I'm quitting Grimes like kaminga
and you want Giddy to be a power forward, but
like him and Kaming are just fundamentally different players. But
if I'm a guard like Grimes, I see Josh kidding
get at minimum. I think that this makes it more
likely Quentin Grimes signs his qualifying offer.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, if the offering what was the offered? Again,
remind me most of seventeen.
Speaker 1: Officially offered that I haven't even seen, maybe read anything
on that. I've just I've seen numbers thrown around. We
haven't had the concrete reporting that we've had on Giddy,
KAMINGA and and Tom.
Speaker 2: All Right, I might be mis for remembering, but like
I yeah, I would absolutely be willing to take the
qualifying offer and just see what the hell happens next.
Speaker 1: Like even camp Tom signing it might have I think
the risk with him though, is even greater that the
floor could fall out from underneath him than a Cam Thomas,
just because the Sixers, if they're healthy, do have so
many other options, and like if Jared McCain and Tyres
Maxie specific well, is it a stretch to say that
Jared McCain and Tyres Maxie will both be healthy and
VJ Edgecomb?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I was kidding.
Speaker 2: I was just I was just poking at the sixers
because sixers and health, that is just no, that's a history. No.
Speaker 4: I agree. I agree, it's a fair point, and I.
Speaker 1: Think you can get away with it for some stretches.
But I don't know if like if I think you
need him beat as your center in those minutes, which
is just like that becomes its own issue then but
I think in certain instances you can. But it's the
question becomes, can you get away with him at the three? Yes,
can you get away with him at the three? When
Tyress Maxie and Jared McCain are you're one and two,
it's more likely you could get away with Tyres Maxy VJ. Edgecomb.
But at that point VJ. Edge Coole is your three.
Speaker 2: So yeah, it's it's it's a tough situation for him,
Like I almost wish he landed in a different situation
in Philly where he broke out simply because of the
guard club that is there. Again, depending on how the
Lakers end up acting this summer, he's also a guy
have sort of circle for them. I think that type
of a player who can play both on ball off ball,
and you know, compliment Luca in the backcourt. I think
that should be high on the list. I think there's
a lot of potential there. I wouldn't be shocked if
he's a guy many teams would go out next year
if he signed the qualifying offer and went, Oh, a
six' five like more or less traditional shooting guard who
can sort of play the wing here and, there who
can shoot off the, catch but who can also initiate
picking roll. Situations what About Jonathan?
Speaker 1: Kaminga does? THIS i mean, like BECAUSE i think if You're,
kminga you can argue my upside is so much higher
than A Josh, Giddy but it just do you think
this impacts that situation at?
Speaker 2: ALL I, NO i think That Cam thomas situation Impacts
kamina even. MORE i wouldn't be surprised that Both crimes
And kamenka decides to op for the qualifying.
Speaker 4: Offer.
Speaker 1: Wow i'm actually if we have three of the core
FOUR rfa signed the qualifying, offers that'd be pretty.
Speaker 4: Wild it would be pretty.
Speaker 2: Wild BUT i, mean we're coming up on The, yeah
we're coming up in the middle Of september and nothing has.
Materialized and you're absolutely, Right kuminga like, look even if
he does have a inflated idea of who he can't,
be And i'm not saying he, does but that's been
sort of the reporting on here and there that had
he fancies, himself you, know a future, superstar LIKE i
can see, it LIKE i can see a scenario where
in he at least becomes An All, star where he
becomes someone who you just have, to you, know keep
a hand on at all times because he can be
one of the most potent play finishers in the. League
So i'm not gonna sit here and say That kuminga
doesn't have that. Upside he clearly, does AND i think
it's right for him to basically, Acknowledge, hey you know,
what why SHOULD i lock myself in for even just
two or three. Years IF i have the chance just
in a year or two years to break, out THEN
i want to get. Paid and if it means THAT
i can come out of this situation twelve months from,
now enter the free, agency has an unrestricted free, agent
choose my own, path and Then i'm off to the
races as An All. STAR i can't blame him for having.
Speaker 1: THAT i can't, Either but who would be Taking let's
say all three of them end up Signing Cam thomas
and Then rhymes And Kaminga, falasho who's taking the biggest.
Risk doesn't it seem like It's kaminga just because The
warriors have had such a quick hook with him in the.
Past or do you think because he's the one that
clearly has the highest, ceiling they'll always be someone out
there that might Be, oh the four years with The, Warriors,
yeah the situation was. Bad the roles in consistent will
pay him. ANYWAY i.
Speaker 2: THINK i THINK nba teams are fundamentally. SMART i also
think that if The nets are going to just Sit
Cam thomas for major, STRETCHES i don't think that's going
to influence different. Teams LIKE i think so many teams
out there are fully aware of situations and context and
they will just go To kumena Or thomas or whoever and, say,
look we know that what you can. Do we're gonna
be the team that actually unlocks, you so come join.
US i would not be worried about that If I'm Jonathan.
KAMENKA i Think i'm fully aware that there are fifteen
twenty teams out there who could have him in a
very very possible if you're The.
Speaker 1: Warriors is The giddy deal make it? MORE i don't
want to say, palatable but are you inclined to be, like,
fine here's two years and fifty with the team option
on the, second and maybe that GETS i.
Speaker 2: Should they should have been inclined to do that, before
like The Josh giddy. Situation if it all shouldn't affect.
THEM i think it's absolutely preposterous that they're so you,
know limited in terms of their flexibility. Here you, know
even if you could get away with two years, fifty
it's just not a long. Contract, like what are you worried?
About like the thing that we always come back to
is the whole giving a guy four years at a
ridiculously high, number like two, YEARS i think.
Speaker 1: With them is probably your. Margins if you're giving him
twenty five million dollars a, year they become super tight
because they're trying to sign they're trying to sign Al
horford to a deal that's not the, minimum and so
what do they? Have what are THEY i think they're
twenty five million under the first apron exactly right, Now.
Speaker 2: Yeah AND i get, that but like that's a situation
they put themselves. In so and If I'm Jonathan, Kamena
i'm just basically SAYING i don't.
Speaker 1: Know i'm not saying him too that he should care about.
It i'm just SAYING i don't. KNOW i wonder how
much that's factoring into them just saying all, right like
this is why we're not going the two year even
more inflated.
Speaker 2: Route, MAYBE i, mean, sure if that's the way they
think about. It but THEN i if, look if that's
the way they think about, it and If kamenka is, Like,
okay we're getting no traction, here sign the goddamn qualifying,
offer move on ball out going to unrestricted free agency next,
YEAR i MEAN i think the bigger.
Speaker 4: Risk heres For, oh for, SURE i think the.
Speaker 1: TEAM i Think Golden state is actually the. Team when
you look at all the restricted free, agents had any
of them sign Their Golden state has the most at stake.
Speaker 4: Here, yeah, absolutely absolutely like they.
Speaker 2: Should IF i Was Golden state in this, Situation i'd
be shitting my pants Of comenka signing the qualifying offer
and then just leaving outright for. Nothing So i'm flabbergasted
at where at like how stinchy they are that they
haven't tried to pivot off other guys to create more you,
know financial flexibility or. Whatever just but, look they wanted
to Give jimmy that, extension the two, year forty five
percent max, extension all, right that came with some.
Speaker 4: CONSEQUENCES i guess what.
Speaker 1: Couldn't there be a benefit to them just going to
plus one have the player, option and maybe he's even
more likely if it's a team, option because then they
don't have to worry about him being able to veto
a trade. Either and at that, point how long is the?
Deal actually how bad Does kaminga have to be for
that deal to age? Poorly because the one plus one
creates some hurdles because they need him to forfeit his
right to consent to a, trade and If i'm, HIM
i don't necessarily want to do, that even though at
the same time it's you probably do want out Of Golden.
State so from HIS i think you could also from his, perspective, argument,
yeah just if this will accelerate them moving, you so
just do.
Speaker 2: IT i, mean, yeah if it does, RIGHT i WOULD
i If i'm a person who and, LOOK i can
speak from. Experience I've i've been in a bad place
job wise where i.
Speaker 4: Just want to move on.
Speaker 2: Immediately but, like do you think Think kuminga would have
any objections to signing a potential three year contract where
they have the option to extend or not to, extend
but pick up like a third year, Option because IF
i don't want to be, there If I'm Jonathan kaminga
And i'm looking at a situation WHERE i might risk
being there for three more, years.
Speaker 1: Why haven't you signed your qualifying offer? Yet If I'm Jonathan, Minga.
Speaker 4: Yeah that's a good. Point that's a good.
Speaker 1: Point SO i just what's the number that would make
sure because it does seem like he's more concerned about
the team option on that second year forfeiting the right
to consent to a, trade than it does about necessarily the.
Length and so If i'm The, WARRIORS i might be you, know,
like would the middle ground Be And we've had this conversation,
before but wouldn't the middle ground be give him the
player option instead of a team, option and then maybe
he'll forfeit the right because at that, point it's how
bad does how bad does he have to be for
him to be this large expiring contract that has no,
Value so you're almost inoculated against the worst.
Speaker 4: Case oh you said player, option my.
Speaker 1: FAULT i was even saying a two plus like a
two minus. One so you get your, comingo you get
two guaranteed, years but then you have that third year where, It's,
Okay i'm at the team's, behest but at least if
it pans, Out i'm gonna be making. More so maybe
if it's the player, OPTION i really don't think it
should be much of a decision for, Him BUT i don't.
Speaker 4: Know, no, no it's it's.
Speaker 2: INTERESTING i think it comes back comes back to also the, role,
right because even if he signs for, Something let's even
say that he signs for like three years seventy five
and the last year is the player, option so twenty five.
Straight let's say he still gets strict. Around let's say
he still is at a point where you, know the
coaching staff is disinclined to play him in vital stretches or.
Whatever is he going to run the risk of just
being labeled a certain type of way after coming off those,
like let's say he's, then because then he's potentially a
restrict understacret free agent after six years of. Service that's
a lot of data all of a sudden six years
WOULD nba seems to just be, going, all, well he
never broke through In Golden state after six. Years but
because there's always two side of the conversation, here there's
The Jonathan kuminga, story which Is i'm not being given
a fair, shake and then there's the coaching staff story
of well he's. Inconsistent but the truth usually lays somewhere
in the. Middle SO i, OH i just want that
relationship to end so goddamn badly from both sides because
they clearly don't want to be each.
Speaker 1: Other do you have anything to add on that before We, ASKADADLE.
Speaker 4: I do, not.
Speaker 1: Sir can you just tell the audience of both your
podcasts and my podcast where they could find you and
all the fantastic work that you.
Speaker 2: Do, yes, absolutely you can find my work over At Yahoo,
sports over At, forbes and Then i'm at THE nba
Podcast and if you Speak, DANISH i am also doing
A danish podcast.
Speaker 1: Called fluster and it's all About Josh. Getty until next,
time and as, always the shoutouts to the, one the,
only the. Indelible can never pay him too much AND
i would absolutely circumvent the salary cap to have him
on my. Team Mister, FRANK ll keep.
Speaker 3: Up