Speaker 1: What is up, Fellows? Teko's I Am Dan to Valley
joined by for the first time in three episodes, my
certified fantabulous co host men for Granted, Uson has agreed
to sit down with me for more than a ten
to twelve minutes, with which he can only stand me
for at this moment, so I'm very much appreciative. We're
gonna go through teams that we think are going to
play better for the rest of this NBA season, that
have maybe struggled out the gate or not met expectations.
Then we'll wrap that up. We have like four or
five teams there therefter that we're gonna ask questions on
a handful of teams. Are will these teams play better
because their possibilities? But we're not quite sure. But my
first actual question is and the one that everyone's dying
to know the answer to, mister Hughes, how.
Speaker 2: The heck are you Have I told you about a
Loha Friday? Have you mentioned that to you? No?
Speaker 1: Why aren't you in a tank top? That sounds like
a tank top?
Speaker 2: I'll tell you why. Well, by the way, we're recording
this on Friday. Every Friday, I'm a coffee drinker, not excessively,
but on Fridays, I guess I should say on Thursday
nights when I set the coffee maker, I use a
different kind of coffee and it's a vanilla Macadamian at
coffee that I've only ever had before when I was
in Hawaii, and it conjures like a lot of good
sense memories. Right, It's like it takes you there. It's
a little different. It's a little treat every Friday, so
we call it Aloha Friday around here. And that's what
I've got in this cup right now, so I feel transported.
And also the meter's running. You're two minutes into your ten,
so get going.
Speaker 1: Look, if that's not living, I don't know what is
is there. Is it a psychological thing that you only
make it one day a week, or is the coffee
just so unbelievably expensive that it makes more sense to
go just the way.
Speaker 2: It's not like fancy coffee at all. You just buy
it on Amazon like anything else. It's it is psychological
and it like I've been doing it since July and
it really does work because like on Friday morning when
I get up and it's just like I gotta go
talk to Dan for at least ten minutes today, and
I'm really just down about it. I think, like, oh,
when I walk downstairs, though, I'm gonna smell it and
I'm gonna get that a low hot Friday coffee. And
it's real, like, you know, you gotta do these little things.
You know it takes. You'd be surprised the impact that
can have.
Speaker 1: I do the same thing since I cut down my
own caffeine, even though no one probably believes me. With
my energy drink, I have a favorite flavor, but now
I don't really drink energy drinks as much. It's like
when I get to have that sour Patch RedBerry energy
drink that I allow myself, Like, by the way, I
was like having like maybe two to four of those
a day at one point.
Speaker 2: That's too much. That's too much.
Speaker 1: Some people. I'm still here, some people are some people
are saying it's not enough, you might argue, But now
when I have it like once or twice a week,
it's just like, I look so and it's just you're
still consuming other caffeine that you like. But because it's
this one thing, I'm just enameter by it. However, also
related to this, I did sign on today, and I
brought a lot of energy. I yelled your name, and
you either didn't hear me or didn't have it out.
You just said nothing. And I was just like, Wow,
he really isn't He's not about this today?
Speaker 2: So I, you know, I could come up with any
number of excuses like technically related, or I was too
into my coffee cup, or you know, I just well,
I was like, well, do you really want to start
the ten minutes now?
Speaker 1: Dan?
Speaker 2: Is that you want to waste it on this? I
say that after we talked for an hour and ten
minutes off air, which should just be paywalled. I don't
think there was a basketball discussion had, but whatever.
Speaker 1: There I don't I sometimes wonder if people would want
to know that stuff because it's nothing. It's nothing that's
ever controversial, but it's the subject matter might be a letdown.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I doubt anybody would be interested, but you know,
at least let them pay money to find out they're
not interested.
Speaker 1: You know, well, we should probably talk about basketball now,
I guess would be a pretty good decision. First up,
the Denver Nuggets grant this. Now we're into the teams
that we think are going to be better for the
rest of the year, So why is this team going
to be better?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's just and I guess we should
have said at the outset, these teams will be a
very different strata of the league, Like there'll be some
bad ones with some good ones and some in between.
So it's just we're just saying like it's it's gonna
be brighter, days are ahead to whatever that means relative
to the specific team. So for Denver, it's kind of
just like, well, this is a by low right, Like
they're you know, they're they've won a title in recent memory, Nicole,
this is really where it starts. And Nicole Yogic is
the best player on planet Earth and he's playing better
in a lot of respects than he ever has, and
guys like that to the extent there are any uh,
just generational all timers. It's just kind of like he's
just not gonna let this team do this forever. And
it's like, well, what else do you want him to do?
Because we've all seen the on off splits to where
you know, this team is sub Wizards without him on
the floor, and the offense is like beyond elite. When
he's out there, so he can't control what's happening when
he isn't in the game. I don't know. I just
have like this misguided belief that if he is who
we know him to be, like, the Nuggets can't just
be like a hanging around five hundred team for much longer.
So a couple things like Aaron Gordon missed time he's back,
Jamal Murray has shot thirty percent on wide open threes.
And even if you think it's not great, not great,
especially without defenders in your general area, even if you're
convinced that, like you know, physically, he doesn't look the same.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: There's also I don't know if you've seen any of this,
but maybe this is a week old now, but there
are stuff circulating that always sitting outside the huddle during
timeouts and he just looks pissed off and all this
team's falling apart. I never know how much stock to
put in that kind of like cherry picked, you know, clips.
But anyway, so if you're convinced that like that's all,
you know, ominous, I still think he's going to make
more than one out of fewer. You know, he's making
fewer than one out of three wide open threes, Like,
that's it's gonna happen. He's gonna get better. I don't
think the on off splits can stay quite this extreme.
The half court defense is actually like fine, It's just like,
you know, some of the transition stuff isn't great, and
they have all these young guys that are playing more so,
if anybody can be like coached to get back once
in a while, it's guys that have fresher, younger legs.
So couple all that with the schedule actually has been
pretty tough. It's one of the ten toughest schedules in
the league. To this point. You have Denver's like well
known home court advantage, so you pick up a few
wins from there that you might not otherwise assign to
teams that we'll talk about going forward. But does that
make sense, It's kind of there's some numbers in it,
there's some I Jokic is Jokic. There's just this isn't
where Denver's gonna finish the season. I don't think now
if you get to a point where there is a
real locker room fracture or Mike Mallon's voice gets tuned
out or something like that. Then different conversation. But I
just think you have so many factors pointing to this
team isn't gonna be kind of so ho hum, so
like uninspired hiring for you know, going forward the rest
of the season.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's I think there's real concern here. When I
was doing report card grades at the quarter season mark
for bleacher Board, I gave them I think a D
or a D plus. And I think there's probably been
the extremists who think that they need to make a trade.
I can't get behind because one, I just I don't
know what you're You're not getting better by trading Michael
Porter Junior. It's not happening. And you're like, you're not
trading Gordon, Like you can't trade Gordon or Murray. I
just could trade Jokich. There might be a couple teams.
Speaker 2: That I mean, you could trade Gordon right of.
Speaker 1: The isn't he ineligible to be traded?
Speaker 2: Oh? You know you're right. No, you're right, you're right,
you're right, you're right.
Speaker 1: So my whole thing, though, is I don't think And
then you also look at some of the data. Do
you know what they're starting lineups? Net rating is grant
plus a million, it's plus sixteen point six. So it's
just it's working, and the defense has like slipped a
little bit. I think Aaron Gordon, he's missed time. By
the way, other teams this, I'm not assigning this to you.
Other teams have had players miss games with injuries, and
so I've seen a lot of Nuggets fan like, well,
Gordon missed that extensive it matters, but like that's not
the excuse. I do think he's been a little bit
worse on defense this year, or at least noticeably worse,
and that's hurt them. It does feel like objectively when
you're watching them, I don't know, the half court defense
is fine. This team feels more screenable. I don't know
how much that has to do with maybe some of
the effort that's being exerted on the offensive end for
some of these guys. The defense of rebounding has been
all over the place too, So I think there are
real concerns. But you have Nicola Jokic. I think Jamal
Murray's probably at the nadear of his on court value, right,
and so do you really think that he's going to
get worse from here? No, it's probably going to look
up at some point, and he's never been someone who
I know. Now we're like twenty plus games of the season,
so it's more concerning. He's always been inconsistent, even at
his best, and it's like he's never just come into
the season like gangbusters, in part because he's usually coming
off an injury. Yeah, so I think it's fair to
be concerned. But you look at this team, and as
we're recording this, they're hovering around. I mean, you could
hover around play in territory if you're the third seed
in the Western Conference at this point. But I think
they are going to be one of the six best
teams in the Western Conference when all is said and done,
and I think it would be I think Calvin Booth
whether this is coming down from ownership with Josh Cronkey,
I think we are now seeing kind of the fallout
from years is worth of poor asset management. Yeah, players
you already had, and however, I still think this team
is pretty damn good. Are they as good as they
should be when you have a top ten NBA player
of all time in his prime? Probably not, but they're
still gonna be really good.
Speaker 2: This is gonna get us into a trend of making
this a longer episode than we intended. But like, there
are no numbers for this, But do you think there's
anything to the idea that like Jokich is so good
and so obviously able to just make sure his team
dominates when he's on the floor that it almost like
and you know, again, the easier explanation is, well, Denver
just doesn't have enough quality depth and that's why the
on off splits are so insane. But I wonder if
just like he's it's almost like they're a victim of
how good he is to where when he's off the floor,
it's just like nobody knows what to do because it's like, well,
the dad's not out here like telling us what to
do and where to go and like our safety blanket
or whatever. It's just it almost like has a negative
effect on the Nuggets who play that when they're in
the game without him.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think you're right, But I also think
that speaks to the roster that they've assembled to where
who do you look at on this team and say, well,
they can be really good independent of Yokic, And so
it's not like he that Jokic is messed up the
way that these guys can be maximized. It's that they've
only surrounded him predominantly with guys who are maximized by him.
And I think that, yeah, the issue that was coming
to bear. But the way you phrased it is perfect.
It's just we're on supervised dads, right. But the other
thing you could talk about too is I understand he's
your most important player, and I would never invest real
equity in a backup center. But like you've now kind
of made a few decisions where like DeAndre Jordan is
eighty seven years old and gets more minutes than ze Nagy,
you've never taken the I guess people could say the
Dario Sharrett signing was supposed to be a sign that
they were taking it more seriously. That was never a
sign that they were taking the backup fivest its more seriously.
I mean, that's been a disaster. So I agree with
what you're saying, it's just well, I will ask you
you don't think this could be a matter of because
the way he plays, like his true usage is through
the roof when you're fracturing in playmaking, But you wouldn't
consider him at least not by choice heliocentric.
Speaker 2: No, he doesn't want to be. It's almost like you
have to force him to do it and he's still great,
Like big surprise, he's the best at it, Like when
he asked to do a thing he doesn't want to do.
I yeah, I think your explanation is probably right. Is
that really what's happening is everybody just looks incredible when
he's out there, and like Jamal Murray to answer your
first question, is like supposed to be the guy that
is like I can prop up second units and the
thing that's probably closer to reality than some theory that
Jokic is so good he makes everyone bad. Is that
like the other guys just actually aren't that good, Like
they're all you know, we rate everybody in his supporting
cast a little higher than we should in terms of
like you know, the Gordon's and mpjs and Murray's because
they're only good when he's out there Like that. That's
kind of the thing. The other thing, sorry, you want
to it looks like you want to say something.
Speaker 1: The only thing I was going to add to that, too,
is is some of these players, let's look at Christian
Brown done some more ball handling this year, Michael Porter
Junior definitely more self sufficient on the offensive end. I
would say that stuff still just doesn't scale right, like
in minutes without Jokich, at least in terms. I actually
think Denver's come close to playing net even basketball, when
Porter and Brown are on the court without Jokich. I
think their net ratings like minus point five or somewhere
around there. But if I remember correctly, and I'm just
gonna assume I due because I looked at it recently,
the offense stretches in the fourth percentile, So like a
lot of that is like the defensive returns. It's just interesting.
I don't think that has anything to do with Jokic,
but it's even when you think, like even when we
like Jamal Murray, his peak is hit some of the
biggest shots in postseason history, and even those players at
their peak when you think they might be doing more
on their own and Brown and I think Porter Junior
are good examples, it doesn't scale the same way to
the minute tech Nicole Yokic is off the floor.
Speaker 2: Can I make one more Denver point before we move on?
We've probably already gone long. I if I hear one
more how many games do the Nuggets need to win
for Jokic to win MVP, or like how low can
they finish? And still would would you? Where do you
disqualify him? What if they make what if they are
a playing team, can Yokich win MVP? Yeah? Yeah he can't.
He should and I hope he does. Look at what
he does. So if you look if the Nuggets are
a playing team and they continue to play like the
best team in the league when Jokic is on the floor,
you're penalizing him in the MVP race for something that
is by definition out of his control if he isn't
in the game, and that and those minutes are the
reason Denver finishes eighth, tenth, what, sixth, whatever. I can't
listen to that because, like, okay, if SGA is right there,
like in terms of impact and you've got to break
the tie somehow and the thunder wins sixty five games
and the Nuggets win forty five, maybe I get it.
But if Jokic continues to so clearly be the biggest
driver of success when he's in the game, you have
to give him MVP. I don't care if the Nuggets
win thirty games, if he's the best player. Now if
then come up with a different award. If you're deciding
that MVP depends upon what happens when the guy isn't
in the game. If you need, if you need to
have valuable mean team success, then give that to whoever
is on the best team in the league, Give best player,
best team, whatever. Come up with a different award that
says to the best individual basketball player on planet Earth
is for that season, because that's gonna be Jokics, whether
the Nuggets win thirty games or sixty and until the
on off splits changed, and look, I'm not forget the split.
That's that's an imprecise term. If Denver continues to be
incredible when he's on the floor and it's because of him,
he's MVP. I don't care what happens. I don't care
about the fourth percentile offense when he's off the floor.
He's not in charge of that. Does that make sense?
Like I feel like that's just an insane thing. That's
we're discussing this all the time. All the talking heads
can't shut up about how many games they have to win.
Speaker 1: I don't care, well, so how many games do you
think they have to win so.
Speaker 2: Fifty one.
Speaker 1: Here's my issue with your argument is that when you
kind of look at other all time greats, Michael Jordan
would have had his soul separate itself from his body
and nudge the players during his minutes to play better.
And the fact that Jokic hasn't pushed that type of
button yet to where his spirit can still be on
the court when he's not there, it just makes me
wonder if you can build a title team around him
as your best player. Anyway, I just feel like.
Speaker 2: I was ready to jump down your throat until I realize, Okay, great,
he's not serious.
Speaker 1: Look I I I get what you're I agree with
everything you're saying. I do actually wonder though, because voters
do tend to think differently, and I do wonder if
we've evolved passed that because we saw, like in my head,
I have it as it becomes a discussion for the
how the voting is going to turn out, But there
is the debate. Nobody can catch him at this point
like in the voting. Maybe they can because of context,
but as of right now, I don't. I'm trying to
think and it probably hasn't been since Lebron was the
best player in the NBA. I really don't think I
can remember a time where there's been a larger gap
between the best player in the world and number two.
I don't care whether you think it's Shay, I don't
care whether you think it's Gianness. I don't care whether
you think it's Luca like that you want to The
Luca thing is the one that I think we might
receive the most pushedback for in any given season. Do
I think Luca could be better than Nicole Jokic, Sure
it's up for debate, But how often are we talking
about that Luca's effort that night just wasn't there, or
he heard his team on defense, or he was complaining
too much, Like it's just it's there's this, there's this,
a gap exists. Can Luca can absolutely win MVP like
at some point and I think that he's one of
the five best players in basketball because of right now,
there's I think there's a real chasm between Nicole Jokic
and the field, and I don't when the last time
that happened.
Speaker 2: And that's not to take any I totally, it's not
to take anything away from I think Sga is really
the guy that is just like I don't know, pick
a random year in the last twenty five and like, well,
you're dealing with Lebron and Steph and like he's an
MVP caliber player, as is Luca, as is like even
Tatum the throw Jannis whatever, Jannis has won it, like
Ronagner before Bee was right there. This will go down
to the hear Fronz Bogner was robbed of MP But
Yoki is just just at a level that's higher, right,
Like that's that's what we're saying. And I think you
you make the right distinction. The discussion about how many
games do the Nuggets need to win or whatever for
Yokics to win MVP. You you can have that discussion
if you're talking about will he You can't have it
if you're talking about should he? Right, like, because if
you're saying will he win it, you're trying to predict
what voters are going to fixate on and who the
fuck knows what like some what they're going to care about,
or how little they're going to actually critically think about
what Yoka is doing and how like divisible it is
from what the rest of his team is doing so
will he win it? Okay, fine, have the conversation about
where they need to finish, because that's just pricing in
stupid analysis of what MVP is. But should he That
discussion's over unless he goes down tomorrow and doesn't play
the rest of the year. Then you can make the
case he should not because he's played twenty five games
or whatever it is. But you can't have the how
many games do they need to win? If you're talking
about should he win MVP or does he deserve it?
That's like that's a good distinction to make.
Speaker 1: And isn't I hate doing it this way, but if
you're trying to argue that even the way we're framing
it would be inaccurate, wouldn't it be? If you put
which player do I want to if I'm not even
gonna pickup player so I don't want to make them mad.
But if you put Nikole Jokic on any of the
players we just mentioned teams instead of them, and then
you flipped it, which team is going to be better?
It is the team with Nicole Jokic every single time.
Because you want to know why all of the players
we just mentioned have better supporting casts right, Like, maybe
I guess you could make the case that Gianniss is
all over the place right now. But Nicole Jokic on
the Bucks, the Bucks are better than they are right now,
so that's not up for debate. To me, we have
other teams to talk about.
Speaker 2: We're not going to get to some of them at
this rate. That's all right.
Speaker 1: Next up, Oh, look at that Giannis and the Bucks.
Tell me why the Bucks are actually Can you also
tell me why buck stands were mad that I gave
them a C minus as their report card for the season.
I'm genuinely wondering I didn't read enough of it because
no one gets into reasons. They just tell you you're wrong.
I thought I was being pretty generous. They've turned things
around since they dropped to two and eight, But why
are they going to be better? And why why do
their fans hate me?
Speaker 2: I mean the second answer, the second question is because
you said a not nice thing. Are you give them
a slightly below average grade after they were one of
the most disappointing teams to start the season. I mean,
so they were on a little bit of a heater
before Chris Middleton came back and in his first three games,
even though the loss against Boston he was a he
had a positive plus minus, and then the plus sixteen
the next game, plus four the next game without him
shooting in all that well. So I'm starting to wonder
if it's just like, is Chris Middleton just the key
to all of this? And I mean maybe the answer
is yes, which makes the follow up a question like
how do you make sure he's around? Like how do
you make sure he can be on the floor, because
that's been the issue. I don't know, this is just
another by low right, Like even though the last what
three weeks they've been like very good, I think like
it's still a flawed team. They're still old, they still
are generally getting out athleted like at most positions, they
don't get back enough, like Brook Lopez seems somewhat diminished.
There's all that stuff, But like I don't know for
every one of those you got, You've got Giannis, You've
got Dame. That's like it's just they're not what are
they twelve and ten as we're recording this, or thirteen
and eleven. This is just a team that I think,
at least offensively, is going to be like a complete
like load to handle defensively some of the athleticism stuff
and transition defenses if he but it's a little bit
like the Denver case minus minus, Like I don't know,
I guess like for Denver it's like Jamal Murray should
be better. Maybe maybe for the Bucks, the Corolaria's Middleton
will just be out there more now and that just
raises them a level.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I'm with you, and they have so
since they fell to it was two and eight, right,
that's what they dropped to at one point. The Bucks
are seventh in point scored per possession and fifteenth in
points allowed per possession, which I think dovetails with what
you're saying that the offense was just it was always
going to figure itself out. And they've gotten Bobby Porter's
Junior's hit more. Bobby Portish juniors hit more shots. Gary
Trent Junior has been better in his new role, so
that's gonna help me. Chris Middleton, I know he's injured
a lot, but like do people do forget that he's
just like some sort of he's a playoff killer, like
that dude in the playoffs is so like during the
regular season. Yeah, he's valuable, and I think it was.
John Schumann of NBA dot Com pointed this out. No
one knows how to get Giannis the ball on this
team better than Chris Middleton, and so there's something to
that effect where it's okay. The offense is I think
without Chris Middleton they could have a top ten offense,
like top seven offense, whatever. But you add Chris Middleton
and then the honest dynamic into the fold, and like
now you can reach levels to where you look like
the second or third best offense in the league for
longer stretches. I just wonder what's gonna happen with the defense.
I think Brook Lopez still as a rim protector totally awesome.
Mostly after that, there's been some slippers from Giannis defensively.
I did write that maybe that's what Buck fans are
pushing back against. I don't know how much of that.
I do feel like he could have said the same
thing last year, but this year specifically, his workload was
harder as a self creator. When Chris Middleton's out he
comes back, that should make his life easier on offense.
I have a lot of faith in this team still,
and part of that might just be Okay, Look, the
Eastern Conference is if you're you know, twelve, that just
means that you're like three games out of first place,
or I shouldn't say that because the Cavs and Celtics exists,
you're three games out of third place or whatever. I don't.
I just wonder if they can get to a point
to where we look at the defense and say that's
a decidedly above average defensive team or a majority of
the game. That's where I have the question, and I
think they're almost I feel like they are gonna end
up continuing. Did you watch the the NBA Cup game
against the Magic who had neither Franz nor Pallo. They
just made it way harder than it needed to.
Speaker 2: They really they they excel at that.
Speaker 1: That is I really do think that's gonna continue because
I think there's gonna be a lot of you know,
even if it's not transition, guys are getting back, but
they still kind of opponents are looking to get They
still get out in transition a bunch against Milwaukee. There's
gonna be ball containment stuff, especially in certain lineups. I
like this team is I'm I'm not gonna say I
think I declared them the third one of the three
best teams in the Easy League end of the season.
I would walk that back off, but I think they're
absolutely gonna finish with the top five record in the East.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I feel good about that. I mean yeah,
I just think like since since we're trying to be
measured about this, like I worry about Lillard as someone
that has to be on the floor. All that's we're
talking playoffs now, not whether it'll get better. But like,
isn't just having him out there as like something to
pick at just gonna be an issue? Just there's no
fixing that you can hide him, I guess, but teams
are so sophisticated now he's gonna get called up and
force the Bucks to do a bunch of pre switching
or whatever. Like that's just like a sore spot that's
gonna be there, so you're just gonna have to work
around that. That falls on Lopez, that falls on Giannis
being better as like a swoop in and block shots
from the help side type of thing. But like that's
not I don't think that's going away, And don't I
imagine Middleton's probably gonna get you know, challenged a fair
amount until he proves that he's like fit enough to
really be a stopper.
Speaker 1: I think having so like so, they're in this weird
situation where teams probably want to get out and transition
against them because they're just not overall athletic. But then
if you get into the half court, you just have
multiple spots to pick out teams that are gonna be
good at capitalizing on mismatches or just going after weak
points that could really wind up hurting them. I do
wonder though, and this is you know, this podcast is
coming out after the unofficial official start of trade season
officially unofficial or unofficially official, unofficially official start of trade season,
like can they do you view this as a team
that can still be good enough to where it's everything
everyone was talking about, not everyone but was saying, well,
Yannis requested trade and they have to worry about him
asking for out eventually. I still view this team as
that discourse has subsided. But I think when you're scaling ahead,
there could maybe be hesitance from the Bucks perspective to
really go after it this year, especially when you're looking
at Middleton has a player option. Brook Lopez is going
to be a free agent. But I view them as
a team as you have that Bobby Portis salary, you
even have the Pat Connton salary. You can't aggregate as
of right now unless you're shedding a ton of salary
to dip beneath the second apron like their twenty thirty
one first round pick should just absolutely be on the
table for me. And who's the best wing defender that
you could get for that? I don't know the answer.
I want to make that clear. And we're also talking
about Bobby Portters makes what does he make like twelve
million thirteen million, so you're tied to that salary range.
But this is a team that I think is I
do mean it as a compliment, even it's not coming
off that way. I still think they're good enough that
that scenario needs to be on the table.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I think much more. Yeah. I got real
worried about the honest stuff when things were very bleak
for this team. But I think now, yeah, you're more
thinking about and maybe this always should have been sort
of the framing of it, Like you still need to
just say we have gi honest, we spent all this
for Dame. We're a little bit poc committed like that
pick needs to be available.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just don't. I'm trying to think as of
right now, scrambling in my brain of who would be
the best player they could get for that pick, plus
I would just use I mean, then you get into
the situation of, Okay, well now you're trading your primary
backup big but I'm just thinking perimeter defense, perimeter defense
at this point, and Bobby Portters makes He's at twelve
point five million, and I just don't know of I'm
like trying, there's players that would fix it, but in
terms of them being available, and you're also not even
in the Dorian Finny Smith sweepstakes because of the way
that the salary accuation works.
Speaker 2: So it's so funny that that was the name I
was going to come up with. But I was like,
I'm not sure I should know how much Finny Smith
makes since he's going to be in every trade discussion.
Speaker 1: But I even thought would be interesting, just kind of
I know he's smaller, but you could just load up
on like size that could theoretically space the floor. Is
Isaiah Stewart for this team with too much money at
fifteen million? So but I even if you like, could
we just go get them? I've been campaigning for Io
dis Soon MoU. There's got to be I'm not giving
my twenty thirty one pick for him, but y'at pack conting,
Go get Io di Soon MoU. And there's some ball containment,
right Yeah. Our next team is going to be the
Mina Soda Timberwolves. Mister Hughes, why are they going to
be better?
Speaker 2: Because public callouts when done with a smile work, Anthony Edwards?
Speaker 1: Can I interrupt?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Did you did we already have this discussion or did
you want? Like you know, when sometimes you read comments, yeah, yeah, yeah,
and it feels like they're taking out of context. But
even when you read the full quote, not like Aunt
was act this, he said this, It comes off so
much differently when you watch the video of him because
you said it with a it was like murder with
a smile.
Speaker 2: Yep, And well and it was just like I don't know,
sometimes you'd say to to like let someone off the
hook for comments like that, it's always coming from a
good place, like it clearly was coming from a good
place like he wasn't. It wasn't even like it was
benigns the wrong word it was like as good natured
a call out as there's ever been, because he you know,
he didn't he was literally smiling like almost the whole
time he was giving he was saying what he said
about we can't talk to each other, we got a
bunch of kids, like all that stuff. Some somehow, I
mean that the discrepancy between how that read and what
it what came across watching him say it was is
like as big as there's ever been in a in
a money quote like that that's kind of been in
the news cycle.
Speaker 1: So there was a reward for like the MVP of
disemboweling your team. He would get it because even did
you see how he made a joke about Julius Randad
not playing defense, He would basically like it was nice
to see Julius play defense for a change, And Julius
was right next to him and laughed. And I'm like,
there's more than an undercurrent of truth to that, And
just like he knows how to probably because of what
he's saying behind the scenes and he does as a
basketball leader, seems to very much uplift the way he
used to interact with Kat specifically, like I thought that
was fantastic, So there needs to be some sort of
a I know we have there's probably like a teammate award,
but we need something else, just like who can say
the shit that's a tough truth, but like it's not
gonna come off like that. It's all it's it's.
Speaker 2: Like, uh, I mean, he just his demeanor just makes
the medicine go down smooth like it because he says
what needs to be said, but does it. I don't know.
It's there's just like an inherent quality that he has
because it's since.
Speaker 1: Sugar Mary Poppins was thinking him out, is that, Yeah, that's.
Speaker 2: What it is. He's a spoonful like it just makes
it it's easy to digest. And it's like, one, he's
not wrong, like when that kind of all that criticism
and the random point that's yes, that he's making factual statements,
but you I think you only get away with that
if one, like you said, he's saying all the same
stuff you know off camera or like off mike, and
and probably more right like and and just how he
must be. And this isn't like a shock because this
is like his whole image like just so likable, like
like guys cannot absorb that kind of criticism if it's
coming from a source. They're like, I don't know, I
don't need to listen to this guy. I don't like him,
or if he's not leading by example too, like from anyway,
this will probably blow up on our faces. It'll come
out that Anthony Edwards is like a terrible leader and
an awful person or whatever.
Speaker 1: But they're just like, I mean, he's done some questionable
things independent of basketball.
Speaker 2: So sure, absolutely, but in this particular isolated that what
we're you're talking about, let's confine it to that. It
seems like this guy might just be a phenomenal leader,
Like at least early indications are that he's got some
qualities independent of like playing the sport that are really
hard to find.
Speaker 1: And there's I can't believe. This is not why we're
here to talk about this. I don't know why it's
turning into this. He also in shout out to the
Dane Moore NBA show that I think he asked him
this question then I was listening to the podcast. They
posted the audio clip. A lot of national media, like
they always ask if there are Wolves games about the
uptick and three pointers, but I guess Dane phrased the
question differently. Well, I think they were facing Golden State,
and the answer Anthony Edwards gave was just like I'm
I'm summarizing here. He's like, yeah, I still want to
get to the fucking basket, like that's my bread and butter.
But I'm taking these threes because that's gonna open up
the floor for us and also just it makes it
more of a threat off ball. And he said, that's
gonna make it easier for me to get to the
basket at some point. And I just do you remember
when the narrative was does he like basketball enough? Does
he get it? And it's when it comes to basketball specifically,
this dude, he and like leadership with it. That's why
I'm us. But everything about the game and being the
best player on a team. Yeah, there's been some weird,
not weird, but punch time moments where the decision making
has not been great from them. He can look over
taxed in some of those playmaking spots. He does just
get it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree, So so we can move on and aside,
I mean, that's a lot of it. It's kind of
like the yogic thing. It's just easy to have faith
that some a team that has him is gonna sort
it out. And really they have, like because since since that,
and I think things were trending a little this way.
So it's it's just nice to have that dividing line
of like pre call out and post call out. But
they've been the best defense in the league again since then,
and they were at the time they were eight and ten,
they were twelve on defense, which normally that's not a
huge problem, but offensively they're still working the kinks out.
So but like I think defensively going forward now, the
Wolves are just gonna be like they're gonna finish in
the top five. Right, You've got like okay See and
Houston and Orlando that are just gonna be great. But
like I just I don't see a reason that Minnesota
can't be an elite defense. Again. They're not gonna run
away with it because I think that's gonna be the
Thunders thing this season, but they'll be good enough to
where you don't need a top ten offense necessarily. Ideally
you want that if you're going to contend, but like
you can get away with the midpack offense if you're
gonna guard like that. The other side of it is,
I think there's reason to believe the offense can improve too,
and and it might be uncomfortable, but like, well, the
comfortable part is, I think Mike Conley clearly matters a ton,
even if individually his numbers aren't great, because there was
I forget what the stats are. Okay, so here this
is a little bit old. But like the four games
he missed initially, all of which the Wolves lost, they
averaged one hundred and five. They scored one hundred and
five points, not rating, just put up one oh five
or fewer, and three of them. When he's been on
the floor this season, the Wolves score at a top
ten clip. So like, good enough, Conley's out there, We're okay. Now,
this is somewhat similar to the Middleton situation, like how
do you make sure a guy with his mileage and
stuff is going to stay out there? Whatever? The other
thing is, I think I know I've been banging this
drum for a long time, and maybe it feels like
out of touch or that I'm too stuck to this,
but I think you just move Randall to the bench,
and I think you moved Devincenzo into the first unit
and gets to go back to doing what he did
with the Knicks, which is run around and shoot threes
and not be saddled with playmaking duties. You open up
the floor that way, you put Randall on the second unit,
where you have Gnaw and you're gonna have nase Red.
So those three are you know, you're gonna get some
offense out of those guys, and the ball stopping matters less.
I just the rand There's a couple guys this year.
Bennettict Maatheren's one, we may talk about him, and Randall's
another where I regret vacillating on like what I had
as pretty set opinions on them, like being sotold, like oh,
he's moving it quicker, like there was those stats with
the Knicks maybe last year or the year before, whereas,
oh his touch time is down, he's making Oh yeah,
I was, I was.
Speaker 1: I was spoon feeding you those bad boys.
Speaker 2: Well it's and but like if the numbers say that,
it's like it's easy to be swayed. I regret being swayed.
Julius Randall stops the ball. It's really hard to have
a like a smooth flowing offense with him. In the game.
That's not to say it's hard to have an effective offense,
like we've seen proof that, Like, yeah, it can work
in certain situations. I just think if the Wolves want
to be the best offensive version of themselves, he has
to come off the bench, and you have to put
another shooter in the first unit, because then maybe Aunt
does get downhill more and then maybe the floor is
space more and pick and rolls work better and Rudy
Gobert actually becomes useful offensively. Like there's that to me?
Tell me if is that too simple of a fix,
set aside the like the ego of it or whatever.
Just like from a tactical perspective, why isn't Julius Randall
coming off the bench?
Speaker 1: I wonder if they're trying to insulate him defensively as
much as possible, because he's been I think, even by
Julius Randalls standards not really that great this year. And
I think a lot of people were harping on the
Wolves's demeanor in transition for a while or maybe lack thereof,
and there were some rough spots there. But as this
takes in the entire season into account, they are first
in points lout per possession after they miss a shot
on the offensive end, And when you break it down
to twos and threes, their defensive rating is second after
they miss a two, and it's second after they miss
a three. And so like, this team has the talent,
but if you go, then you go and you dig
into it and it's oh, teams just get out and
transition all the time when Julius Randall is on the court.
Speaker 2: So how is that an argument for letting him continue
to start?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm just saying, how do you insulate him coming
off the bench defensively?
Speaker 2: Is your idea?
Speaker 1: Just well, then he's gonna face inferior offenses, so it
won't matter, yes, and.
Speaker 2: You'll be you'll be in a better position during those
bench minutes because I think the starters will just be
better and the lead will be bigger. Like I just
like I don't understand, Like I don't know.
Speaker 1: I I So that's actually an interesting point. I guess
my whole thing is Mike Conley is so weirdly important
to this team, and at his age, I guess do
you view that as something that then does it increase
or decrease their dependence on Mike Conley as someone to
have the ball in his hands and like, because if
you're bringing him off the bench, they've actually just the
minutes that Conmley's played without Edwards this year, I think
the Wolves are like a plus nine per one hundred
then we get it done. So bringing Julius Randall off
the bench doesn't necessarily I guess, could it optimize minutes
without Anthony Edwards?
Speaker 2: I don't. My underlying theory is just I think randal
Is has a negative effect in a lot of ways
on the players that really matter, which is Edwards obviously
the spacing component of it, and honestly Devincenzo, because Devincenzo
I think, even though we love Naw he's awesome as
a second unit guy, I feel like he's having to
make plays and it's like that's not what he is,
I don't think, or at least that's not what he's
best at. So if you put Devincenzo in a role
that really makes sense where you are running, you're just gunning,
like catch and shoot as much as you want, fly
around shoot, you know, fifteen threes per hunter possessions. That
makes so much more sense to me in the first
unit than Randall, who just like yeah, you want playmaking,
but I don't want playmaking that has to come from
a dead stop like that just doesn't That doesn't help anybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good point. I guess where I'm at
is I just increasingly don't love the idea of Julius
Randall on this team, and so you're.
Speaker 2: I don't either. I'm trying to get him, minimizing him
right now.
Speaker 1: But that's why I so I'm just like seeing that
there's kind of good answer. I'm just wondering. So you
think moving him to the bench is like the better
of two evils?
Speaker 2: I mean, well, what's the what is what's so your work?
If we let's we've moved Randall to the bench other
so I think he would hate it. I think that
would be a problem.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's what. I don't care you get paid.
Speaker 2: I don't care the wolves and also the counter that
is the wolves traded for him, I think because of
the financial side, I think that's clearer and clearer all
the time. And so you're not this isn't someone that
you need to appease, I think is what I would say,
Like because he's he's a short timer, you're not I
just I don't think he's a guy they look at
as like, we really need to figure out how to
make him part of the machine here.
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 2: I think it's more like, how do we keep him
from like the making the gears grind.
Speaker 1: I guess what I'm worried about is if he's in
the starting lineup, yes, he's kind of inhibiting the best
version of that. And now if you get to closing
lineup situations, it should be easier to say Julius Randall
doesn't need to be on the floor, especially if my
Comley's there and we've seen my Finch experiment a little
bit down the stretch. But now if you so, if
you dig into a lot of their lineups without Anthony Edwards,
which I assume that's a lot of the minutes that
Julius Randall's gonna be playing, that if he's coming off
the bench. None of the good lineups for the Timberwolves
include Julius Randall without Anthony Edwards, And so you're almost
tying this anchor to your bet, like your best defender
in Rudy Gobert, and even Jane McDaniels is out there
for a ton of those minutes too, and then you
have enough offense with Conny and Edwards to Okay, we've
decided that Julius Randall is just important to this team,
and I wonder if you bring him off the bench,
if that exacerbates or complicates your situation? There? Does it?
Here's how I'll frame it. Does the starting lineup? Does
those top unit minutes improve enough to offset the damage
that could potentially be done by no longer having Julius
Randall inoculated by I'll say at least two or three
of your best five players at all times.
Speaker 2: I think, especially on defense, it would be a problem.
Like those second unit minutes if if you don't have Gobert,
maybe you don't even have you don't have Edwards, Deer McDaniels,
The defense might be an issue, would be an issue,
but you're still going against the other teams less threatening
players generally speaking. One and two. I think in answer
your question, I at least I'm optimistic, and if I'm
the Wolves, I would certainly want to find out if
the gains the first unit would make could offset that,
because I I kind of lean towards it could because
you get something Devincenzo has just not been very good.
I think you could get You're probably not gonna get
Nick Stevincenzo again. That feels like the outlier I got closer.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, though, like Dante DiVincenzo still gets
guarded like he's Nick Dante Divini. Yeah, right too, And.
Speaker 2: What if really the focal point of all this should
just be Edwards And like I think the three point
volume in accuracy has been one of the most impressive
individual developments of this season. I still think like if
you could just open the floor for him, and now
he's being guarded tight like good God, like he's gonna
get into the middle and it's just gonna be havoc.
Like I really think you should be fixated on what
can we do to make more productive and just make
it easier on him by letting him kind of go
back to some strengths.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I you gotta try it, I think. And so this
is all to say that's a reason the Wolves could
be a lot better. Is there's a good chance that
this could get the offense like to a level that
it hasn't been at yet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just man, is there a team that would
trade for Julius Randall. If you're just like even looking
a wht like, could you get probably not? Could you
get like Javon Carter and Lonzo Ball from that? Even?
Could you get Vouch and Javon Carter? Would they just
take Julius Randall for that, thinking, Oh, he's gonna opt out,
so we're getting out of money a year sooner than
we would be for Vooch.
Speaker 2: I don't know, you know Randall's not alone in this trade.
Speaker 1: Would you just trade Julius Randall in some sort of
like there have to be other money involved. But Patrick Williams,
if the Bulls are really looking to get off that
deal the five and ninety, that's.
Speaker 2: Enough on the Wolves, right, they're going to be better.
Speaker 1: They're going to be better. But do you think that
they get there if they don't change the way that
they're using. I think they've already proven they can get there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I think yes, And I think the
games could be like astronomical if they could get the
rotation optimized.
Speaker 1: Our next team, they're going to be better, according to
you the New York Yes.
Speaker 2: Can Can I start this with a question because the
Knicks have been really good and they've been one of
the best.
Speaker 1: Off just did so. No, you may not ask another question.
Speaker 2: One of the best offenses in the league. Are they
number one? They might be number.
Speaker 1: One still, I think Boston overtook them after their disaster
class against the.
Speaker 2: Hawks the other Yeah, they did those oh Man by
three tenths of a point per hundred. The question is
do you think getting the defense, which currently is ranked sixteenth,
which isn't you know, terrible if you've got one of
the two best offenses in the league, Well, is it
as simple as a second big because the rim protection
is the issue. Cat's numbers have come down from like
one hundred percent allowed inside six feet to the high sixties.
Is it as simple as Mitchell Robinson or someone they
trade for moving Kat out of the back line anchor
role and onto like being essentially a wing defender again
like he was with Minnesota. You're not going to get
the Wolves defense. You don't have Gobert and you don't
have I mean he Actually you could make the case
that if mckel bridges remembered how to guard, that you
have at least as good of a perimeter defense as
did do you So?
Speaker 1: I wanted to look this up because when you watch
Mcal Bridges now, it just feels like screens or his kryptonite,
which is a problem for someone like the defense world
that he is. Yeah, he rakes in the fourth percent
tile of screen navigation this year, Isn't it like?
Speaker 2: What if this is the anti Anthony Edwards shoots a
ton of threes and makes them all Now it's like
Bridges just can't guard anymore. What do you think what happened?
Speaker 1: Do you think the power of friendship is actually complacency?
Speaker 2: We really need to reassess. Should friends be on the
same team together? Do you need to hate your teammates
to play defense? Is that is that it?
Speaker 1: Let's go back to Michael Jordan, which is why Nicole
Yogas can't win MVP? The answers, yes, yeah, there needs
to be that. Nope, there needs to be that underlying animosity.
Speaker 2: If you don't fear your best player, where are you
going as a team? If you add a it? If
Mitchell Robinson comes back, he's and like it's just your
and now he's again not Gobert. But is that it is?
Does does having Kat not be your back line anchor?
Does that solve the k next defense?
Speaker 1: Uh? Okay, solve you know what I mean, it might
because then the McHale Bridges stuff isn't as damaging. So
here's the problem. And I know a lot of fans
had pointed to their almost the averaging defense. If they
go up against a top twenty top twenty offense, grant
not top ten. If you go up against the top
ten offense, you want to who has the worst defense
in the league, the Knicks. Okay, if you do a
top twenty, so the middle ten and the top ten,
they're still in the bottom five of point slot per possession.
There's a talent issue here, and it's exacer a defensive
talent issue. Excuse me, they have I have multiple week
points that teams will prod at when you look at
towns and you look at bruns In and now McHale
Bridges has been included in that way too often, certainly
more often than someone you gave up ninety seven first
round picks for it should be. Here's I think, now,
here's where things get easier if you put that back
line stopper in. Even if you're gonna pick a weak points,
now you know you have someone who doesn't need to
be ogn and Obian covering the entire floor can help
you cover it. Getting that player while preserving your top
two offense feels impossible. And because look quickly they might
just have that player on the roster. It doesn't sound
like he's gonna be healthy before February, Mitchell Robinson, it
comes at an offensive cost. And so what I've not
that I've proposed because I don't know what I would
do it if you just substituted in Robert Williams the
third for Mitchell Robinson, and he's the guy playing alongside Kat.
I have two questions for you. One do you think
that that makes the offense still top two material? And two, like,
who are you? I know the answer of who you're
subbing out, but if McHale Bridges is playing like this
on defense, is Josh Hart still the one you sub
out in that instance? And also how much does that
matter if you're not gonna go to that look during
crunch time. I'm not even saying they should because part
of the appeal of the Knicks and their offense is
they do play when Josh Hart when defense is feel
inclined to close out on Josh Hart like that. This
offense just looks unguardable, yeah and so, and even when
they don't, it looks unguardable most of the time. Even
when they don't look great by their talent standards, the
offense looks unguardable. Putting another big into the like if
you could get another og Ananobi, this doesn't become a problem.
But you have neither the assets, nor is there another
og Annobi floating around out there. I've seen some people
say that they think Dorian Finney Smith could come in
and then maybe you make og your back line stopper.
But og is never he's you want to call him
a five position defender, fine, he's never been good as
like a primary backline stopper, so I don't know, he
shouldn't be, Like, that's not something you can ever you
hadob he's been amazing this year. I just I guess
you could argue, yes, it would fix some of their
defensive concerns. Does it fix enough to where you're willing
to withstand? What I would believe, especially in the playoffs,
would be the difference between a top one or top
two offense and maybe like top seven.
Speaker 2: So what I'm getting is you're not sold that this
defense can be better than league average asterisk factoring in
what you said about like it really depends on the
level of offensive competition they're going against.
Speaker 1: I really do, and the caveat there would be as
long as this is the version of mckelbridge as you're
getting on the defensive end. And then I don't know
what the answer is because and maybe, look, maybe it is,
though I could just be wrong, because if you sub
in Mitchell Robins for Josh Hart, you could just say, well,
then we're gonna kill the offensive glass even more, and
that's how we're generator offense. It'll be a little bit uglier,
But do you trust I think part of what's made
Bridges be better on offense, part of what's helped Kellen
Brunts's playmaking, part of certainly what I think makes og
Atnobi so dangerous is the five out look. Yeah, and
you just inherently make everybody easier to guard if you're
going to the towns and Robinson or even like Robert Williams,
the third can have a floater, can make more plays
out of the short so he's more dynamic, like teams
aren't you put him in the corner? Like teams aren't
going to guard him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is like we're you know, this isn't a surprise,
but like it is kind of a trade off debate
then or a conversation, I guess, because like we've seen
Brunson lead an offense that was real limited to pretty
high highs and if you reintroduce a second big and
we'll just use Mitchell Robinson even though you like you
know who knows health wise and whatever, like if you
introduce him into it and he at least helps the
defense to some extent and Bridges plays better, which is
like I just I don't know what to make of that.
I haven't heard a good explanation or a good theory
on like what exactly he's going on there. So it's
it's easy to say, well, when he can't be this bad,
but like maybe he is. Is the trade off is
the gain on defense enough to offset the offense getting
worse because the spacing is is not as good or
Brunson has to carry a heavier load. Again, Like I
don't know, I think there's if you believe in Brunson,
and I think you should, you could imagine him finding
ways to make the offense not lose as much as
it gained as the defense gains by adding some size
and back line help. But I do think you're right that,
like there's really no move you make that doesn't to
improve the defense or theoretically improve it, that doesn't give
something back on the other end. I just like because
because then there's who's that guy like that, you just
can't go get that guy.
Speaker 1: I guess yeah, it just doesn't feel like they can
get the best of both worlds. I did wonder though,
like if you were able to get r W I
don't know what that deal looks like. Like, I don't
know you could get Mitchell. You could go Mitchell Robinson
for r W three, But if you're Portland, do you
want you have clinging? Like do you view Mitchell Robinson's
a backup long term? Do you know? Do you view
him as less of a health risk than so what
do you include? Let's say you could get him carlthe
Towns to get five corner threes this year if you
put him in the corner when r W three is
going to be your screener. I do think that comes
close to giving you the best of both worlds. I
know Karlnthon Towns doesn't like being in the corner. And
I also feel like for bigger dudes it might just
be objectively harder to be there, but you could lift
out and stuff once the play gets going downhill. Do
you think that's the closest they could get short of
finding another big who spaces the floor and protects the
rill and could protect the rim.
Speaker 2: I kinda, I kind of like that as as you
have that option now at least, right, Like you can
play that way for some and then you can put
Kat at the five and he can be above the
break or he can pick and pop, like at least Yeah,
it's like, I don't know, we talk about changing lineups
or adding players and it's like, oh, they'll play this
way all the time, you know, Like it's not saying
you do that, but it's like, no, it just you
you can now use Kat in the corner as the
four or whatever.
Speaker 1: You can't to be clear, you don't get to and
I know you know this. You don't get to do
that with Mitchell Robinson, no, because when he catches the
ball on the roll, he's definitely not passing it to
the corner.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I don't know. I think you've made me
rethink it a little bit. I think a couple of
things I point to, just on the improvement is coming
side of it is the Knicks do actually have the
most significant difference between their what their point differential says
their win total should be and what it actually is.
They're fifteen to ten, they should have closer to eighteen
wins based on map and saying.
Speaker 1: Something based off the ass kicking they took from Boston
on Open at Night, right, that's priced into there, so
that's not a fake number.
Speaker 2: The other thing is opponents are shooting thirty almost just
under thirty eight percent. That's one of the sixth highest
opponent three point accuracy rates in the league. We tend
to say that's going to regress, like now do.
Speaker 1: You want However, Nick fans told us for so long
that their defense was the reason the three point shooting
was poor, and so now I don't think you get
if you went that way on that one, you don't
get to go that way on this one and say, well,
it's good, it's good normal.
Speaker 2: Sure we had this with the Pelicans last year, maybe
the year before, or I just I'm of the mind
that like, you don't get to be in charge of
how accurate opponents are from three. It's just you just
assume regression to the league average.
Speaker 1: You can control like the share of their shots that
are like wide open for.
Speaker 2: Sure, right but generally speaking, I'm just if you're if so,
Like right now, Atlanta teams are shooting thirty eight point
six percent. That's the highest opponent three point attempt accuracy
rate in the league. Like, I think the right thing
to do is assume that Atlanta will allow the fifteenth
best three point accuracy rate two opponents the rest of
the way. It's just like you just I think we'll
a should be lower than that if you're saying they're
gonna eventually end up in the middle, But you know
what I mean. So there those are small statistical things
I think structurally though it is it is a pretty
interesting discussion about what the Knicks can do to get better.
You've made me kind of there's a little more nuance
to that.
Speaker 1: I think they will be better because there's just been
they've been so inconsistent when you watch them from game
to game that some of that I believe will normalize
and that should even if it's only a smidge in
But at this rate, you've gotten here while being imperfect,
and you've dealt with you know some I'll call it
a shallow rotation to be respectful. You are fourth in
the East and your point differential, as you said, is
what is their sixth in point differential right now? Right
so like you've gotten there or their fifth, so like
if you moved a fourth or third, like that's a
big deal. So I think they will get better. I
don't know if it's going to be the kind of
better to where as of right now, if we went
inner circle of title contenders, I have Cleveland, Boston, Oklahoma City,
and like those are my inner circle. There are other
teams that can win it all the Knicks are among them.
I don't see the pathway to this team. I really
do think people probably think I'm ascribing too much out
of him, like at our W three type acquisition. That's
the closest I kind of see them getting to because
even if they get a reserve wing like dr if
any Smith would be nice, But I don't think he's
gonna change the He might deepen your rotation, and that matters,
like eating up minutes matters when you look at how
many minutes most of these guys are playing right now.
But I would like someone that you have the option
of saying we might close this way. And I don't
know if Dorian if any Smith, Like are you really
going to play him over Michale Bridges or Josh Hart.
I don't. I don't think so.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't think real quick on Bridges, Like I was
gonna say, like, what's your confidence, like one to ten,
what's your like just do you have any optimism that
like what he doesn't need to get back to second
in Defensive Player of the Year, But like, do you
do you think that this is just what he is
now or is there something that can change that he
becomes a good defender again because he hasn't been a
good defender.
Speaker 1: I honestly don't know. Because here's the thing. I think that, look,
there are worse I want to make it clear, there
are worse defensive players in the NBA than McHale Bridges. Yeah,
and some of them are on the Knicks.
Speaker 2: But relative to expectations or relative to his billing.
Speaker 1: I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt
because I think what concerns me is we saw defensive
decline almost as soon as he went to Brooklyn, and
I chalked that up to this guy just has this
monster two way workload now that he wasn't used to
carrying on a day to day gad in the game.
But like you know, fourth percentile on ball screen navigation
is bad. But you go back through his even when
he's been worse, like, he's never had a season where
you looked at him and said, that's someone who's below
average at navigating screens. And even if you look at
the data, it's really it's obviously tough to measure this.
He's never ranked lower than seventy seventh in ball screen
navigation of the percentile. So I think you can have
confidence that he gets better. But I do think the
level he needs to get to for the Knicks to
have what I would say is a notably above average
defense with this personnel, I think you can question whether
he's gonna get there for sure, don't. I don't have
that level of confidence. Sub Philosikos Dan Valley here interrupting
this segment to talk to you about Blue Chew. No,
I'm really not doing that. I'm interrupting this because when
we recorded this, it was before we're about to talk
about the Philadelphia, seventy six slight spoiler alert. It was
before Jowell and Bebid suffered a sionus fracture and before
Jared McCain suffered a meniscus injury. So the stuff we say,
I still think. My thoughts on embiids still stand. This
wasn't an issue that like, Holy the Sixers are I mean,
the Pelicans and Sixers are cursed this year. I think
that much is clear, But I just wanted to interject
and get that up front because we did record this
before there was reporting on that. I think a lot
of the stuff we still say applies, but it's fair
to be more skeptical skeptical on whether or not the
Sixers belong here. But look, I'm right now just staring
at Paul George's assist rate on drives, and I think
the Sixers are going to be better for the rest
of the year than we've seen thus far. But who knows.
Maybe as I recorded this, one of them, you know,
tore their acl while making a peanut butter and jelly
sandwich somehow, I don't know. Cursed cursed the Sixers are them,
and the Pelicans this year just absolutely cursed. That's enough
out of me. Though, Let's get back to the discussion
where again we're gonna talk about the Sixers now, but
we're not going to mention the Joel Embiid or Jared
McCain injuries. I do have. This is mine, So I'm
gonna say we're gonna talk about the new War. Oh no,
we go to Philly first. Sorry, I did this out
all to the alphabet get you? The alphabet got me more?
Were I put the Pelicans at the end because we
weren't planning yet talking about them at first? Grant, why
is Philly gonna be better?
Speaker 2: Easy? They'll they can't be worse. I mean, it's just
this is the one that like we can be maybe
you will be like nuanced about it and cite the numbers.
It's just if you get Maxi and Embiid and Paul
George on the floor, what were they so coming into
that game against the Bulls when prior to that game
they'd had six minutes together. They played twenty six against
the Bulls on December eighth and were plus fourteen. Uh.
And so I just firmly believe that if you have
those three guys on the floor like at all, you're
gonna be good. Now the question is how often can
they make that happen with Embiid Like Embiid, the ability
to be on the floor is just a massive uncertainty,
and I don't know if that's going to change anytime soon.
But that's really just it like and then you can
get into and maybe you will like they can make
trades there. This is a team that oh they went,
they didn't go all in like. They are not asset
poor necessarily, or at least not as to the extent
you'd think.
Speaker 1: I talked about this with more. They're just in a
situation where it's I think you have to just go
all in still because what is the alternative? But now
you've been so bad and rickety and leaky that it's well,
should we like, is this what we want to go
all in with? I will say. So they've killed the
minutes that Paul, George and MAXI have played together so
far this year, but just in minutes in general where
they've had at least two of their stars on the court.
So it incorporates combinations that are just two and some three,
all three of them a minus two point seven points
per one hundred possessions. Now again the sample size is
small enough that you could write that up, but it's
just something unmonitoring, and you're probably gonna need something else
on this roster aside to me, aside from Jared McCain
contending for Rookie of the Year needs to go right, Like,
I'm not just talking about Joelle and beat In, Paul
George's health. Is it Kelly Gubridge Junior playing better closer
to last year? Is it? What if Caleb Martin could
be a league averagehooter from three point range? That's what
makes me a little uneasy, but there's no question that there.
I don't like the idea that's the number I saw
floating around. I think it was from the ESPN story
where the Sixers view it internally as we just need
to get to like thirty four wins and make the
play in. I hate that line of thinking. Maybe it
wasn't the Sixers internally. I think it was just the
data says that that's the wins they need to aim for.
I still think this team is probably gonna finish above
five hundred. Is that stupid?
Speaker 2: No? I think so too. I just I wish I
had a more thoughtful take on it, but I just
if Embid's gonna give you, what is every other game
just on aur like for what they got fifty five
left or so, so you need twenty three games from
him and you get Paul George for more than I just.
Speaker 1: Can we split those? Can Paul George be injured when
Joel Embiid is healthy?
Speaker 2: Advice you just line up? Also, like, yeah, okay, it's Tuesday.
All three you're gonna play on Thursday. They're all gonna sit.
We'll just give it them away.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna repeat the entire rant that I went on,
because then it's just doubling up on like the same episode.
I really just I can't also get up in arms
about Joel bean missing time. It's a problem, but people
worry about his play when he comes back. How many
times have we seen this movie? He just the ramp up.
This isn't the James Wiseman ramp up lie Like the
Joel Embiid ramp up is real and it takes time,
and like he when he's been on the floor, like
we've seen hints of it already, And that's that's also
I'm a believer in this team. Is they could make
no changes and I still think they're gonna be really
good the only reason, And I feel like this skews
too far into it, like we're just assuming the worst,
which I think even in situations that don't want the
benefit of the doubt. Doesn't make sense. If you really
think this team is gonna be a flop, you're telling
me that you don't think Joel Embiid is ever gonna
be healthy, end or play well for an extended period
of time this year. When is that aside from him
like missing an entire season, When does that actually ever happened?
Speaker 2: I silence.
Speaker 1: So I didn't want to ask you though, because I
don't want to short shrift them on this. What do
you view as kind of there because they're going to
go to the trade market and they have they can
combine salaries as long as they're not taking back more
money in return. They have they're not kJ Martin. That's
the human He's one of the human Traine exceptions out there.
They can train up the four first round picks. I
assume Jared McCain's untouchable, but like if you priced it
in him, you could get to some really like with
the offers from Phillies end, but just not even necessarily
a name. But I think a lot of people have
said and I do believe I tend to kind of agree.
The three that I've seen is another big man type
to where it's not Andre Drummond in the non embid minutes,
or someone who can maybe play alongside Embiid or a
combo forward, like just upgrading the four spot next to there,
or just getting a bigger guard that I've seen the
most of the thing.
Speaker 2: My very first thought was a four. And then that's
assuming you don't want to use Paul George there, because
if you do feel okay with Paul George as a four,
which probably is fine next to Mbid, then you need
a wing or early you need Cala Martin to play better.
Like that's just you know that that that's part of
this is the old Like what what adjustment should they
make play better? I think, like I don't know. I
think it's yeah, power forward. I is it weird that
I had, Like what about Vucevic, Like this might be
the island I've ever thought, like the reunion? Yeah, yeah, right,
full circle, bring him back. That's one of the like
most forgettable ten yures in NBA history, Like remember Vucevic
was on the Sixers to start his career. Yeah, I
don't know. I think like just to this isn't going
to answer your question and you can take this where
you want to. But like, if the point of this
exercise is to isolate teams that are going to be better,
the Sixers are seven and fifteen and they have a
negative five one hundred differential, which is sixth worst in
the league, They're going to be better than that. Like,
that's the low bar to clear. This is the team
with the lowest bar to clear that we've covered so far.
Speaker 1: I would agree, But do you think that they've become
the best actual version of themselves that they don't approach
the trade market with real aggression? Because I guess I'm asking,
like how is it? Because I can float out a
bunch of different names, like, yeah, okay, if you traded
for Cody Martin, you probably win the NBA title. But
if you go get a Larry Nance junior versus going
to get in Isaiah Stewart. You know, like on the
spectrum of what if you want this team to be
a title contender, do you think it can be this
as currently constructed or with a minor ish upgrade or
do you think it needs to be someone who is
either playing a ton of minutes or might even be
a part of their playoff closing unit.
Speaker 2: Being a title contender with embiid's history of not making
you through the playoffs kind of is like the cop
out answer is like I don't know if you're getting
there no matter what, I am inclined to think that,
Like it almost like, oh, is it Nance or is
it is it Stewart or somebody much better than that?
Like I kind of think like working big to small,
if you just have your three best players that you
built this whole team around, healthy and on the floor,
then like, unless you're talking about a massive blockbuster, all
of the other additions you might make in the trade
market feel marginal to me. So like the difference between
Nance and whoever else you want to throw out there,
like I don't, I don't know, Like it's almost like
a different version of the like what's the who's the
worst player they could trade for that would elevate them
to title contention. I'm not sure what the answer is
because I again like we've seen these three guys play
so little that I don't know if this team even
really has a great sense of what it's real needs
would be, assuming those guys are out there now, Again
that's like a non answer. I still think you kind
of can't go wrong with someone that can play at
the other forward spot between George and Embiid. That would
be a threat to defenses and help the you know, ideally,
even if it was someone that could play some backup five,
that would be great. Like that's that's your two birds solution.
The way you're framing the question, it makes me think
you're kind of leaning towards you need to make a
substantial like starter plus level addition to consider this team
of contender.
Speaker 1: I do, and it's a lot of it is to
offset the uncertainty. I mean, like some of the we
focused a lot on the Big three, and we mentioned
Jared McCay, but as I meant, like Kayla mar has
not shot the ball well this year. Was that's somewhere
you're trying, Like Calibridge Junior's not been as good as
he was last year, which I think you could kind
of see coming when you look at the makeup of
this team. And so to me, it feels like, you know,
I don't know whether it's a bigger guard. I gravitate
towards the forward spot as well. You mentioned it'd be
great if they could play backup five. I just feel
like the list of names for like Larry NaN's junior
probably comes the closest to actualizing that of an Isaiah Stewart,
I guess, but he's not like Larry and Junior is
going to do. We're on the wing defensively, I would
think at this point. So I'm just in my head,
I think they like, if they're gonna make a trade,
I'm thinking of it as like, oh, they gave up
like a first round pick and more to go make
this upgrade, and I think that's what they kind of need.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I could see that. I just uh, I mean,
the answer might just be the uncertainty surrounding the health
of Embiid specifically and George to a lesser extent, means
that like you almost I don't know if you. Half
of me says, well, you've come this far, go all
the way in, and the other half is like, you
can't trust that Embid's gonna be out there. So it
kind of is not smart to just throw the rest
of your assets after somebody else, because what where where
does that get you? If Embiid can't play.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's a tough spot.
Speaker 1: They'll be better, though, Like OA, our next team up
before we enter the lightning round portion is we have
the New Orleans Pelicans. This is another low bar. I
think they're gonna be better because they can't get any
more injured. But I do think I guess they could
they because they've been more injured than they are right now.
I don't think they'll continue to get more injured. Could
you make the case, though, that this is a flawed
inclusion because I think it opens up the interesting discussion
of will they really just lean into the tank at
some point?
Speaker 2: I mean, you'd got to. You kind of have to
talk me out of that being the likely path because
you have.
Speaker 1: Tank and win more than well, yeah, of your games though, yeah.
Speaker 2: We really burned the This is a low bar argument
on the Sixers. We should have saved it for this
team five and twenty or oh sorry, five and twenty one.
Speaker 1: Time you listen to this.
Speaker 2: Well, so just let's let's look at where they are.
Like you have the Ingram trade urgency is significant. I
think they just gotta trade him, and you're not going
to get a lot for him, and maybe he's played
his last game anyway for them just because of the injury.
And why would he come back if he's gonna just
to just play out the string for a team that
clearly the divorce is basically all but final. The william
like Zion, I don't know, Like I don't think they're
gonna wave him. I think that's really unlikely. But like,
what do you count? What does.
Speaker 1: The way? That was never a real conversation. You can
you even make an argument? And I said this to Moret.
Speaker 2: Is that a challenge?
Speaker 1: Yeah, make the okay, lawyer, where's the get the lawyers
don't have gabbles, Go get a briefcase or something and
a and a and a really thick tie for some reason.
Uh that maybe clips on. I don't know. My whole
thing is, can you make an argument we're waving Zion
Williamson makes any sense for the Pelicans?
Speaker 2: Here's I'll try, and I'm and as a true lawyer,
I'm gonna make an argument. I don't actually believe in
Uh what's the word? Okay? So the only the only
way that you would wave him and just wipe that
salary off is if you are one hundred percent convinced
that you cannot aid him for positive value or neutral value?
Right like, and I guess there is to me a scenario.
Look at look at who you can't who we haven't
been able to trade for positive or neutral value? Is
Zion excluded? Like brandon Ingram that trade hasn't materialized?
Speaker 1: Sure? Or New Orleans? Just I think we kind of
have evidence that New Orleans doesn't really know what they're
doing upstairs.
Speaker 2: Sure, so zach Lavine, zach Lavine spent I don't know,
eighteen months, couldn't do it, couldn't trade him, like you
had to give up picks to get off zach Lavine's deal.
So this does happen, So I guess you'd have And now,
by the way, would the bulls have just waved zach Lavine?
Probably not. They probably would have waited it out, and
now his value is high again and they will get
something for him. But if with Zion, that's a unique
case because this is every year he's hurt, every year,
he seems to get less athletic every year. It gets
harder and harder to believe you can build a team
around him. So you just have to get to a
point where you're like, what are we waiting around for?
Why are we going to keep this salary on our
book if we know we're never going to be able
to trade it. We're like, our best case is, let's
hope for a disabled player exception. We can nullify the
contract that way if some doctor says like, okay, let's
just wave him now and we have flexible Like, look again,
I don't believe this argument, but you like that's the
way it goes, right, I guess Like the counter I
would say is show me the team that's gonna give
up like clearly positive value for Zion And I don't
think that team exists right now. That's not to say
it couldn't exist in the future, But anyway.
Speaker 1: Why you keep him? Though you could get hope at
some point, the only real reason would be they have
mega free agency plans, right and they don't. This is
the New Orleans Pelicans, So he's not he's not ruining
your tank. I mean, look at them right now, and
if you have the off chance of maybe you do
get him healthy for a year and he's either so
good that you're so good or he's so good as
crete value is rehabbed. I just I saw that float
around out there and I was just make the case
and they're just you made as good of a case
that there is, and it's.
Speaker 2: It's not a real c case. Yeah, to be clear,
I like, I don't think that's realistic at all. But
so well, we're talking about can New Orleans be better
this year?
Speaker 1: And if here we could boil it down to this,
exclude the low bar argument, say they're on pace to
win sixteen games? Will they win more than sixteen games?
And that's will they be better or not?
Speaker 2: Yeah, they got you right. I mean, like they still
have a bunch of NBA players, like they're not the herb.
The herb trade talk was was an interesting moment earlier
this week.
Speaker 1: Was the other teams that try to bill it into existence.
Speaker 2: I mean that seems like why of like where are
you going to find a player as good as him
on a deal, Like it's just that you're never gonna
trade that guy. But Trey Murphy, John Say Murra at
least are like real NBA players on the roster, I think,
And if you're gonna say, well they should really got
to trade McCallum and Ingram, like I don't know how
much worse does that really make you like you might
have some addition by some traction stuff there, certainly financially,
but even on the court, I don't know. I just
I think steering into the tank, though, is likely. I
just don't know that that actually means they'll be worse
because they've been so bad.
Speaker 1: I think if you get to a point, unless you're
shutting everybody down, So let's just independent of Zion, you're
just going to be better, especially with Eves and mecI
showing a lot. You've gotten good minutes from Brandon Boston Junior.
But there is this is there say that this is
the riskiest one. The Knicks feel like they might be
the riskiest one. But when you look at the Pelicans,
I bet you've I asked you to name how many
of their leaders are in the top five of total
minutes played on the team. I'm sure you get a few.
I'll give you. Brand Ingram is one of them.
Speaker 2: Hasn't Hasn't Boston played more minutes than anyone else on
the team this year? Did I see that right?
Speaker 1: Boston is second, brand Ingram is third, Javonte Green is fourth,
Jeremiah Robinson Earl is fifth, and so there's like there's
a degree of here. If this keeps traveling down that path,
I don't look at it. This is not based on
anything else that anything I've seen personally. The fact that
there's still twenty nine in RIM and three attack like
RIM and three frequency that PBP stats tracks, it's just
mind boggling incompetence from the front office. I don't care
who's been injured looking at this point. With that being said,
they're just gonna have to be healthier at some point,
So I'm not looking at this. Yeah, there's been someone
intriguing lineups. There was the one. There's a lineup that's
killing it for them. It's like brandon Ingram and then
nobody else who is supposed to play for the Pelicans
this year and they're like plus a trillion per whatever.
I think you get to a point where, even if
you move Ingram, you know what's gonna happen to that
even if you're getting players you don't want, you might
get players who are just better, Like they're more complimentary
than brandon Ingram, and so you kind of boost your
product that way. But I think they're gonna be better
even if they wind up shutting people down or really
leaning into the tank come March or something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean five and twenty one. I mean, well,
Washington would like a word, but like, it's hard to
be worse than that.
Speaker 1: Okay, we're entering the lightning Round portion, which is these
are the teams we're not sure about. So this is
the better or worse portion of the podcast. Who is
first up? I don't know the order of this one.
The Dallas Mavericks.
Speaker 2: All right, So how good has Dallas been? I think
a lot of people would say they're the second best
team in the West, or at least in the conversation
they are.
Speaker 1: They have the second best point differential against teams that
have top ten point differentials. They are. There's been some
crunch time wonkiness. We've had some weird Luca performances. We've
had some there was cold shooting stretches at the beginning
of the season from some guys. They're in here because
I didn't tell you they're gonna be in here because
I honestly think that they have another level to hit
and I think they're gonna be better. I mean the
Derek Lively instead of Daniel Gafford in the starting lineup.
I know they still kind of split the minutes. That
resulting starting five is destroying people. I really do think.
I don't think they're gonna catch the thunder, but for
the rest of this season, I expect Dallas to be
the team that winds up with the second seed in
the Western Conference.
Speaker 2: Okay, I could. I could definitely see it. I'm just trying, like, so, PJ. Washington,
how many games has he missed? It feels like a lot,
but maybe it's not. He's missed what five? He's like,
low key really important to them. So I think I
was going to try to make the health argument. Maxic
Kleiba missed ten games. Plus that's just when you.
Speaker 1: Got Maxen's prosper hitting those big shots. Even though they
lost that game.
Speaker 2: I saw him out there. Who is it against? Guess
it must have been in the OKC game in the
NBA Cup game. Was like, oh yeah, I forgot about him.
We were kind of high on him as a as
a draft prospect. No, I think I think you're right.
I think Dallas has a level to climb, and a
lot of that is It sounds crazy because Luca's Luca
and his numbers are you know, insane for anybody like
he hasn't been. Luca hasn't been his best self at
all this season. Right like now, maybe you argue that
Kyrie Irving has been and that's gonna balance, you know,
as good as Luca. As much as Luca improves, Irving
will regress. But I think you get Washington going. Klay
Thompson is having actually like one of his worst offensive
seasons since he was a rookie. Maybe he gets up
over forty percent from three or or from the field,
which would be nice. He's under forty percent from the field.
I don't know why when I turned into like the
let's dumb on Klay Thompson, I feel like I should
talk about these.
Speaker 1: Guys take off a Warriors jersey and you become.
Speaker 2: A monster dead to me, Yeah, I could see it.
I guess like the question is, since Dallas has been good, like,
are the is it capable of like splitting itself off
from the Houstons and the memphiss And I hesitate to
throw like Golden State and Phoenix in there, but you know,
to get to where they're closer to OKAC than they
are to that like second tier I could see it, right, like,
just Luca play better, Like that's that's maybe the all
it takes.
Speaker 1: I also think the others and he's been a little
bit better since coming back from injury. But I really think,
and this kind of goes against what we're doing here,
but the amount of time they have him off the
ball is at an all time high, and I just
think from an energy expenditure perspective, that's going to serve
them so well.
Speaker 2: Postseason, right, yeah, because if you avoid the wear down,
then who knows, like we've never we've kind of never
seen a not worn down Luca as we get deep
into the playoffs. So good point there, Indiana Pacers next, Dan,
This is okay, this is this is all I've been
thinking about lately. The Atlanta the twenty one Hawks that
made the conference finals. They to me, they they are
the most like side eyed big air quotes conference finalists
in recent memory. Right. The other one that I thought
of is the nineteen Blazers that the Warriors swept and
that that team you know, had Damian Lillard didn't win
a playoff series after that. The Hawks, same case. The
Hawks actually look pretty good right now. I'm kind of
in on the Hawks at the moment. But are the
Pacers now do they have the crown as the most
Like remember when they made the conference finals? Like is
that where they are now? Where we just look at
that and think, like, man, what a like lightning in
a bottle? That wasn't who they are? Kind of thing?
Because I do feel like Atlanta and Portland both carry
that now that those teams the Portland's blown up, but
like I think Indiana feels like that team. Now can
you talk me out of that feeling?
Speaker 1: I really? I mean if you look at the number
of times that Portland made during the Dame and CJ
eras where they just continued to make these half measure trades,
are going for singles and doubles rather than going all
in on the exact type of player by the way,
they needed and the Pacers today need.
Speaker 2: Sorry, can we talk about the similarities too? So Portland
Dame offense only undersized guard that has to be high usage.
Atlanta Trey offense only undersized guard that has to be
high usage on the ball, like can't guard any positions,
let alone a different one than point guard. Halliburton not
as undersized but certainly slight like I don't know, do
weve well who but he can't guard anybody. He gets
targeted more than as much as true.
Speaker 1: I'm not defending I'm not defending his deed, but it's like,
I think we just got to stop.
Speaker 2: Building teams around offense only gart Like I just you
need to build them differently. I think is the point
you're about to.
Speaker 1: Make, right, and they're gonna be worse because I don't
think they've got you talk about the need on the
wing that what is this year twenty that they've had again,
they've just decided we're good, like we got them hard
and TJ McConnell and Ben mcmathren, and we're not gonna
play Jarris Walker nearly enough and he's never gonna be
the player we need him to be. They're they're clearly.
I don't think they're good enough to say, well, we're
gonna go out on the trade market and do something.
I also think that they're kind of hamstrung because a
lot some of the outgoing salary for any trade like
an Obie topping, you might have to compensate a team
to take on that deal as part of the package.
I think their real flaw right now which is why
I don't trust him to be better. Halliburton, I think
is more I don't even want to say definitely more
so than Trey Young. You can use him in different
ways than we've seen it, and we've seen them use
him in a way more different ways than por and
use Damian Lillard. I feel like they've just run too
far afield of how did we get here? Why did
we go out and get Pascal Siakam in the first place,
Because Tyre's Haliburton is one of the most transcendent drivers
of offensive basketball when he's on the floor, And if
you wanted someone who's gonna go out and screen or
spend a bunch of time off the ball, you probably
shouldn't have traded Buddy Heeled. And I think they've tried
too much to accommodate the look of even some of
Andrew Nemhard's offense, but mostly a Ben mcmather on offense
and a Pascal Siakam on offense, and look Sakam I
think he's worth accommodating. So now you have that where
I think that you've leaned too far away from what
Tyre's Halburton is great at. I'm not saying he's been
good this year, but his role Just go look at
the off ball usage stuff specifically, and I think it
contributes to his true usage, which factors in playmaking. It's
dropped by like ten percentage points this year. Grant, Yeah,
I blame that on the Pacers. It's also a little
bit on him. He feels too passive even on his
drives relative to last year. But now you have to
combine that with well turners not the level of defender
that he was a year and a half ago or whatever.
And then on top of that, so Nie Smith's been
injured one of your best wing defenders, and you really
just don't have a bunch of good, properly sized wing defenders.
How does this team get better? Is it because you
view that their baseline isn't any like, it's so low
it can only go up. I think it can get
worse for this team. They might reach a point where
it's do we will like, you know, do we kind
of reach a point where we need to consider about
like throwing in the towel on this season because they
don't know a pick. They don't know, Oh, is it
this pick they owe or is it next year's pick?
That they owe to Toronto.
Speaker 2: When when did the Toronto obligations start?
Speaker 1: I think I think it was twenty twenty six. Yeah so,
and its top four protective, so you could take during
that season as well, so they might reach a point
where they're thinking in those terms. And I think you
could argue the Blazers are different, but certainly with the
Hawks because like the Blazers didn't really come out of nowhere,
Dame was trenched as a star.
Speaker 2: They were good for a while with the Hawks at
the time.
Speaker 1: I don't remember it being they need to go out
and do this. For the Pacers, it has so long
been they need to go out and do these two things.
They got Siakam, which checked one of the boxes, and
they have just punted on the wing aspect of it all,
and I think that makes it ultra frustrating as a
fan of the Pacers or just someone who wants to
see teams. Progress doesn't always have to be linear, but
you want progression. And so I do not think they're
going to be better this year. I am officially out
on the twenty twenty four five and you hada.
Speaker 2: Pacers, So I get it. It's just like it's looked
so bad. I think the only reservation I have is
that it's they've fallen so far and in ways that
you would not have anticipated, Like just it's it should
be possible still for this team to be really good
offensively and the like. I think it's just the sheer
number of factors can like, so Halligerton has just been worse.
Like I I wonder sometimes about like do defenses have
defense has just got the book now where it's like
we pressure so Indy takes forever to get into stuff
and Haliburton's worn down, or we get it out of
his hands and we dare somebody else to make plays
and then like compounded with maybe Haliburton's not healthy, compounded
with the like the Matherin Haliburton mix does not work.
Kayln Cooper was talking about. She was as diplomatic as
could be, but basically with citing how you know Matherin
just isn't wired as someone that when the ball has
gotten out of Haliburton's hands, that Matherin has it and
like the decision tree like takes form before him and
he like goes down it quickly. It's just he doesn't
process quickly. He's not built to be a pastor on
the move. He has one of the lowest assistant usage
rates at his position in the league. It's like third percentile.
And so if he's not gonna give you elite defense
on either backcourt spot, and he's not going to facilitate,
and he's just still is not someone that loves the
catch and shoot. He's not wired that way. This is
all recycled ship from last year. And I'll grant you
he's made improvements in some areas, I just don't think
that fit works. And so like the path to getting
better is probably trading him and probably trading Jarris Walker,
and you know, seeing if you can get someone that
fills the big wing need that you've talked about or
you know, the Miles Turner role. There's like there seem
to be ways to do it, But do you think
Indy is willing to do that? Like if if this
is as bad off as it seems like, are you
gonna trade your two most recent lottery picks? Like I
don't know.
Speaker 1: And I think also the problem there is who is
the because I don't think either one of those guys
and the Jars Walker stuff might be more on Indy
than Jarreson Walker is not panning out. Neither of those
players are viewed around the league as like even close
to a blue chip prospect, right.
Speaker 2: We don't the guy teams aren't calling saying what'll it
take for those?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so if you're if the best, if the
best player you could get, And we had this conversation.
Our discord was like Cam Johnson or Dorian Finney Smith
with one of those guys as the anchor, and there's
other salary involved, that's like kind of unspectacular. I would
argue the values probably spot on for what we've seen
from these players of what they can know to be.
But as a franchise to say we're gonna trade Jars
Walker to get Dorian Finney Smith or even Cam Johnson,
and you could even well, we're getting off Obi top
and in the process, fans don't want to hear that,
and they shouldn't want to hear that because you didn't
have to give Obi Topp.
Speaker 2: And that ridiculous deal.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, and by the way, we're gonna move on.
We boil it down to this. You don't get the
benefit of the doubt when you're an offense first team
that ranks nineteenth in points scool for possession the quarter
of the way through the season.
Speaker 2: There's no path to the defense being good, like the
barring total wholesale roster turnover grant.
Speaker 1: We're up to the Los Angeles Lakers. Will they be
better or worse for the rest of this season? Say it?
Speaker 2: I think worse. I think worse. I think the thing
we fixated on, or I did before the season, was
how many games Davis and Lebron played last year, and
that that wasn't gonna happen. They've been other than this
like sabbatical that Lebron has taken for a couple of games,
They've been healthy and and Davis has been if you
just don't ever watch him play transition defense really good.
Uh So, I I just I think those two are
gonna miss time. And as much as the negative on
off splits for Lebron or out there, and as much
criticism as Davis has taken for being so bad or
disinterested in transition on defense, like, it's still better if
they're available for the Lakers, And I just don't think
history says they're good. Well, you hear some people tell it.
It's like, oh, Lebron's a negative, like whatever, Like It's
just remember when Kawhi Leonard had a negative on off
with the Spurs a few years ago. It's like he
turned out okay after that. Uh, not health wise, but
in terms of like production wise. Like so, if you
if you don't think they're good, those two guys are
gonna be on the floor as much as they have been,
you have to say they're gonna be worse. The only
way you say things will get better is if they
do swing a massive trade.
Speaker 1: And I just.
Speaker 2: Think I just think that's that shouldn't be the path
they go down.
Speaker 1: They I feel like they have a button they haven't
pressed yet. Would Ronnie just dropped thirty points to ju
week thirty?
Speaker 2: Oh boy, yeah, the togs passed.
Speaker 1: It might be here. I sorry, you could go back
to your point because I think.
Speaker 2: You're about to make what I mean, do you do
you disagree? Do you think they'll be better or worse?
Speaker 1: The only I was your point about them. The only
way they're gonna get better is if they make trades.
I'm asking this question. It's it's an absurd question. Is
there a more cowardly front office in the NBA than
the Lakers when it comes to making trades.
Speaker 2: Uh, they traded a lot of good things for Russell
Westbrook one time, Dan, so that was pretty brave.
Speaker 1: It's like Chicago with the bad taste in their mouth
from the Woo's trades. And we're not gonna make any
big trades.
Speaker 2: Right, Okay, we're not good at this. We're just not
gonna do it. I was thinking the other day, can't
you view their what has it been? I mean, the
Westbrook trade is the last big trade they made, right,
Like there's there hasn't been anything really hatcha Mura, I
guess would be one. Uh, but I kind of am
starting to wonder if you can view their like I
don't know, judicious approach to adding big names, as like
we can't build a team around a forty year old,
like that's insane. We like, we can't keep trying to
win now because Lebron is still in his prime, Like
that's was there foresight, maybe if we're being charitable to
the front office to say, like Lebron can't be the guy,
Anthony Davis maybe can't be the guy. Why are we
gonna go trade the picks we have now when we
know we're on the precipice of like the post Lebron
era when we're gonna need those.
Speaker 1: I actually think that's a very cold rational way of
looking at things, which I think is the front office's job. Yeah,
why is Anthony Davis still on this team?
Speaker 2: Then?
Speaker 1: Because you're not?
Speaker 2: That would be the coldest, most rational way to look
at it is we got to trade our number one asset.
Speaker 1: Now, what are you preserving your assets for? Then? Because
you're you're also a Lakers team that is never like, Okay,
you haven't rebuilt through the draft in how many years?
Speaker 2: You tried for a minute there, and then you trade
it all for Anthony Davis basically.
Speaker 1: Which is just I mean, you want a title. You know,
I don't care that it was in the bubble. You
want a championship. You have to apologize for absolutely nothing
everything else thereafter. I just pick a direction then that
would make them, you know what, make them better. They
could lose every single game for the rest of this
season if it's because that they committed to a longer
term view. And I get that. If Lebron doesn't want
to leave and you're trying to sell tickets, why would
you I'm not saying get rid of him, but why
would Anthony Davis, What is the messaging you've been sending
to him? By the way, who shares an agent with
Lebron So are you all just in Anthony Davis is
okay putting up numbers for a team that's sub media.
I just find that aspect of it tough to believe.
I honestly do think that there's a really big disconnect
between what the Lakers think they are internally and what
they actually are. Isn't there isn't always a disconnect, but
they've refused to upgrade the roster for like the closest
they've come is the addition by subtraction with the Russell
Westbrook trade.
Speaker 2: Sure do you do you think? This is what is?
Made me think back to like when JJ Reddick was
doing press after he got hired. He kept referring to
this as a program. Remember that, Like, I know, I'm
probably reading too much into it, but it's like that
really felt like in hindsight and maybe in the moment
to some extent, a guy that knew he was signing
on for like this isn't just like we're chasing a
title now, And maybe he even said that and talking
about sustainability and like putting the right processes and structures
in place and all this development stuff like it. It
feels clear and clear that maybe he came into this
with eyes open as far as like what and what
the reality is of having your best two players be
on the I mean, Davis is I don't know, like
to quit Davis.
Speaker 1: He would still get a boatload for Davis if you
put him on the trade.
Speaker 2: Block, you'd get a ton Yeah, yeah, for sure.
Speaker 1: Do you think that they were also kind of because
you and I I don't know if we were joking,
but we had this discussion because I remember talking to
you about it. Were they also telegraphing they went after
Dan Hurley, which that was a move that he would
have made, and they went after him after him. That's
not a move that you would think of a champ,
like a team that has I'm not even saying championship aspirations,
but top six in the West.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And then remember the framing of they're excited about how
JJ Reddick can help develop Ronnie and Max Christy and
thirty two year old Austin Reeves or however old years
or whatever. I love that.
Speaker 2: I love this theory of the Lakers now that like
they never were gonna like, quote unquote go for it,
even though you have one of the best players of
all time, maybe the best player of all time, playing
somewhere close to all NBA level, like but not. And
then Anthony Davis, who is an All NBA player, Like,
did they come into this season knowing or maybe just
going like, we'll see what it is, but if it's
not great, we're not gonna just you know, burn the
house down to try to get the you know, six
seed or whatever, like, and they.
Speaker 1: Don't, And I'm selling why wouldn't you trade? I still
would trade Anthony Davis because I think you're at a
point in his career where his value could decline from here.
And I'd argue, now it's high, but you don't have
your own first round pick this year, so there's not
necessarily value in like we're rebuilding, So I understand that
point of it, but I also don't.
Speaker 2: I think it's a circle all the way back, like
if you're not buying into our whole, like the Lakers
actually are playing the long game and all that stuff,
like the two best players are just not going to
be as available as they have been, and and that's
just they're gonna be work.
Speaker 1: Or they're not going to make even if they think
that they're going to be better. I think we've seen
that this front office is not going to make a
big mid season move to do that. Yeah, our next team.
I wanted to ask this the Oklahoma City Thunder. I
gave them an a minus. By the way, in report
card grades, Thunder fans were livid. I just have concerns
about the offense. It feels sticky at points. I think
I think they're gonna win the West, do I ever?
I get accused of being a Thunder homer and I
didn't give them an a plus and excuse of being
an asshole.
Speaker 2: I love this.
Speaker 1: I love this business. It's so great. Here's my here's
my I don't want to spend a lot of time
on this. You haven't had chet Holgren and I say
a heart instead available in the same game. Is there
a chance that this team is just going to be
better this season from here on out? And the answer
is yes, yeah, right, yes, that's it. There's unless you
don't think he's not gonna come back.
Speaker 2: I don't like what even if he doesn't, you still
have Hartenstein. You didn't have either of them.
Speaker 1: For I think it becomes one. If I tell you
Chet Holger is not gonna play for the rest of
the year. We could have a conversation about will okay
See continue to win at a sixty five victory pace.
That would be now just like they're gonna be. We
haven't even seen peak OKAYC yet, is my point. I
think that's right our next team. I think this is
gonna be more of a real discussion the Suns. They
can't win without Kevin Durant, mister Hughes, which, by the way,
before you said this, you said granted you, and it
kind of sounded like Grant Hughes And I never thought
like if you ever use the phrasing granted you. Now
it's like you're just saying the co like the one
of the co hosts of the most popular NBA podcast
in the business name that's really cool.
Speaker 2: I just like to get my name out there. That's all.
Speaker 1: Where are you at? So the Suns? I don't know
what to make in the Suns. I think we can
point to weaknesses of their too tiny. I just look
at them and I say, I think Devin Booker will
play better and like and he's still been like when
you look at the numbers and something like, he's still
been good, but he hasn't been Devin Booker. I just
their level of dependence on an age thirty five year
old Kevin Durant at both ends of the floor disturbs me.
Is that too strong a word?
Speaker 2: No, I mean it's it. So they're roughly five hundred team,
except what is it nine and one with Durant or
something and nine without him or something like that. I
think they're like, oh and twenty completely reverse splits. I mean,
so if isn't it just I mean, this is almost
like an embiid thing, but more so like, if Durant
can get healthy and stay healthy, then I you they'll
be better. And if he can't, or if it's this
you know what, two weeks on, three weeks off thing
or whatever for the rest of the season, then this
is just what they are. I guess you probably got
to say they'll be better, because I agree Booker should
be better. I think they they're probably gonna trade that
twenty thirty one pick for something right like they're I.
Speaker 1: Do agree that they're the team most likely to trade
a pick twenty thirty or later. Do you actually think
they're gonna move it.
Speaker 2: What about what about their recent history suggests that they're
precious with their draft assets?
Speaker 1: Well, because they kept this one past the off season.
Speaker 2: Okay, fair, fair point. I think No. I think they
are very likely to just make more window moves because
that's all they've done. And at this point, like you
can't even view them in like an objective or like
rational sense. It's just like, you've come this far, you
can't like now isn't the time to start like looking
at the future. It just like you just got to
keep going, like dig the hole deeper. I guess is
what you should do.
Speaker 1: I think one of a few of the reasons, they'll
be better and it might all be low hanging fruit.
And Kevin Durrant will just be more available. I know
he's had a bunch of and I incorrectly said this.
I don't know that he's he's never dealt with chronic
injuries and he's never really been like super injury prone.
He's just dealt with stuff, and he had those two
major ones back to back, so he'll probably be more available.
The other thing is I think Devin Booker will play better,
Like if we're having this conversation a month from now,
I think we've seen a completely different version of Devin Booker.
The lowest hanging fruit might be who was the worst
center you could insert on this team, and you would
think that they It would just change the complexion of
the Suns almost entirely. Like if you put a healthy
Nick Richards in Phoenix. I think we're talking about a
defense that's not twenty fifth in points a loud per
possession in the half court.
Speaker 2: I think that's possible. I think if you just play
a Gadaro more or like, I don't know.
Speaker 1: They're done in the igodar o it all. I just
this is old school of me, I guess. But they're
rookies on a team with contender aspirations, and it's can
you ever play them enough minutes and that'll boot as
depth sure as like a primary lineup crux. It almost
feels like they just need upgrade at center. And the
other thing I would say is it feels like they
need a two way wing who's taller than Royce O'Neill.
Is that the best way to frame I think that's
the best way to frame it.
Speaker 2: That seems fair. I think like if you zoom all
the way out, and you just look at what their
incentives are, because like sometimes if you say, well, they're
gonna be worse, then you're pricing in like maybe they'll tank,
or like maybe they'll uh, you know, trade veterans for
young players and picks like those aren't happening, so we
rule those out in the calculus, and then it's just like, well,
are they more likely to trade that distant first for something? Yeah?
I think so. So I think you have to say
they're going to be better independent of Durant and Bookers
the Booker arguments, which I think are also pretty compelling.
Speaker 1: Would you trade Grayson Allen and the twenty thirty one?
Actually I should confirm that I know what Grayson Allen
is making because the Sons are a second Apron team
and the player that I'm thinking, I think it would
still work.
Speaker 2: He's a fifty thou.
Speaker 1: So fifteen point six. So would you trade Grayson Allen
and a two thousand and thirty one first round pick
for Robert Williams the third and to get back to
Monty Kamara?
Speaker 2: Ooh yeah, I would. I think I would.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean not Portland would, because there's a purpose there.
But to MONI, Kamara is really fucking good, but that
twenty thirty one first Man in a Vacuum.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't but for the sons and just what they
seem to care about. Like I find the sons, I would, oh, no,
we can't. You know, we've lost another pick who cares.
Speaker 1: I would be trying to pawn off use of Nurkic
instead of Grayson Allen. But I don't think you're not
giving up that. I mean, you might get Robert Williams
back and then they'll insert salary filler, but I don't
think you're getting like Nurkic in twenty thirty one. That's
not enough for Kamara and Robert Williams the third if
you're Portland right.
Speaker 2: Probably not because really just because Kamara might be someone
that you think is going forward.
Speaker 1: And yes to anyone who's already commenting, we know Nurkic
was traded away from Portland very much aware.
Speaker 2: It's like we know Kamara was supposed to be a
son to be in with.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go with better as well, though I'm with
you on that one. The Sacramento Kings.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is a tough one, so they gotta
be better, right like they just I'm gonna take it
a step further.
Speaker 1: I think I've reached the point where I'm a bigger
believer in the Sacramento Kings than Sacramento Kings fans. Oh.
I just feel like they're right there and that you're
gonna get some more. I'll call it shooting progression from
Kevin Hurder already looks better. I think Keith and Murray
will get better. They're in a weird spot where they're
shot profile. They have the worst rim or three frequency
in the league, but they're only losing the three point
battle by nine points per one hundred possessions, so three
makes per one hundred. That's not right. But that's not
the end of the world, and it's does that gap
get bridged as Kevin Herder continues to play better, as
Keegan Murray plays better. I think if they just get
like a combo big or maybe someone that you could
play during minutes with your main players, and that opens
up the floor for Keegan Murray a little bit more
where it feels like he's had to work harder for
some of his shots. I think that would be the move.
But I look at them and you look at their
vitals too. Their defense statistically is just overachieved relative to
personnel they should. They have no business being a lead
average defensive team. No, and I view that as a
good harbinger for them. I think the Aaron Fox has
been mostly great. I think Demarta Rosen has been as advertised.
I think the same with Domot like Sabonis like, he's
not super like, he's not worse from last year. Certainly
when he was did he make an All NBA team?
He was in contention for an All NBA team. So
I think you get into some issues with the fact
that all four of their I guess you could say
most well, four of their five most important players are
probably Molie Monk d Aaron Fox to Marta Rosen and
to some bonus there's some counterintuitive fit going on there
in the sense of, well, how much defense are you're
getting out of that group? How often can you play
them together? I just look at this team. They're a
little top heavy right now, but I think they could
make They're among the teams that I think could make
a trade that's we look at it and say, oh,
that's a middle rung type trade, and yet the Kings
wind up being a lot better off because of it.
Speaker 2: I think that's exactly right. And to that point, like
the lineups that we thought they would use most have
all worked. And now like I think both of us
came in thinking Kean Ellis is gonna start and keep
it right and he and he hasn't and he hasn't
been what we thought. But the lineup with Fox, Ellis, DeRozan,
Murray Sabonis, which which I thought was gonna be, it
hasn't been. They're plus almost plus twenty five per hundred.
The two lineups that have played more than that are both,
So I'll just give them to you Fox Monk DeRozan,
Murray Sabonis plus nine point eight, Fox Herder DeRozan, Murray
Sabonis plus seven point two. Those are the three most
used lineups. You've got to go down eight nine lineups.
Their nine most used lineups are all positive. So this
just goes to shit when you don't have basically you know,
five of your six or seven best players on the floor.
So it is a bench issue that really that that's
the long and short of it. So if you can
make that middle wrung trade and get just another live
body that can help you're getting what you thought you
were gonna get from all your most important players, so
like and then that's to say nothing of like Keigan
Murray has gotta be better, Like he's just he's gonna
make shots at some point. And and like the you
can you can rejigger the math game so you're not
taking the most mid rangers in the league too, Like
there's so many ways for things to trend up. I
get that it feels bleak right now or like very
disappointing maybe, but like you almost have to you have
to try really hard to find a statistical argument for
why things will get worse, right, Like, I don't know
what that argument is.
Speaker 1: I honestly, I don't even know if they need like
the change they probably do to change the math of
their offense. Like one of their biggest things when you
watch them is because of how committed they are to
limiting attempts at the rim, because they don't have good
rim protectors on this team, it really impacts their closeouts
on three point shooters. And I know we're saying you
can't affect three point shooting that much, but like even
Kegan Murray, who I said at the beginning of the
season is probably the most underrated defender in basketball. I
still think the workload he has, he's fine there. His
clothes ats are like they're unpleasantly anarchic sometimes where he
has to shoot such large gaps because the Kings are
so committed to making sure that opponents aren't getting all
the way to the basket. So if you can get
I'm not saying we know sobonus is the five. I'm
not like you're trying to build your team that way.
Perfectly fine, Like if you just get a better reserve
big than Trey Lyles, or maybe even a better rim
protector who could play next to Sabonis, which I think
that's probably a little bit harder to find the ladder,
I would argue, mister.
Speaker 2: Robert Williams team, maybe that's just it.
Speaker 1: I've I've floated that. I think to Greg Whistlinger when
we were doing the look Ahead pod and he wasn't
into it, then maybe he's into it now and he's
not a good enough room protector. But like Larry Nis
Junior is a name I've mentioned over and over again,
just someone to Nick Richards, like we're gonna recycle. This
might just stabilize some of the minutes. There so a
change like that where it allows you to play or
defend differently during some of your minutes, or more like
there'd be more variants in the way that your coverage
on defense. I think that could be huge for them
because you mentioned it. It really the bench stuff, but
also just I can't get away from the numbers. Who
is on this team. Grant, they have no business being
thirteenth in points a loud per possession, do a great
job keeping opponents out of transition, even when they're missing jumpers.
They get iffy when they've like when they do actually
get to the basket and they miss shots or the
short mid rangers where they're deep into the other side
of the court, they're not getting back as well. But
I don't know. I'm not saying they're right there to
win a championship, but I think they're decidedly going to
be better.
Speaker 2: I think for sure. And I was gonna throw in
like I still as a playoff team, I think there's
just I don't think. I don't think this team has
a very high ceiling. Like I don't see a way
the Kings get into the you know, okay, see Dallas
Memphis minute. I think like Minnesota, I think I've way
more faith in in Golden State, like maybe even Phoenix.
But like they're gonna win. I mean, they got to
finish with a high forties win total. I just I
just think all the best lineups suggest that, like that's
the expectation. They just got to figure out like one
or two more guys that can play fifteen minutes without
killing you.
Speaker 1: I will say I'm less confident in them finishing top
six in the West that I am Denver.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I forgot to say Denver, Denver. I've yeah,
I would put Denver way ahead of them in terms
of like playoff equity.
Speaker 1: The spurs better or worse? And why is it better?
Speaker 2: Hmm. I that's an interesting one because I would you
say they've pretty they've exceeded expectations, right, Like, I mean
it depends because there was such a wide range of
it was all just like well, how good could Wimby be?
I think, like, I don't know, do we have all
the Steph castle stock? Can we get some more? I think,
like what if he just starts making He's been better
as a starter as offensively, like maybe he it's always
weird with rookies, it's like, are they gonna get that
much better over the course of the season. I'm just
teeing it up for you because it's like, who's gonna
come into this rotation that's gonna make a huge positive difference.
I can't think of anybody.
Speaker 1: What if he's already there, grant Devin Vassell, Like, he's
only played nine games, he's averaging under twenty five minutes
a game. He's hit forty two point three percent of
his sixty three point attempts per game. And by the way,
this does not impact Devi Vesselle at the moment because
he's not a starter. But San Antonio starting lineup is
destroying opponents right now. They're a plus eighteen point one
points per one hundred possessions. I do you assume, Like,
but that's just a it's a side question. But do
you think Devin Vesselle is gonna stay off the like
on the bench the entire season.
Speaker 2: Well, that's such a weird thing because it seems like
he's what you need in in this lineup right Like,
and for a minute there, vascell was like the prospect
on this team, Like he was the best guy. Now
you have the most hope of hitting an all star ceiling.
Speaker 1: I still think I love Steph Castle, but I still
have him as like the guy below Wemby for me.
But maybe they're thinking that he's not that guy. So
I I think. Look, they've been better on offense the
past month, their twelfth in points point scored per possession.
I do think their path to being better demseel is
gonna come in here, and I think that'll be a
larger infusion over time. I don't have confident that. I
don't have confidence they're gonna make some mind melting trade
to do something, but they could, Like they could just
make a small trade. It doesn't have to be a blockbuster.
That just improves the depth of their rotation and their
two way balance.
Speaker 2: Sorry, do you know how many lineups have played more
minutes than the starters for the Spurs that have a
higher net rating in the entire league? So or three
hundred and nine possessions for that spurt for Paul Castle, Champagne,
Barnes and Wemby, how.
Speaker 1: Many have played I'm just gonna say, I'm gonna say
one because I'm gonna assume it's the nick starters.
Speaker 2: It's one and it's Boston starters, so oh, pretty good,
Spurs like pretty good. So yeah, what does that look
like if you have Vasel in there? Or it's just
like Champagne's been good, actually really good. It's a good
Champagnee season right now if you have dev Vasel in
there playing more, I man, yeah, are they going to
be better? They're five hundred right now. I think they
might be.
Speaker 1: I could have got and say better.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I go better too. That lineup is
so good, Like it's the kind of the King's argument,
just get like one or two guys that can help
in your your set of Toronto.
Speaker 1: After mister Hughes, this was we're throwing this one in
as just sort of a ceremonial.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I had this case made for them before
Scottie Barnes got hurt that maybe you could some of
it still applies, but I just it was really built
on like Kelly Linok had just come back when I
started thinking about this, and quickly I can't remember how
far off he is with the elbow, but like Kelly
Linox shot almost thirty nine percent from three last year.
Quickly was just under forty percent last year, and I
was thinking about just introducing two shooters like that quickly
is gonna be on the ball some or a lot
more Barns out. Yeah, But the theory of Okay, you've
got two shooters the defenses really care about, and you've
got like just this glut of facilitating players that aren't
point guards like Barrett, and you've got Grady Dick can
do stuff with the ball. And then Scottie Barnes before
he got hurt and set to miss a bunch of
time with the ankle. So the theory was gonna be
just like, you have all these guys that are elite
at their position in assist percentage, and you're gonna add
two shooters to that group that hopefully will stay healthy.
So this team that averages the fifth most potential assists
in the league, when I put these numbers together, like
they're just gonna make more of those, like the shots
are being created like in large quantities, they'll just make more.
They were twenty third and three point accuracy just before
Barnes got hurt. So my thinking was the offense has
like a ton of upside just because you add shooting
to facilitation and there you go. I don't know how
I feel about it. Without Barnes, I think, like, now
you're you're really down your main playmaking guy. But there's
some argument the offense could be at least as good,
but better is harder to get behind now that you've
lost your best player.
Speaker 1: I think you have to go worse because of the
barn stuff. And then also they're gonna then reach a
point where the lineups are gonna get weird, yes, the
rest of the season. I guess you could say that, well,
they're bad enough right now to where if the season
had ended today, they're still looking at top four lottery odds.
But there's gonna be other teams that are tanking their
hearts out at some point and you're gonna have to
keep pace with them. So that's why I have I mean,
but also just you look at their win total right now,
they could theoretically just win more than twenty seven percent
of their games, right Yeah, But.
Speaker 2: Like I mean, they they they're still gonna be kind
of fun even without Barns. Like we've they're they're the
most fun bad team in the league right now.
Speaker 1: I think that's the take, one of the takes we've
had this season that have aged the best is we
recorded that segment on the Toronto Raptors are the perfect
kind of bad. Yeah, and it still just rings true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's what a bummer about Barnes, Like, I mean, yeah,
the steering into the skid argument is like even if
you think, oh, they'll be about the same, Like the
innocentives are what they are for this team, So I
think I gotta go worse with you.
Speaker 1: That does it. We went through fourteen teams used and
our lightning round was not through to form, not very
lightning me. Is that a word? Are you ready to
take us out of here?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Sorry to end on a down note with the Raptors,
but we did call them fun, so you know, even
if they're not going to win more games as tag analysis,
it'll be exciting. Thanks everybody for watching, for listening. If
you have not already, do all the usuals, rate review, subscribe,
follow us on all your socials, Make sure that you're
commenting on the YouTube videos. Let us know if you
disagree agree with anything we said on the better or
worse side of things. We forgot a team that is
like has a massive upside that we did not be
a credit to. Let us know that as well. Tell
your friends about the podcast, Tell your enemies about the podcast.
Join our discord pleaks for and YouTube and podcast description.
I think it's going to cover it as always. Shouts
to Frank Lookine, apologies. Jared Allen m HM