Speaker 1: What is up bella siccos I am Dan Felly coming
at you with a super brief intro before we get into.
Speaker 2: A mega podcast.
Speaker 1: Mike Brown, the head coach of the Sacramento Kings, was
fired about ninety minutes after Grant and I finished recording
this two hour plus spot on should these NBA players
be traded? Focusing on guys where the conversation is a
little bit more uncomfortable and maybe they're not involved in
the rumor mail. We talk about the Sacramento Kings and
other players for I think like ten to fifteen minutes.
The Mike Brown firing changes absolutely nothing about what we said,
but anything it might make it even more germane. But
wanted to give you a heads up for that. And
now it's just on the onus of This was the
easy switch for the Kings to make. I don't think
Mike Brown has been optimizing their roster, but I also
think that what's going on with them also really is
a personnel issue, at least to some large extent. We'll
have further thoughts on that in a few days, but
just wanted to give you that little note before we
get started. I now leave you with two plus hours
of should these NBA players be traded at the twenty
twenty five deadline chit chat with the one and only
mister Grant Hughes. What is up, fella, sickos. I'm Dan
fa Valley coming at you as always with my certified
fantabulous co host, mister Grant Hughes. We're having I guess, difficult,
awkward conversations related to the NBA trade deadline. This podcast
where go check out our trade deadline big board where
we kind of ranked our most valuable players who were
most likely to get traded or embroiled in the rumor
mill and now with one exception, because the rumor mill
has gone hey wire since we recorded that. We're asking,
just asking. We're not said we might endorse some of them,
but we're asking, why aren't these guys more widely available
or being talked about? And should they be available? That
is going to be the structure of this episode. First
and foremost, though, the question everyone wants answered, mister Grant Hughes,
how the heck are you doing?
Speaker 2: I'm doing well, I'm happy to be here. How are
you doing this far? Post CRISP, couple days post Christmas morning.
Speaker 1: After Sacramento Kings tell you that much.
Speaker 2: You see. I mean, we're not gonna start there, are we,
because there's so much to talk about, and we haven't
really well you've talked about them, but I haven't really
talked much about them.
Speaker 1: No, we'll get to we will get to the Kings,
but this is gonna be done. We're gonna we're gonna
flirt with some alphabetical order this time, so the Sacramento
Kings related stuff will come up closer to the end just.
Speaker 2: Before we jump in, Like, what percentage of the names
we're gonna mention that almost across the board have not
been discussed in trades by the deadline, will we see
credible to semi credible rumors involving them, Because I think
it's a high percentage.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think if we filter out, so let's just
remove the Kings from the equation, I think probably like
thirty percent of these guys they'll be rumors about. And
as of right now, the way we approach this was
just some of these names have been mentioned to where
it's I mean, we're gonna begin with the Hawks, where it's, oh,
every was talked about DeAndre Hunter. But this isn't like
years past where it's, oh, the Hawks might be No,
we've heard about Clint Capella, Like we haven't actually heard
anything about, Oh, the Hawks are looking to move DeAndre Hunter.
Maybe we won't, but that's a good question. But I
would think like a third of these guys will end
up incredible rumors.
Speaker 2: And I think like cynically, we can't talk about the
same three or four guys for another month plus like
they were just the rumor mill is gonna need to
be populated by speculative like other additions that are seems
speculative now, but like we can't keep talking about Jimmy
Butler and Zach Lavine and just like this city, you know,
brandon Ingram this same like tiny group that we've been
talking about for six months probably like that. It's that's
the other thing is the group of guys that are
real trade candidates that you know, high high end. It's
like it feels smaller than it's been in a long time,
what you know, like it just felt like there used
to be more.
Speaker 1: Doesn't it feel a little bit wider than it did
last year though, because where it was just siakam Adanobi
and that was it, because the hard and was traded
so early. I don't remember there being any What was
the high name, high end name speculation last year?
Speaker 2: I don't remember last week, Dan, So I don't know.
I really can't remember who was who was a serious
trade candidate last year. Good good point, though, I guess.
I guess if I can't remember, then it must not
have been that size.
Speaker 1: So we're giving content to the people who are now
and I don't actually a lot of people troll. These
people actually feel bad, but the people who aggregate speculation
as rumor. So listen to Hardward Not's podcast. We're giving
you free content that every time I write anything resembling
maybe a fake trade at bleacher Report, but just about like, oh,
should this team move this player? It's NBA rumors, Yeah,
Charlotte Hornet should consider trading Brandon Miller or something. It's
like I didn't actually write about Brandon Miller.
Speaker 2: But well even they'll be even like a step farther,
be like it room in NBA rumors, Insider predicts Zach
or you know so and so team player X the
team why And it's like I was just making them
a fake trade, Like there's no reporting on this at all.
Speaker 1: There's also it seems like at not ESPN or Bleacher Report,
and like not even CBS boor to the Ringer, But
like some of these whatever tier side you put them into,
this might show that the NBA is in trouble when
it comes to not marketing players properly. Is that how
many times are you gonna just come up with fake
Lebron James or Steph Curry trades, because like those are
the names that draw attention where it's, oh, these guys
NBA insider predicts this or this should be, here's this,
here's how the Boston Celtics can acquire Lebron James, like
kind of the thumbnail version of just like like the
colickbait stuff. And it's so we're still just focusing on
these guys who are in their late thirties because Anthony
Edwards isn't good enough to be the face of the
League's what's going on with American basketball?
Speaker 2: Grant, Big trouble, Big trouble.
Speaker 1: We begin with the Atlanta Hawk's first name on here, Grant,
Why isn't Trey Young a trade candidate all of a
sudden after he was in the speculative fashion last year?
That was a name where it was, Oh, the Hawks
should shop Ray Young? What is? What is? Because that
conversation was happening when they already gave away their first
round picks. So what has changed that Young's name isn't
being bandied about? And do you think that his name
should be being bandied about?
Speaker 2: That's a great way, great place to start. And I definitely,
much more than you in the past, have been of
the mind that, like you just you can't it's not
gonna work. You can't build a real winner around him
because the leadership, because of no defense, because of the
style of play, and it is like I haven't really
thought of him at all as a trade candidate this season.
Plenty of other Hawks have and we'll discuss them. Is
it because I don't know, answer your question with a
question or just with some some spitball in theories like
is it because he just, you know, because of the
pick situation, which means like it's san Antonio or the
trade doesn't make sense, so it's just like, well, it's
not gonna be san Antonio apparently, so we're not gonna
see it. Or is it because the Hawks are like
kind of fun and have an a young core that
also includes a number one overall pick that like, it's
probably not their fourth most exciting prospect, maybe third. I
guess he's probably their third most exciting prospect. Is it
just like it doesn't seem as bleak in Atlanta as
it did, or it seems renewed or fresher because of
those young guys, So we're not scrambling for a reset.
I think all that's kind of in play. But that's
a great point. He has not been discussed almost at
all in this trade cycle.
Speaker 1: Do you think he should be.
Speaker 2: I'm less convinced than I used to be because I
kind of like the shape of the younger group around him,
with with Daniels, with Jalen Johnson. They're obviously committed to
Johnson on a new deal. Resa Chet will be what
he is and probably won't be a helpful player for
at least another couple of years. But you know, Capella
is gonna come off the books suddenly, like there's I
don't know. I think maybe it's just I like the
roster around him more and it doesn't feel like it
needs to be Trey and some like stock supporting pieces.
Maybe I don't know. I think that's probably part of it.
Do you do you feel like he's not out there
and that he should be, or because you were never
I don't.
Speaker 1: Think he I thought they should have kept him because
I just said, well, my whole I still believe this.
Maybe it's changed because you've seen in Atlanta like build
about a league average defense, and maybe if you know,
depending on what split you use, might be a little
bit better than Lee g average for stretches at a time.
Maybe that's gonna make some people feel better about giving
up more for him. But you've already traded away control
over this year's first round pick, a swap next year
and then in twenty twenty seven. I don't think you're
gonna Now if the Spurs were want to give you
back your own picks, that's the conversation to have. But
we know that's not going to happen, and so I'm
more I definitely think the roster's more intriguing because look,
Jalen Johnson improved again, and then you have Resa say
you have Dice and Daniels. I think I'm just more
open to like, all right, the Hawks feel not necessarily
more financially flexible, but functionally flexible because of Daniels and
Reese's stay specifically, and by getting rid of de Jonte
Murray like that did rebalance some of the stuff. I will, however, say,
I would like, are should they be just content to
be where they are then? Though, because if you're gonna
look at it and say, well, we shouldn't be sellers
because we owe our picks, then shouldn't you be buyers?
I'm not saying go out and trade for Jimmy Butler,
although they were a team that I thought be an
interesting Butler destination depending on the cost. I just like,
what are you, like? Are you just content to stay
where you are then? And send away like the you
know what could end up being the number fifteen pick
or whatever it is.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a weird thing too, because if they were
to be sellers, you could sort of be half of
a seller or not at all, because you could trade
I mean, Capella's deals expiring, DeAndre Hunter, someone will probably
talk about Bogdanovic. All these all these guys should have
appeal to teams that would be maybe looking to give
you back draft equity, right or you know, because winners
would want any of those three guys to be not
maybe not starters, but like rotation pieces all. You could
imagine all three of Capella, Bogdanovic and Hunter starting on
a good team, Like that's that's not you know, out
of the realm of possibility. So like they could be sellers,
you but but they're, as we're looking at it today,
half a game out of sixth and that's trailing the
Heat and the Bucks and the Magic. You know, they're
within three games of all those teams. Like, so why
aren't they, like if they're buyers, what do they even
go by? Like what they're just in a weird middle spot, right.
Speaker 1: I think it ends with them just trading for a
backup point guard type player and then just kind of
rolling forward.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they might not have even have done that
or be positioned to do that if if Kobe Buffkin
had one been any good or stayed healthy like they
might they might just be a total stan pat team.
Speaker 1: Otherwise, well, that's not gonna be good for this teams
who want this next name that's on our board. But
DeAndre Hunter we're not that far removed from, at least anecdotally,
when I would write about I thought teams should take
a flyer on DeAndre Hunter last year's trade deadline when
it seemed like he was more available, everyone cited the contract,
and now he has two years and about forty eight
million dollars left. It just doesn't feel all that steep
because he's had one hell of a season. There's always
gonna be the injury risk there, but he's not a
name we've seen. We've seen trades proposed for Bogdanovic even
though he hasn't really been in the rumor mill. And
then we have reporting that backs up that they want
to move Clint Capella, which I just find You said
that he's not an expiring contract, but like for what,
so are you committed to now? Do you just think
you're not gonna be that much worse without him? Where
do you land on DeAndre Hunter? Should he be available?
Speaker 2: I think?
Speaker 1: And by this I don't mean no one's on, very
few players are untouchable, but should they actively be looking
to move on from DeAndre Hunter?
Speaker 2: So he's an example of like the argument you make
could cut either way, because my first thought is, yeah,
he should be available because this is the best he's
ever played, and you and if you don't believe that,
this is the new status quote for him, which is
averaging over twenty, making forty four percent of his threes,
just like playing like it just looks like a great
starting caliber forward, like or wing. We still can't hammer
out what the differences moving forwards and wings. And if
you if you're concerned about the injuries, which are like
a real thing, that's probably the biggest concern, I would say,
And that's probably why if you really believe in him,
you would probably cite he just hasn't been able to
get healthy stay healthy. He could have been this good
all along. So but if that's if this is how
good he is, then why are you trading this guy?
Because he's on a great contract. You know, it's I
don't know which way that cuts. I would I would
be inclined if Reesa Sha had looked a little better,
like if he had been performing at a level where
you could really say, like, by next year, we're okay
with him as like a plus starter or rotation piece,
which he just isn't right now, I think you'd be
more inclined to trade him. But because Reesa sche kind
of looks like a guy that would be taking tenth
or fifteenth in a normal draft, maybe you just need
hunter and he will be your starter by season's end
or or certainly next year. If risa sche just doesn't
look like a guy, I.
Speaker 1: Normally would say that he should be available. But I
still think that the contract because of his track record,
especially when it comes through availability, I don't know that
it mets you even like a good I could if
I'm running a team, I would give up a good
first for DeAndre Hunter and make that clearer. Yeah, I
don't think around the NBA he's viewed in that vein.
I normally would still say he should be available because
you have Resa Scha, you have Jalen Johnson, and you
have Dyson Daniels, and because of the makeup of your roster,
there's no pathway to really ever playing them together. And
by the way, those four they've played a whopping one
possession together this season. Grant, However, the Hawks have for
now are balancing it out with well, Hunter looks great
off the bench, and they'll close with him over Resa Shay,
and that's just how you balance it out. And maybe
if Resa sha gets so good, that's when it becomes
more of an issue. But that is then a great
problem to have either way, though it's not a problem
they have right now, and I can't. There'll be other
players that I will campaign should be available for, not
campaign specifically, but I will campaign for them to be available.
I just I'm gonna keep circling back to the Atlanta
Hawks draft obligations because you shouldn't be trading for other
teams as draft picks unless there can't miss I understand
you have to build yourself independent of let's call it
that mistake. However, I just don't see the value in well,
let's move DeAndre Hunter for a Memphis Grizzlies first round pick.
Let's say, right salary, Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean he could be how old is he He's
twenty seven, so I mean he could definitely he's in
the middle of his prime, maybe early early ish, Like,
he could definitely be a piece, a piece of this
core by the time like Johnson takes another step or
maybe Dan like, I think you probably hold onto him,
which is risky though, right for all the reasons we
mentioned you might we might look back at this and think,
remember when we were discussing Atlanta getting a first for
a Hunter or something, you know, he's missed time again
or whatever. I could definitely see the downside of holding
onto him.
Speaker 1: This next player surprises me. You want to take us
to him?
Speaker 2: This is Nick Claxton, just kind of like the for
gotten guy when we're discussing all the players the Nets
could and should trade. I guess that's part of that
is because he recently signed a new deal with him
and is on the younger side, and you know it
has been has kind of been around one of the
few guys that they're thinking of trading that has been
around like during the previous Nets era when they were
really trying to compete and like had some moments, but like,
I don't know that I view him as a is
he a top fifteen starting? Like he's not a core piece.
So I'm just surprised that he hasn't been part of
the broader trade discussion when we're throwing all these other
Nets out there, DFS and Cam Johnson and Shrewder has
already been traded all those guys. Do you agree with that? Like,
and if you do, do you have what is it?
Just because he's viewed as like some kind of separate
class of players from these other guys we talk about.
Speaker 1: I honestly, I would have said I would have argued
the counter at the beginning of the season and said,
I think he's their best trade asset if they were,
like more so than a Cam Johnson or Dennis Shrewder.
And I think this season and by the way, I
think they should absolutely trade him or that he should
be about no one on their roster is untouchable. But
I think you could if your answers no, they shouldn't
trade him, it'd because it feels like his value is dropped.
There was the injuries that he's dealt with this season,
and the other thing is I don't think they've been
creative enough with him on offense. I was expecting to
see his drives per thirty six minutes tick up. They
really haven't. And then also because they've played Ben Simmons
like exclusively, almost exclusively excuse me, as a center, that's
I think impacted his minutes because you're not going to
play him and Ben Simmons in the same front court.
That's just not going to fly. And that's also then
impacted his usage. He's also this might be more about
the shape and scope of their defense in personnel, like
he's contesting like a smaller share of opponent shots when
he's on the court, and so there's been a statistical
and functional and you can see a little bit when
you watch them, but I really do feel like I
don't know how much injuries impacted this. I just feel
like the scope of this roster has not been built
to like booie his trade value this season, and when
you combine that with okay, he's no longer as cheap
as he was last year. He's on this new deal
where he's making you know, twenty plus million per year,
that maybe that's just kind of put cold water on
his value. But like even when he signed that contract,
I think you and I probably say like, oh, that
just looks like a deal that's built to be traded
at this point.
Speaker 2: Right, anything in the twenties, it feels like is and
in this modern cab environment is like, yeah, you could definitely,
that's fine. Any you know, even like the Alex Caruso extension,
Michael a little long into his decline phase, but it's like, hey,
it's in the twenties. That's movable. That's not it's funny,
it's that that's the new cutoff. Yeah. I think it's
a combination of things. Like you mentioned, he just hasn't
been I don't know I feel like offensively he's so
limited and like still can't make a free throw that
it's like good teams are gonna think really hard about
we're gonna spend this much to get a guy that
probably can't be on the floor at the end of
close games, or it just has that complication thrown in there.
Has not developed any kind of shot. You know, is
a top ten dpo y guy just a couple of
years ago, So there's real utility with him.
Speaker 1: The switch ability is certainly still there, for sure.
Speaker 2: I think I think there's there's definitely a there are
use cases for him. I think I think really though,
is the combo of the contract and he's just not
in a spot where it's easy to see him being
his best self because of what's going on around him
in Brooklyn.
Speaker 1: And you're no longer you wouldn't move him as part
of taking I guess there's still teams that would prefer
his contract to what they're sending out. But because he
signed for three more years, it's not like, oh, we're
giving you this short term deal and taking back a lot,
Like you're not taking back a longer contract than Nicholas
Claxton trade. So it's not going to be a selling
point there. And if you're the Nets, okay, you should
be able to get a first round pick for him,
I would think, But that might be it's a first
round pick and then expiring salary. Whatever is it worth
moving him at that point? He should I still think
he should be more involved in I do wonder though,
how much the Pelican trajectory also impacted his trade value
where it was we kind of knew that Jared Allen
will be off limits at some point because we I
think we all thought the Cows are going to be
better than a lot of people. Not this good, but
better than most expected. And you kind of circled the
Nick Claxton as, oh, like New Orleans is going to
go and like actually trying to make a trade for
a five now they have no business doing that.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, And that's trying to think where else really
needed a center in New Orleans was obviously they still be.
Speaker 1: Really interesting in Charlotte, but again, like that's not a
team that's going to give you one of their first.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, they're too similar, They're kind of they're not
in Brooklyn's boat necessarily, but for a couple like they
have a cornerstone ish player that we'll probably talk about,
and they're not as pick poor. But yeah, like that
doesn't like why are you taking on? Like I think,
if if you're a team like Charlotte, you want a
player that's fairly close to Claxton that's making like seven
million dollars a year, you can't be paying into the
high twenties as that deal goes on if you're in
Charlotte's position.
Speaker 1: Julius random for Nick Claxton. What does Minnesota attach a
second there and get it done? No, maybe I would
do that. I aspiring money.
Speaker 2: If I'm Minnesota, I'm I'm jumping at that.
Speaker 1: Now they'll just have three centers again with Claxton, Reed
and Gobert.
Speaker 2: You know it works.
Speaker 1: Next up, we have LaMelo Ball, more of a spicier name.
We're I would say we're both LaMelo Ball fans. Maybe
I'm higher on him than you are. Do you find
it interesting that he's not even like kind of sorta
in the rumor mil given that Charlotte is once again
just kind of in the sub middle.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think. And he's one of those names that
I think, well, so if he doesn't, if he doesn't
really become more common in the rumor mill. It'll be
because Charlotte has to come out and say we're not
interested in trading women, like we're gonna get one of
those things. Maybe both start to hear whispers and or
Charlotte will say will leak not they're not trading him
because I think his name should be out there. So
I think if you had him on the market, his
market value, like the expected return, would just be higher
than you have than you could attach to any of
the other names that have been like commonly discussed. Because
he's younger, he's under contract for that's a big contract.
But if you believe that he can be the best
offensive player, the driver of an offense on like a
good team, which there's quite a bit of evidence to
suggest that's that's possible, then that's where you could talk
about multiple young assets matching salary three firsts, like you know,
two or two or three like good ones.
Speaker 1: At least probably you're getting a wrong person. I would
absolutely give up the equivalent of three first round pick.
Speaker 2: I think I think for the right team that like
his upside as as a guy that could do the
hardest thing there is to do, which is drive really
good offense by himself, like that's valuable. And from Charlotte's perspective,
I think you you might just think about, like, are
we sure we want to build around this guy? I
guess the argument you'd make for putting him on the
market is that as the singular cornerstone of a young team,
I don't know that you love it. But if you
insert him onto a slightly more established team, we'll just
say it like an Orlando where hit like his skills
fit and there's a preset culture already that he's not setting,
then I think, like, that's everybody wins there. I think
so that that, to me is the main reason why
I think he should.
Speaker 1: Be out there. I would agree, I think he should be.
I actually wonder if not that they missed their window,
but if tarn Fox is really available like that, because
I feel like they could have maybe defined the trade
window more if he was available. Because of the names
we mentioned or most commonly mentioned Zion Ingram, Jimmy Butler,
Zach Lavine, I think Lamello would pretty clearly get the
biggest offer of those, right, I think so, But now
you throw dearon Fox into the equation. I know that
his contract is shorter. But I do think as of
right now, it's pretty clear that Daron Fox is the
more valuable player. Does that well, okay, well, if we're
gonna give up this much for LaMelo, would it make
for us? Would it make more sense to give up
a little bit more just as much for Dearon Fox.
And the other thing too, is he's not hurting their
like theyre's still there's as we record this that they're
like eighteen or sixteen games under five hundred, so they
can be bad with him. He's missed some time, of course,
and that's the other thing that factors into his trade value.
I do think you're approaching an interesting stage as Charlotte
where it's, okay, it might be cool to now say
we have Brandon Miller LaMelo and we're gonna get another
really good draft pick here. But I think this is
the last season that you could say that, because then
we're getting into all right, he's entering the second year
of his MAX deal, Like you need to start acting
like a franchise that either wants to accelerate your position.
And by the way, like we don't know long term
what t Jon Salon is gonna turn into but like
he hasn't jumped off the page this year of anything
I've seen.
Speaker 2: With him, it's so far down the road like he
might you might not have that idea of what that's
gonna look like until LaMelo is in like the last
of his current rookie Max, Like it's just it's gonna
take forever, and.
Speaker 1: Then Mark Williams will look good. But there's always we're
waiting for the other shoe to drop with him, just
like on's he going to be injured again? So I
would make him available. I'm not saying they have to
move in, but he's absolutely I think a name as
Charlotte that right, I'm shopping. It's not that I don't
think if it's a Brandon Miller. I'm just starting to wonder,
like what is the endgame here, right Charlotte.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's a little bit like some of my
logic for when I would talk about the Hawks trading
Tray Young would apply minus the like he's taking them
to a conference an asterisk conference conference finals, but like
it it's a little bit of like what are we
really doing with this guy as the centerpiece? And and
we're not there yet with Omelo. To be clear, I
don't think you're saying that either, but it's like it's
not that far off actually where you just have to
start asking that question.
Speaker 1: And he also feels like the what like the widest
scope of potential destinations, because there might be teams that
are okay, they're not ready to contend, but they still want.
Like he's young, he's under a contrable, like we could
rattle off like a bunch of teams that I would
say should be Golden State, Houston should absolutely be in
on him, Orlando. You already mentioned one of them, Like
the list would just go on. And so do you
think we'll hear his name mentioned incredible rumors by by
the deadline?
Speaker 2: No, I think I'm gonna couch it and say, like
I said, I think we'll it's possible we'll hear it whispered,
and then Charlotte will get out there that like we're
not we're not looking to trade him after probably listening
to offers.
Speaker 1: Who we got next, mister Hughes.
Speaker 2: This is Kobe White. He is does not fall into
the must trade category for the Bulls, which is populated
by Zach Lavine and Nick fuchovic I. Guess that's probably it.
They've got all types of they have every flavor of
this guy should be traded players. Kobe White is just
he's a good offensive player. I think he's probably not
your lead ball handler on a like as a starter
for like a really good high end team, but he
might be close to that, and if surrounded by better players,
maybe he does get there really good contract. The concerns,
as we've mentioned for Chicago many times, are you probably
can't extend him off of this number, so he's gonna
hit free agency, and if you want to mitigate some
of that risk, you should be thinking about moving him.
And then just as a broader, like we're tearing this
thing down to the studs kind of thing, I think he.
Speaker 1: Should absolutely be available because his trade value might have
peaked over the summer, it's certainly going to peak by
the true You're never going to get more for Kobe
White than you are right now. And I think you
could say that every day at.
Speaker 2: The every day gets less basically right.
Speaker 1: And the problem is for the Bulls specifically, is that
he's not extending off this cor Like if he signs
an extension off this contract, it's about what an eighteen
nineteen million dollars South, Like he's not signing for that,
he's too good for that. Now you could still pay him,
but you're not going to be good enough by the
time he interest Fry agency to feel comfortable or maybe
they view this as they are right now, is good
enough contending for a play and spot in the east.
That then is a whole separate problem we need to discuss.
He should be moved like it just doesn't make any
because he can't be and that's not an insult, but
because he's not going to be your directional force, like
what are you doing here? And as of right now,
they get more than the equivalent of two first round
picks for him, right, Oh man, well so you like
a third first, but it's you get two. You get
two firsts and it's not like, oh, you have to
take back this shitty ass deal.
Speaker 2: Right. But I think the thing is he comes with
the same like the concerns follow him where it's like
he's probably going to go to free agency with us
if we acquire him, because with the extension, the same
extension arguments supply, I think you could probably get a
first I don't know if I'm giving up two for
him because you're right that the contract is so like,
it's just such a such a bargain for how good
of a player he is. But are you giving up
to multiple first round assets if in the summer of
twenty six he just is bound to hit up restricted
free agency? Because you know what I mean? Like that
that concerns me.
Speaker 1: I would say yeah, Like so if you want to
say now, I think the third first or the additional
sweetener would be worth discussion. I'm giving up two first
for Kobe White, especially based off one you probably have
an idea of how much he will cost you or
whether he wants to be there for one, like you're
not training for him without having that knowledge. And then two,
what about the way free agency is unfolded the past
two or three years makes you think that any player
or a team actively wants as a flight risk that
you like that you already have is so, Yeah, there
might be more of a market because he's younger, but
the days of kind of like these teams carving out
Max money, there might always be one threat. But look
at what the Sixers did this past year, Like it
was a no brainer Max guy in Maybe some people
didn't consider him a no brainer. But it was, Oh
you knew Paul George was basically gonna get the max.
Kobe White is not that player.
Speaker 2: No, No, that's true, that's that's true. I just man,
I don't I don't know. I don't feel like I
know what It used to be so simple? What what
would what the cost of a like what it took
to get a first back. It used to be fairly clear,
like if they're a six man or better, or rotation
or better, you can get a first like the Boyam
Bogdanovich rule a few years ago. But now I don't know.
Speaker 1: I also think there's just enough team like if San
Antonio or Houston wanted him, like you could include two
first without really breaking any draft pick bank.
Speaker 2: That's true, and I think too, like kind of ironically,
if you're a team that feels like you need a
Zach Levine type but the price is putting you off,
Like there's Kobe White right there. He's gonna give you
a lot of similar stuff, like more on ball stuff probably,
but can shoot. It is just an offensive upgrade that
isn't gonna cost you forty plus million bucks. You know that?
Just that feels like He's just such a good alternative
to those higher priced guys.
Speaker 1: Do you know what also makes it tough because I
think there are teams that like, So let's use the
Clippers as an example. If they offered let's just say PJ.
Tucker or Terrence Man and their twenty thirty first round pick,
that twenty thirty first round pick. It's only one first
roun round pick, but look at how the Clippers are built. Yeah,
now that in a vacuum, that's super valuable. But now,
if you're ak in Chicago, you know you're not going
to be the person making that pick. And it also
doesn't convey for so long that even if you are short,
like even if this was Oklahoma City and Sam Presty
has the utmost job security, you're not getting anything me
especially if it's Tucker. If it's Man, you could say, well,
like he could play some defense and sometimes he's good
on offense. But that's what also complicates I think trade discussion,
that there might be some teams that are willing to
give what should be these blue chip future first rounders,
but they're so far into the future. How does the
team that's acquiring them actively view them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's always that's always a hang up right just
right down to like the first thing you mentioned of
the executive what do I care? Like this is how
does having at seven years down the road first round
er improve my job security?
Speaker 1: Like you very rarely see what the Spurs did with
Rob Dillingham. Where was That's the only thing they got
back was control over Minnesota's draft picks six years into
the future, basically, and that was a good trade for them. Yeah,
but it's it takes a level of foresight that not
certainly not the Bulls are to be committed to it.
Speaker 2: Well, and that one talking about Tim Connolly, that was
made by a guy that's basically got the clout to
be on like a one plus one in perpetuity with
the organization. That's he's he's got so much leverage.
Speaker 1: We're sticking with you for this next player.
Speaker 2: Grant oh Man, Why okay, this is Josh Giddy. Good
luck pegging this value because I don't have any idea
like he's worth Alex Caruso apparently, who got a four
for eighty one extension, but like he's got you've got
restricted free agency, which I guess if you're the Bulls,
you can just you know, play play that game of
chicken and decide what he's worth to you after the
market tells you. I just like, why aren't you looking
at what you could get for him and just avoid
having I think it's just the optics, right that that's
got to be the main reason. It's just like you
blew it by taking him back in the Cruso deal,
and now trading him right away is just like a
second failure, you know, in close proximity to the first.
Speaker 1: Because there's no team that's giving you a first round
pick for Josh Gidty, right, and so at that point
then you're I know, we've had a lot of people
on Twitter and YouTube saying just like no, that Josh
Getty trade was fine, Like you weren't gonna get first
Roulex Caruso. We know for a fact, like there was.
You want to debate whether it was ever two first
round picks available, I'll tell you for a fact there
was a first round pick at the time, and even
beforehand we knew there was more. And it's just even
with Caruso's age and you worry about his injuries and
his minutes cap, do you feel more comfortable. Let's say
they get the same deal, who do you want for
the next four years? Even looking at Josh getting like
who do you feel comfortable paying over that period of
time the same amount of money? And that's assuming he
takes four Forrady or whatever it ends up being well.
Speaker 2: Like I think if you I guess, I we didn't
like the return for Cruso. I do think at the
time there was a case to be made that, like
Giddy's really young, like he might improve, So it's like
this is better than like this guy was what was
he the sixth pick in his draft class and he
was young for the class, so it's like we're just
banking on the upside. That was fine to say then
based on how he's played this season and this is
it like sneakily this is his fourth year, Like that
didn't pan out. We're not seeing signs that he's gonna
be someone that's gonna be good enough off the ball
and that can defend. And just like the counting stats
are cool if you're in a roto league, I guess,
And that's kind of like I think, honestly, honestly, I
think that a lot like way too often skews our
evaluations of players is just like the fantasy stuff. There's
a whole class of fans that are like, Josh Gitty's
actually good because he's like eleven, six and six, that's
hard to find. I just I think if you can
get anything for him, I think you do it as
long as you're not taking you know, yeah, I just like,
I don't think there's a future for him on the Bulls.
But then what team is gonna Maybe it just takes
another team just zooming out and saying this is his
age twenty two season. He was picked high for a reason.
We've seen him be productive, Like maybe maybe he's a
third draft guy and not a second draft guy. Well,
well we'll give you something for him. You should at
least be looking if you're the Bulls.
Speaker 1: It's yeah, you should be looking at him. Being injured
right now certainly doesn't help things. But we know they're
not gonna look just because there you said you said
at the top, the it's the optics. I think for
this our next name on the board is well, two names.
Why aren't Jade and Ivy and Jalen Duran more involved
in trade rumors? I'm probably more curious for I know
that Piston's fans seems split on Jalen Duran a lot,
and their defense has been a lot better without him
on the court this year. But I'm more like interested
in the Ivy of it all to where even when
he's been and since he's come back from injury's he's
been okay, it just feels like the offense is better
when he's not like him playing next to Kate okay
is fine, but he's not going to be the guy
that then is able to lead the minutes independent of CAD.
And so I'm wondering. I think you could make a
case both ways where it's franchises hold on to players
for too long, like we should advocate for them trading
like guys when they're in year two rather than waiting
until year three or four after that. And just if
you don't think he's it, But then you mentioned the
word before optics of what if Jade and Ivy has
traded and he just pops. I had pushed back from
Pistons fans. I proposed it was THHJ. I don't know
what the other small contract and Jay and Ivy for
Zach Lavine, I absolutely do that trade. And I know
that for a fact that there's just a ton of
Pistons fans that won't And so these two names specifically,
but even the Jay and Ivy of it all, where
do you sort of land?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I so we we tabbed him. I think probably
I led this charge more so than you did about
as one of the more improved players this year. The
shooting has been very like, shooting has been good enough.
And if you came into the season with I mean
the over the biggest question is like what's the fit
with Kid? And but but like tied deeply, tied strongly
with that was can he can he make enough threes
to be off the ball? Because you'd rather have Kid
be on it. Now in a perfect world, what he
would develop into is an on ball like pick and
roll ball handler, driver of offense because I do think
Kate is overtasked as like a absolute one a guy.
But I think if you're the Pistons, the reason he's
not out there are the optics. And it's also just
like it's so scary to give up this early and
it's not giving up, but it's like you are put
to a decision on a guy that is you know
he's gonna be extension eligible. That's this is age twenty
two season. He's gonna get a lot better over the
next three to five years. Like by the time Jade
and Ivy's twenty eight, who knows what he's gonna be.
And I think the fear same with Duran. The fear
is just like, if we do this now, we're not
gonna get the guy's best years And what was the
point of drafting him if we don't keep him around
to get the best version of him. So I think
it's just that it's like a simple thing that affects
every team that has a young player they drafted high.
It's just like we were You're you're always gonna overrate
those guys. You're always gonna assume improvements there sometimes you're right,
and you just want to be the team to like
reap the benefit. I think, I don't know, it's just
that that's most of it with guys in this boat
where it's recent lottery picks have shown some talent just
aren't helpful on a winning team yet, but like could
get there, you know what I mean, Like, it's just
you don't want to cut bait before you have to.
I'm not saying they shouldn't trade him. I'm just saying,
like that to me, is the logic for why he's
not out there.
Speaker 1: They're just I don't know. I thought maybe that wouldn't
be in play as much because this front office didn't
draft him. Bro durrant I thought that could become a factor.
And look, they're in the sixty third percent tile of offense
when he plays with Kid, they're the twenty eighth percent
tile without Kid and he plays. I'm not saying the
Pistons that surrounded them with the best roster just yet,
but like J and Ivy is very rarely playing with
fewer than three shooters on the court. I just don't
think it's going to happen for him there. And I
would argue as Detroit, his value right now is higher
than it was this time last season, is it not?
Speaker 2: Yes? And I think that's a great point because if
you're the Pistons and you are sold now that like
we're never going to be trusting him to run the
offense like with or with or without Kaid and and
another team isn't sold yet because they haven't, you know,
been there with him every day for three plus years.
Like that's why you'd move him. And that's why you're
right that his values probably HighRes because maybe the entire
league is not convinced yet that he's got that limitation,
but the Pistons probably have enough information to know, like
what player type he's going to be, And I think
maybe another team might believe they can make him into
something something else if that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Where do you I would move him?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: Yeah, where do you land on? Duran?
Speaker 2: So Duran, I actually would be more inclined to trade
because I I think he's even to me, this is
always dumb with guys this young. But I feel like
I have a pretty good idea of like of his limitations,
which is to say, I don't think he's ever going
to space. I don't think he's ever gonna be a
consistently like high, high level defensive anchor at CENT. And
I think like the athleticism and like his just his
the guy looks like a player. Like the frame he's
so jacked, like he moves so far.
Speaker 1: Of the picture of him right now. Dude, just enormous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's he's huge, and he's like, yeah, he's gonna be,
you know, really physically overwhelming if he wants to be
I just I don't know that he's someone if you're
the Pistons, you're gonna want to pay that next contract
because I do think he's gonna be pretty limited and
might not be like a starting caliber center on a
good team. It's just like, we haven't seen anything that
says that that's like a definite thing.
Speaker 1: I guess my whole thing would be, like, I think
you could get a better return for Jade Nobby, which
is why you move him. What are you getting for
Jail and Dirt? I guess if there's a team that,
like if Minnesota was worried about nas Read leaving and
you're upgrading his spot. But it's not like the Pistons
have a ton of these five options outside of Isaiah Stewart.
And so if the alternative, like if you're just moving
him for I would I don't think you're getting a
first round pick in standalone value for Jail and Dirt?
Would you agree? I mean, like we're talking about someone's
gonna be extension eligible after this year.
Speaker 2: I do agree with that, and he maybe is the
opposite of Ivy where his value was probably higher at
this time last year or you know, the end of
the season, in a last season like what, I don't know.
If Charlot like Charlotte, it would be a second draft
team for sure. Like Charlotte is like we think he's
gonna just be perfect as a limited lob catcher, you know,
interior finisher, rebounder, like we're good with that. We were
good with like basically Mark Williams minus the elite shop blocking.
But he stays on the floor, Like that's that might
be some It'd have to be a young team that
was willing to, like, let's check him out for a
year and then see what restrictive free agency does.
Speaker 1: I would absolutely be open to moving him as part
of I guess, like a larger package if you're looking
to get player, like if it's Zach Levine and let's
say you're not giving him Jay and Ivy and it's well,
Jaron Duran's part of this package and maybe Jalen Smith
is coming back or something to make the big men
math work. I guess I just look at his market
and then also the personnel they have available, and I'm
just like, I'd probably rather keep him and you can
make that decision over the summer. Yeah, but he's been
like he's been the player that I want to be
the highest on over the past few years, or one
of them, and I just can't get them because we
have this like consistent amount of you know, watching game.
I mean I don't watch them, but like anything you
theoretically see from Jaalen Duran and then you look at
the numbers, just like I'm trying really hard to like
want to be in love with this guy, and I
an extended period of time, I just can't be.
Speaker 2: He's like, we need to come up with a label
for it. But he's like a if you catch him
in the right quarter, if you happen to see the
right quarter, you will leave convinced like, well, they got
to hang on to that guy, you know, like he
really can't have it in flashes. But you're right, the
numbers are what they are, and the overall, if you
watch the next quarter, that he might just look completely
like he looks lost and overwhelmed and just isn't isn't
helpful this one, George Grant, No, why is he not?
Was this one of the bombs you were referring to?
Speaker 1: I said there was a grenade or two. The one
was we started off with a grenade. He wasn't on
the list that we compiled together, but I knew that
you had talked about trading him in the past, so
that you wouldn't care. This one's just it's because it's
this is yours. But I want to know, is it's
like if we isn't just Steph Curry needs to ask
for a trade because if the Warriors aren't. I argued
that them acting early on Dennis Shuter was smart, but
he's come in and like they kind of it's been
the same thing of well he doesn't fit because like
they don't run the offense that would maximize the Dennis Shruter.
And so now I'm almost interpreting as they kind of
it's not so much that they acted early, but they
just reiterated that, no, we're not going to do anything
that's like really meaningful on the trademne.
Speaker 2: I mean, the you know, we're having a different conversation
if he's not shooting so poorly from three. I think
I don't know if that would be the right conversation,
but like if he just had some decent shooting, it
would feel different. Like I think with anything, what Shrewter's
addition and like lack of impact has illustrated is just
what we sort of knew, which is the only thing
that's really going to meaningfully change Golden State's ceiling is
the addition of a player who's like maybe not as
good as Steph, but like on some nights can be
you know, like that's that's the level of acquisition they
would need to make a difference. And then even then
you're not like filling all the holes. So why isn't
Steph Curry on the market like or discussed? It's yeah,
because you started out correctly. It's just it will take
him saying specifically you need to trade me for them
to trade him. Like, I just think it's it's a
Dirk Tim Duncan situation where the franchise, the franchise will
just like go down in flames with Steph if that,
like unless he says I want to leave, Like, there's
just no scenario where the front office decides this is
the thing to do proactively. I just can't imagine that scenario.
Can Can you imagine that? Like? I just don't think
that's possible.
Speaker 1: No, it's not possible. But if you're not committed to
maximizing the Steph window and you're worried about giving up
future picks and not being able and like giving up
on a Pods or a Kaminga before they pop. Wouldn't
the callous, like or rational decision to people, then we
should look at moving Steph because we're not trying to win.
But basketball is a business and there's the end. Look,
there's the emotional component, and if Steph doesn't want to leave,
I don't know how you trade him. And he's won
four titles, but it's just I don't know. I still
think the Warriors have more optionality than I thought they
would at the start of the season, even though we've
kind of seen them, you know, slow slow down is
probably the terrible way collapse. I just it bugs me.
And it's the same thing with Lebron and the Lakers,
and we might get to them. It's just well, if
you're not doing this, like, if you're not going for it,
then why are they here?
Speaker 2: Right? Well, I think with Lebron it's way easier to
justify trading him because he's not like he's changed teams
three times, like this is not he's not like a
lifetime Laker. It's you you know, he came.
Speaker 1: Is this the most years now that he's spent like
consecutively with the same team, or was his first stint
Cleveland longer, It's.
Speaker 2: Got to be the first stin in Cleveland was longer.
Speaker 1: I would think this is one, two, three, four, five, six,
seventh season in LA and he was in Cleveland for seven,
so it's tied. That's that is insane, insane.
Speaker 2: I cannot believe. Well, I mean I get it, like
it's just probably you know what the problem is, the
last seven years have gone a lot faster than any
previous set of years in my life. Uh, that's wild.
But like, come on, he's not. It's not the same
thing as as lot just you know, but that is wild.
He'll probably be with the Lakers for longer than I mean, like, well,
what's the total years in Cleveland, because he had what.
Speaker 1: Four eleven in Cleveland total, He's not gonna be if
he's with eleven with the Lakers. I'm I'll actually be
excited he played that long.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't that be increased? I mean, probably not gonna happen,
but yeah, he's there.
Speaker 1: Next season, though he will have been with the Lakers
consecutively more than any other team. That's wild.
Speaker 2: That feels wrong with Steph and the Warriors. Do you
think I think it was fair to say that, like
over the summer, maybe maybe it was fair to say,
depending on how legit any of the market and stuff was,
that they like weren't willing to to mortgage the future
entirely right, because they probably could have done something if
they'd wanted to, and they opted for like the middle path,
depth and whatever, good contracts all that stuff. I'm inclined
to believe that right now they are more willing, probably
partly because like the young guys that they wouldn't trade
away have just been bad. But I think it's a
it's like a scarcity issue. It's like we'll we'll, yeah,
we'll trade whatever to maximize the wind now window. But
like Jimmy Butler is like zach Lavine, like, I don't
think that the guys are out there, like if Yannis
were available, I think they put everything on the table.
Speaker 1: Or if like here's the problem is that the guys
that they want, then they're never gonna have the package
to get There's no scenario on which they have the
best offer for Rannis.
Speaker 2: Right, But I think they I think they've determined that
the pieces the guys that they could get right now
that they could have the best offer for like don't
get them where they need to be, and so like
they're not happy with this, like let's keep the assets,
keep the powder dry. But it's like, we can't spend
it all on someone that that then where does that
leave us? Like we're not gonna get where we want to,
and then we're screwed for the next five years.
Speaker 1: I guess I just don't have any empathy for that stance,
because it does feel like it feels like you could
wouldn't the middle ground be Okay, we can get zach
lavine then without giving up a pick or something, and
then then just do that. Yeah, And at least because
and maybe because you mentioned it, it seemed like over
the off season, even though they were linked to these guys,
you don't know how serious they the market and stuff
was a joke based off what they were offering. And
so I guess you could argue them that Steph signed
his extension and yes he still is eligible to be traded.
I wasn't talking to you with that, just I know,
you know, uh, like you could argue Steph has done
this eyes wide open, because I would just wonder like, well,
why I'm not faulting Steph for this? It's not a player,
like put more pressure on the front office, damn it,
but make them do something more than bring in Dennis Shrewder.
Speaker 2: I think he's there. I mean, they're lucky they have
him for a number of reasons. But I think almost
anyone else in his position over the last few years,
especially having won a championship like two years ago, would
be like what are we doing? Like we're lying?
Speaker 1: Why doing that? In Denver? He's not on this list.
Clearly we get yeah, it.
Speaker 2: Right, but like a lot you know what I mean,
Like that he could have exerted a lot of like
very uncomfortable pressure. And it seems to me like what
happens is they go to him and they say here's
our plan. Are you okay with this? And he'll say,
like I want to win, but I get it, but yeah,
like let's go with that, And they're probably telling him like,
like I'm sure they've asked him, what do you think
about Levine for this? What do you think about Butler
for this? And I would imagine that he hasn't said
like do it full stop, because if he had, like
I feel like now at this point they probably would
have done it, Like you can't this what's happened over
the last two three weeks with how the team is
played and how ineffective the pieces they've held on to,
the young pieces have been. It's like, okay, well this
this second timeline ain't working, Like it's time we need
to just we needed now is the time. Although I
think you were probably right to argue that time was
quite a while ago that they should have just gone for.
Speaker 1: It, this is still you and it's a more realistic
question I think in my opinion, this next player, Yeah,
if the Warriors, I'm gonna hijack it because it's the
Warriors and I want your opinion more than I want
to hear from me, Like if you're actively looking at
I guess buying or something. And also what happened to
him defensively? I had him third and defensive Player of
the Year voting a few weeks ago, and he's definitely
not cracking my top five at the moment. But is
that something that's not realistically on the table because you
risk Like how would stepf feel if you're giving up
Draymond Green to get I don't even know what the
like if you're getting darn Fox or you know, but like,
shouldn't Draymond Green be on the tape, like realistic on
the table in some capacity, whether it's as part of
a larger package buy or hey, can we get any
positive value for him? Now?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think he should be in a vacuum. But
like you, I think that's right, that it's it's it's
not something they're looking at through a totally rational lens,
Like sentiment is involved, like Curry's opinion obviously is involved,
I think. And then the other part, the other part
of it is like what where are you sending him
for value at this point? Like at what kind? I
think it's got to be a team that's trying to
win right now. But man, is he Like has there
ever been a more specific fit that we have less
information on how he would do? This is an old
argument with him, Like if you're trading for him, like
the the the breadth of teams that would go for
it and have confidence that he could fit is like
so narrow, right, because you just have no idea how
he's going to fit anywhere, because he's never been anywhere else,
He's never been with any other you know, know, any
other star player, So like that's a part of it too,
as much as anything else. Like I but you're right,
I think he is someone I had independently had this
thought earlier today when I was thinking of guys to
throw out there, like why if it were a normal situation,
he would absolutely they would have traded him a long
time ago because of all the all the in the nonsense.
But like, I think he would definitely be on the block.
I don't know that he'd have this contract, first of all,
if he were any place else. That's another it's another.
Speaker 1: Fact you think those contracts is bad.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's bad. I just think it's like
it's a number that's been So he's making twenty four
this year, goes up to almost twenty six next year,
and has a player option for all twenty seven to
seven in twenty twenty six, twenty twenty seven. So I
don't know, he probably will pick that up, I would imagine.
I don't know what he's going to be expecting to
get when he's in his age thirty seven summer. I
think it's it's it's not something you just take on
without like it's you could take that on and the
out years of that, that could be really awful because
he has slipped. I think to your point, like he's
just not he's.
Speaker 1: Still a good defender. He asked me, where has he
slipped or was I just was did you think I was?
And just didn't say anything in the moment that I
was off my rocker by putting him third. I think
you had him too high.
Speaker 2: But I also think like that was how long ago,
long enough ago, and the Warriors defense was good enough
at the time, and it's still pretty good. Like he's
still a good defender, he's I just don't think he's
I don't think he's one of the best defenders in
the league. I guess you could say he's one of
the best defenders in the league still like per minent,
but but like he's just he's not playing as much.
He has taken quite a bit more off the table offensively.
I think it does feel like the turnovers and the
mistakes and are there's more of them, and that's just age.
I think like he he just doesn't move the same
and okay, like nobody does this deep into a career.
So I think like if you're trading for him, you
you probably would need to believe that he he can
single handedly just win you games defensively, like in high
stakes games, and that's possible, like for a couple of
playoffs series maybe, but the fit is so difficult, like
you need stretcher all around him, you need to learn
how to play with him because he's such a unique
offensive player. Like it's just I think it's as much
as anything, the market is so weird for him that
that might be as big a reason as anything that
he's not out there.
Speaker 1: Would it be more appealing to you if it was
gonna save you, because I do think there would be.
I think he steals like first round pick value. I'm
not being like, oh, I'm not giving up a first
round pick for dream On. That contract is toxic if
you have the option of whether it's part of a
Jimmy Butler trade or for someone else, and you're able
to give up Draymond and then that's going to allow
you to keep whether it's a Pods or Akamingo or
some of your first round stash. Are you at the
point where you would view that scenario like remove sentiment
from it, even though that's tough to do. Is that
more appealing, then let's give up Andrew Wiggin and like
there's our primary salary angle.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, Wiggins is a tough one. If it was
if you could do it with Pods and Cominga, but
that's just what does that even get you to?
Speaker 1: Like they make like twelve million combined or something.
Speaker 2: Minga's making seven and a half, Pajemski's three and a half, right, yeah,
So it's just like you can't unless you're gonna make
it like a five player trade to rope in, we're
rating and Kyle Anderson.
Speaker 1: I've reached the point where to me, it's if you're
not getting a wing back. So if it's Jimmy Butler,
like I mean, you have to get super creative to
get there without Andrew Wickins or Draymond Green in there.
But like, I give up Andrew Wickins for Jimmy Butler
just because you're getting a wing. But I'm now at
the point where it's Kaminga's not a wing, Draymond's not
a wing. So if you're not getting a wing back,
you can't trade Andrew Wickins.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, and I do think too if you're guys,
So if if you're trading for Butler, you sort of
you can't be trading Draymond because the theory of why
you're trading for Butler is like, we're just going all
the way with the oldest guys we got that are
still our best player.
Speaker 1: But also why not what if it's like, what if
that's the difference between having to give up a distant
first or keeping pods type deal because you have you're
still gonna have TJD on this roster. You could doubt
maybe like or Kyleie Anderson go to more small ball
five there you also have Kevon Looney, Like you have
enough big well, I'll say Biggs to keep that. It's
all right, Like just go out there and sign another
cheap o big off the buyout market, or go trade
for another backup big. It's because if you're getting Butler specifically, like,
isn't there a chance that your defense is probably still
just gonna be good enough then anyway.
Speaker 2: I guess so I'm gonna have to like talk out
of both sides of my mouth now because I did
just go through how Draymond has slipped, but I think
he still is the guy that, other than Steph, has
the greatest capacity to like impact meaningful games. So and wait,
there's a there's probably an argument to be had about Wiggins,
and there's probably an argument to be had about like
how much better is Jimmy Butler gonna be than Andrew
Wiggins if you price in the availability stuff in the
short term, Like Butler is better, But like, I mean,
Wiggins has been great, He's been really good this year.
He's like he's a great third best player. He can't
be your best guy.
Speaker 1: And I think that, and I hate planning like this,
especially because during the playoffs you're not gonna get a
ton of non Steph minutes, But it's who's gonna be
more equipped to lead you during those minutes?
Speaker 2: Andrew Wiggins ur Chamey, right, It's not a debate for sure.
Speaker 1: The other thing too, do you think that there's a
chance because I wouldn't trade Raymond, like I would just
go all in And you just phrased it where it's
just go all in around the older guys, so you're
trading the others. But like, Draymond's minutes are so intertwined
to Steph's that I'm almost kind of like, well, what
does the drop off look like? Are you saying that
the Steph minutes are gonna suck after you trade Raymond
because he's played, as we record this were what thirty
games into the season, He's played under four hundred per
sessions without Steph Curry.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's not.
Speaker 1: Like a shit ton, And so I hate thinking like this,
but I'm also kind of wondera, Well, yes, there would be.
I want to make it clear there would be a difference,
but I'm just sort of like, well, if you're still
counting on Steph to elevate you while he's on the court,
if removing Draymond from those minutes, are you getting a
metric ton worse if you're acquiring a Jimmy Butler or
another high ish end player. And I would just wonder if, again,
sentiment is going to be part of it, But if
you're looking at it through that lens, is there a
possibility that this isn't as big of a deal on
the court, Yeah.
Speaker 2: It's possible. I think one of the issues is really
hurting the Warriors this year is like Steph isn't isn't
quite good enough now to sort of render the types
of defenses that he's seeing, like to just neutralize those
because he's always been doubled and held and all this
other stuff. He's just it's harder for him to get separation.
He's not as quick. It's just his ball. He can't
blow by guys like he used to, like because because
of that, having someone like Draymond out there with him
on offense, the defenses still can treat like as a
non threat a lot of the time. That's become harder,
Like it's made it. It's made the offense harder for
as a as a team. And the trade off, like
what you're losing there now because Steph is a little
diminished because Draymond is someone that defenses forever have like
at least kind of messed around with schematically, like, oh,
we can play him a certain way, Like what Draymond's
giving you on defense isn't making up that difference. So
it's kind of like a big, big shock, Like the
two mid thirties cornerstones on each end are like not
as good, and so that's hurt the team, Like, but
the even the interplay between them, like one being slightly
diminished actually hurts the other because they're such a specific pairing.
Speaker 1: You know, I'd be curious what teams would actually be
and if the Warriors just said out that it's like
Draymond Green's available and there's like no specifications, Yeah, maybe
they would accept draft equity. I wonder what teams would be,
like would come call. I think the Lakers would for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and didn't didn't he say that? Like he had
a bigger offer from Memphis on his last deal like
I saw. I think Memphis was offering four for one
hundred oh something like that. Like, I don't know how
I feel about the Memphis fit now, but you could
definitely get excited about him and Jaron Jackson as like
a four or five combo. Like Jackson is the type
of big that an acquiring team would almost need to have,
I think, because if you don't have a Steph like
player to do the two man game with Draymond, you're
just gonna need a spacer at the at the other
big position.
Speaker 1: I maintained, and their defense is played better since Andrew
Nemhar came back. But I would love him on the Pacers.
Speaker 2: Sure, with Turner another playmaker too, like and Turner right exactly.
The list of guys that you aren't having immediate reservations
about fit wise in the front court is pretty short,
like okay, uh, who else even spaces? I can't even think, like,
here's Lopez.
Speaker 1: There's one if you're the Knicks. So now you're talking, okay, well,
Josh Hart and Mitchell Robinson have to go because you
need to get to your dream on's number, and maybe
you could do Josh Hart, like Josh Hart has to
go because he's just the largest number. Yeah, would you
consider that because of what you're trying, you wouldn't. I
don't know. I was.
Speaker 2: I don't know why the Warriors are doing that like that,
but you know, like I don't.
Speaker 1: Get your Washington Wizards first. Maybe up with comb Dottie, you.
Speaker 2: Gets your fake first back. Yeah, I don't know, but yeah,
the Knicks again with Kat that's another one that makes
some sense there, although like just having og at the
four next to Cat feels totally fine to me. I think.
Speaker 1: I think I'm more so thinking like they need to
play defense against good teams, Like I know the Knicks
defense is picked up, but it's well, let's see how
the Knicks defense fares against the type of offenses they're
gonna face in the playoffs, and even as of right now,
the Knicks against top ten offenses are dead last, yeah,
in defensive rating, And even if you want to be
like I'm not a big fan of doing it this way,
I want to make it clear whereas well, why don't
we just like filter out that Boston game? And it's like, well,
we don't filter it out because Boston's a team that
they're mesturing themselves against. Yeah, but you fil throughout that
Boston game and against top ten offenses. The Knicks are
twenty sixth in points lab per possession. So I just
be curious. I don't think they would do it either.
I would just be curious, like, would you prefer Draymond
or Josh Hart on the current makeup of the Knicks
for what they're trying to do?
Speaker 2: That's interesting. I mean, if I like the idea of
Draymond giving the Knicks like a small ball option, if
you wanted to he wanted some backup five stuff, Yeah, right,
he could be your backup center, which is like really
you know, a kind of his ideal role. Frankly, like
if you if he can give you the like, do
you really want to take cat off the floor the
way he's been shooting it? Though? Like he gives you
a different options, I think, which matters if they're trying
to win conference finals games.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it also feels like he's more like him
and og Ananobi can play the same defensive role. So
I'm almost wondering if your core five lineup gets better
like at both ends, Like, Okay, Josh Hart, he's just
more dynamic offensively, yeah, but defensively Draymond is still more dynamic,
And so does that make your top end line up
better going from Josh Hart to Draymond? I think there's
a case to be maybe.
Speaker 2: Yeah, My and I think too, like Brunson is one
of the guys that I think Draymond could really have
some pretty good synergy with that you could run a
lot of fun actions with the two of them. It's
you know, Brunston's not going to relocate and do all
the off ball sprinting quite as much. But like, they're
both so clever that I think like the two man
game would be interesting as an all.
Speaker 1: But is there really any replacing the power of friendship?
Speaker 2: Yes, well, friendship doesn't matter. As Dante di Vincenzo, do.
Speaker 1: You want to take us through we have back to
back pacers. Do you want to guide us through them.
Speaker 2: So these guys get talked about collectively all the time.
This is Jaris Walker and Bennick Matheren. A couple of
flashes from Jaris Walker lately. You know, if you've seen him,
you're on.
Speaker 1: A Jaris Walker solo run against the Thunder the other night.
That was pretty badass.
Speaker 2: He's he's nearing the during territory for me of like
catch him on the right stretch. You can sort of
get a little bit sold. But that's only true of
guys that you're mostly not sold on. So I don't
know what that says. So just I mean, I don't know.
Let's go through it. The The idea for Indy putting
these guys on the table is that it's unclear how
either of them fits long term. The Pacers are a
team that has a Supermax player in tyres Alburtn and
they just paid a boatload to Pascal Siakam. You're in
with you're giving Obi toppin twenty million dollars a year,
like you've you've spent and you are you're not an
old team, but you're not a like you're not a
team that's just throwing the young guys out there to
see how they do and let's develop at their own pay,
Like it's these guys need to help. Matherin has been productive.
I think most people that watch a lot of Pacers
will say it's he's not an additive guy, like he's
just the fit is not great with Haliburton, certainly on defense,
and his value might be pretty high. Like I don't
know what Walker's value is around the league, but I
think Matherin is someone that a team could talk itself
into like, oh, he's he's a starting shooting guard and
is going to be a high level score or like
that's you wouldn't be crazy to think that, especially over
the next three to five years. So it's just it's
kind of a if the Pacers want to sort of
get this season back on track and like meet the
standard they set last year, these are the guys you'd
look at moving and you need to throw salary in
because they're both on rookie scale deals. But like you
could you could do something if you're looking to make
a short term upgrade with either of these guys.
Speaker 1: Right, I think that's ultimately why they're not and the
pager've been playing better lately. Of course, still don't the
Venicmathroom one. I just don't know what to think of
Jarvis Walker just yet. We haven't seen enough like extended
Jarvis Walker.
Speaker 2: Let me sorry, let me ask you. Is it just
as a bigger idea? Is it almost better that Walker
is Like I don't know, like because a team could
talk itself into, oh look at this, they just the
the untapped potential versus Mather. And I do think we
know roughly like what kind of player he is.
Speaker 1: Right, And I think mystery boxes are going to be
stronger selling points through their first two years of the
league rather than and once you get to year three,
it's well, we either have you figured out or if
you're a mystery box, it's like and you've actually been
playing what are you worth? But the tricky thing with
Mathrin too, he's been defending better of late, been rebounding
better too, and like those are the things you kind
of look at and say, like, well, that's what they
would need. The offense just doesn't jibe, like even when
he's efficient, even when he's going with the rest of
the Pacers and Caitlin Cooper's talked about this a bunch.
There's just no catch and shoot instincts. There from him really,
and but the reason it feels like they're not mentioned
in the rumor mail because you look at them. I'm
with you, Yeah, you make these guys available, but you
have to trade them in a very specific because you're
not just trading these guys for draft picks because of
where you're at. And I think that's why they're not
mentioned is because the teams like what teams would even
they're in this weird spot where it's the pacers internally
probably value them more that always happens with your own player,
but we're talking about guys who are on rookie scales.
I think there's more of a discrepancy there and then
it's okay, what team. The teams that are gonna trade
first round picks are traditionally the teams that wouldn't play
either of these guys just for where they're at in
the or lean on them a ton because of their timelines,
and it just puts them in a sticky spots where
you're really only looking at moving one or both of them.
If it's part of what I think, you know you
and I could sit this and say I'm not gonna
throw a name out in a fen Pacer stands, but
it's yeah, you would give him up for this player.
They would probably looking at it through the prism level, like, no,
it needs to be if we're giving up Benn Nicmathrin
and door Jars Walker, it needs to be like a
really big trade.
Speaker 2: So like, I know that we can just play this
card almost all the time, But is something they could
get from Brooklyn like worth it to them because Brooklyn
is the type of team that should be interested in
guys exactly like this, right, that have shown something on
the team that drafted them, but just aren't positioned to
be big pieces with that for like, Brooklyn can do
the thing where it's like, guess what, guys thirty five
minutes a night, do whatever you want for the rest
of the year. Let's just see.
Speaker 1: Walker in Brooklyn, I think would be nasty.
Speaker 2: Well, so right, like and I think Brooklyn and if
he's not, oh well, Brooklyn is just trading vets that
it doesn't really want and you get, you know, get
back team control of guys on rookie scale deals all
those benefits. Like, is there something from Brooklyn that should
entice the Pacers enough to consider moving one or both
of these guys there because the fit from Brooklyn side
is a no brainer.
Speaker 1: Well, let's tackle it from this way. Would you give
up one of these guys for Cam Johnson, so Obi
Toppin plus Mathrin or Walker and then maybe there needs
to be other salary involved there. But would you give
up that package if you're Indiana for Cam Johnson?
Speaker 2: I think I would, wouldn't you?
Speaker 1: Now I don't think the NETS accept that package is
the problem because.
Speaker 2: Well, you might do better. Yeah, you might be able
to do better for Cam.
Speaker 1: Now I'm asking you, would you give up both and
you're getting rid of Toppin to get Dorian Phinney Smith
and Cam Johnson. There'd have to be other moving parts.
But is that? Is that not? That's like one of
an interesting thing where I think the NETS might be
getting enough, but I'm wondering if Indiana is not. And
I think if you pushed me, i'd hopefully say do
it YEA from the Pace just because I view them
getting off Obie Toppings. Yes, I know cap Space one,
they're not going to have it too. It doesn't matter
in Indie, but that deal is always going to be
part of the other side saying we're doing this for you.
Until gets into the front of yourself. We're taking on
the OBI topping contract, like that's part of the value
that we're sending out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I think I would. I think really
hard about that now if you could work it so
it's so you have Claxton in there, because I could
see Claxton making sense as a Miles Turner replacement, who's
going to be a free agent, Like he's just your
center going forward, a different player, not going to give
you the spacing, but is kind of in the right
age band like is lockdown, like you know interesting. I
think you probably wouldn't. It would be hard to get
both Cam Johnson and Claxton without giving up both of
these two topping And maybe you're sending picks at that
point too.
Speaker 1: No, I don't. I'm not so I wouldn't send picks
in addition to these two as the pacers. I understand
why the Nets would want it. I think because you
have Nie Smits money that you could get to and
they've been defending well while Ni Smith has been well,
not the entire time, but for the month of December.
I still think he's important.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree, I.
Speaker 1: Think would you so you would prefer I guess Claxton
and Johnson makes sense from a net value perspective, it
just feels weird to Okay, so we're bringing in Miles
Turner's replacement, what does that mean for might be a
pretty good segue though, because guess who's next up on
the list. Yeah, there it is. Now.
Speaker 2: Now you can flip him. Now you can move him
somewhere else, make let somebody else resign him. I mean,
maybe he goes to Brooklyn and Brooklyn just uses its
cap space on him.
Speaker 1: I just I think I prefer Turner next to Siaka
more than I would have Claxton. I know Claxton's younger, Turner's.
Speaker 2: Better and fits better. But I'm just thinking of it work.
By the way, we're just spitballing like from.
Speaker 1: Both like if like having that's a lot wrapped up
and then Siakam and let's say Turner costs twenty a year,
and then you have Clax and that's a lot of
money invested in your four or five rotation right there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But I mean you're getting off top of it.
That's too much, that's too much. It's just it's a
it's a like a risk aversion thing, like we just
you swap Claxon in, dust your hands off, like we
don't have to worry about losing our starting center, whereas
with Turner there's some unknowns there you don't I mean,
although they probably have a pretty good idea of what
it's going to take. I would assume they've had such
a long relationship, he's been there for a time, that
always it. I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I actually don't think Turner should be Again, I'm not
saying he's untouchable, but like, what are you getting for
Miles Turner? Or what is the player you're acquiring where
you feel good? I don't think Claxton falls under that bucket,
But like, what is the if you're trading Turner? I'm
assuming it's someone was either stupid and gave you way
too much draft equity, or you're upgrading the spot in
the front court next to Siakam. It's like, what is
the player where you would feel you're not giving up Turner? Like,
I'm not trading him for Cam Johnson and then running
Sakam at the five with Cam Johnson. That's not something
I'm doing.
Speaker 2: I mean, Weirdly, Claxton makes some sense finance answers aside.
Now I'm really talking myself into this because if like
what you lose in Turner is significant, like the spacing,
the shot blocking, but like Claxon, I think Claxon's just
a better defender overall, and you get the switch for
stuff from him, which is like if you're a Pacers
team that's constantly having to hide guys like Haliburton or
like make up for stuff like that. I think Claxton's
ability to just blow up any screening action by just
switching onto the ball handler. I know you probably would
not bring him up very often, but.
Speaker 1: He's also the better rebounder too, I would say.
Speaker 2: Right, that's another issue. Younger gets up and down fine.
Like I think you could make the case that Claxton would,
in a different way bring at least as much value
as Turner does. But but it'd be a weird switch
because Turner does make sense at least for them offensively
like he I think he probably gives you quite a
bit more there, So.
Speaker 1: That feels like because and what's also weird is that
it would have to be part of one of our
mega deals because I wouldn't get up more than Miles
Turner for Nick Claxton. But if I'm the Nets, why
am I taking on Miles Turner's It would have to
be almost a bigger trade or its is they're a
third team involved, they're giving something to the Nets, then
I just not untouchable. But I just don't know that
they're gonna do. I see where you're coming from with Claxton.
I just I think I appreciate the concept of his
stretch too much.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, And to be to be clear, I hadn't
thought about Nick Claxton on the Pacers until we talked
about it five.
Speaker 1: The podcasts are fun because like, but to hear me,
so the Lakers come calling, they will give you their
twenty twenty nine first round pick for Miles Turner and
you're taking salary X. I doubt it's RUI it's probably
d lo or Gabe Vinson and Jail, Like, are you
doing a deal like that?
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm just like, so the Pacers right now
are eighth. They still have a negative differential. They're fifteen
and sixteen. That feels like that just that feels like
the wrong type of move for them because of what
we just said about Walker and matherin of like, what
do we want this pick for unless we know we
need it to throw into a trade that is for
another you know what I mean, like, which is why
not just try to get the guy you're going for.
Speaker 1: I guess what we're saying is we're pretty much in
agreement despite the Pacers disappointing relative to all their expectations,
is that we are still they need to act as
buyers because there's not going to be in the players
that they would move. There's not There doesn't seem to
be a ton of incentive to the let's get this
draft equity.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I don't think draft equity. I mean, I don't
think it should be their first sort of target. I
just I think, yeah, I think even if you're trading Turner,
which is exactly the type of guy you would trade
for draft picks in another you know situation.
Speaker 1: I mean, they could go on like the next they
could they could get worse over the next two or
three weeks, and maybe it's, oh, he's going into free agency,
do we just get first? But then it just gets tough.
You're not going to be a team that has all
this money to spend. Do you think you can approximate
a good center with what you're going to have at
your disposal from there. That's what's also tricky.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, And and by the way, trading for someone
like Claxton who's been hurt all the time, but like
not something a Pacers team that can't keep centers healthy.
It should be.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm team just have have Cam Johnson, Claxton,
Siakham and Turner. And so you're like weirdly big and
you're not really super strong or a great rebounding team.
But do it anyway? Do it? I'm all, yeah, this
player is mine and he's on the Clippers. Grant. Why
haven't we heard about Kawhi Leonard in the trade rumor mill?
What's up with that? I want to.
Speaker 2: Say, I think I probably am doing like some far
fetched or like a dream trade target thing. I had
him as a Warrior's target when it was amidst the
marketing and Paul George or probably after that.
Speaker 1: Do you know what I proposed on my solo pod
the other day, Kawhi Leonard for Jimmy Butler and Alec Burks.
Because if you're the Heat, you're kind of accepting, okay,
maybe this becomes a gap year and you do take
on longer money for Kawhi Leonard, but pe Kawhi Leonard,
who is younger than Jimmy Butler, he's also better, yeah,
than Jimmy Butler. And so are you maybe saying okay,
like and we think that we can build like around
Kawi Leonard. And then if you're the Clippers, it's okay,
Kawhi Leonard is better, but Jimmy Butler is more available.
Maybe they appreciate the idea of well, he's technically an
expiring contract only has one more year left, or maybe
they've you getting off Kawhi Leonard as part of it.
I don't think the Clippers are giving up a twenty
thirty pick as part of that trade. I will say that.
Speaker 2: If if that happened and you and and what you
know is Kawhi is going to Miami, don't you immediately
have some version of like, oh shit, like they're gonna
figure it out, he's gonna play seventy games and he's
gonna win the MVP, like like, oh they did it again.
I would wouldn't you feel like something? It would? It
would you know how you used to be whoever the
Spurs drafted in the second round? It would just possibly
be like, ah, they did it again, like they found
this guy. You just automatically believe it. That's probably not
uh totally up to date to believe that about Miami anymore.
But I would have that thought of, like, Okay, we're
gonna get two more amazing Kawhi years that we weren't
getting otherwise, I would I would assume.
Speaker 1: That who do you think that that deals tougher for
Miami to make, right or is it actually tougher for
LA to make?
Speaker 2: I think it ooh man, that's a great question. My
first reaction was, it's tougher for LA to make because
you know, Kawhi is better and Butler's maybe gonna hit
free agency. Uh, and so you could just be wiping
off a fifty million dollars salary slot from the books
and getting really nothing for it. So I think it's
I think I view the Clipper side as a little scarier.
You think my you think just from Miami side, trading
for Kawhi and assuming you're getting anything consistent is just to.
Speaker 1: Jimmy Butler return like as the Clippers, like, let's say
Jimmy Butler's not if you let Jimmy Butler leave it's
because you wanted to let Jimmy Butler leave. It's kind
of the Paul George situation. And so I would then think, well,
they wanted the expiring contract, but if you keep him
even it's gonna be on a two year deal. So
you even kind of shaved off because Kahi is under
a contract for three more years after this one. Right,
so now you've kind of shortened that. And with the
uncertainty surrounding James Harden, I think it's easier for them
to make. But maybe I'm not approaching it from the
right because then it's Miami. If QUI letter doesn't pan out,
then you did lose Jimmy Butler for not just nothing,
but then a bad contract, right.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, that is the risk I think. I mean,
it's a massive risk. I think, like I get oh
so over the life of let's say Butler signs a
two year extension. And by the way, we never see
trades like this where like to basically all NBA guys,
it's like a one for one, it's like a challenge trade. Uh.
But so you say Butler signs for two more, so
basically their contracts, let's just let's just forget forget how.
Speaker 1: I have to interrupt because I was wrong. Kawhi actolutely
has two more years left on his deal.
Speaker 2: Okay for that perfect perfect So if Butler opts out
and he signs the two for one twenty, their their
deals are exactly two more years after this one. Who
would you feel is the best bet to get I
was gonna say, like, play the most games, but I
feel like that's probably just Butler, although it's not a
throwaway like like like as your best player for the
next two years.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't either.
Speaker 1: I honestly don't know. It's the availability thing with Kawhi.
But do you feel better or maybe not better? But
is it more of a worthwhile risk because Miami plays
in the East and it's sort of a we just
need to figure out a way to get him to
April right and then like so like if you did that,
I mean, the Clippers are kind of doing that right now,
so maybe I shouldn't say that, but normally you wouldn't,
Like we didn't expect the Clippers to be afloat without
Kawhi at all this year. If you're in the East,
it's kind of like, if Kawhi can play in like
thirty games, we get him to April, because well, I
feel better if they're both healthy. You feel better about
Kawhi being your best player in a postseason series, right.
Speaker 2: Which is insane because that's Jimmy Butler's whole identity. Right.
It's like, well, we just get into a playoff series
and Jimmy will be the best player on the floor.
Like that's been a that has happened. But I also
feel like I'd rather just have Kawhi. I just think
it's it's like, when Kawhi is the best player on
the floor in a playoff series after whatever's happened during
the regular season, it's kind of like, well, yeah, like
that's that's who that is. But when Butler does it
where we have the like we're like amazed, you know,
it seems like more surprising. So I guess that's an
argument for Kawhi because we all collectively agree that if
he's on the floor unhealthy, he's just the top five,
top ten guy. That's probably stupid to keep thinking that,
But with Butler, it's it's more of like, look at
this assent that he's made, you know, like I don't
I don't know how to I don't know how to
view that. I think i've I would rather have Kawhi,
but like both of these guys will probably average forty
five games a year.
Speaker 1: I just want to make it clear I did not
rous to spend that much time on this. I included
this is more of a blowby. No, that was one
of their grenades. But I'm glad we talked ourselves into
a pretzel grant. Who's next?
Speaker 2: This is Anthony Davis. Uh, this is someone who again
if so, this is a little bit like the Steph
thing you were saying of, like, if you're being coldly logical,
what are you doing if you're not winning at the
highest level with this guy who's still really great? And
for the Lakers, it's like, I don't know, maybe what
are they right now? They're in the Giant you know, morass,
that is the middle of the West. They're sixth. The
difference between sixth and third is like three games, and
that's the same difference between sixth and what twelve, So whatever,
who knows where they actually are. But they don't feel
like a contender. You have a player that is not
That's why they don't feel like but would you but
Anthony Davis is the best other than Steph, and maybe
next might be a better player than Steph. Right now today,
I don't know, if you're not going anywhere and you're
not going to make the three firsts, you know, in
salary for another star to try to win, now, Like,
do you think about it? I don't. I don't know.
I think I think they probably have to.
Speaker 1: I would say, isn't the only reason for him not
to be available? Well, you said it. If you're gonna
go all in, then it's we're not. We're gonna keep them.
But if they're not gonna go all in, you're just saying, well,
we don't control our first round pick in twenty five
or twenty seven, so that's why we're not gonna trade
Anthony Davis. So you're not gonna go all in, and
then you're not gonna trade Anthony, because as of right now,
they should trade Anthony Davis. I have seen no convincing
argument other than they don't control their first round pick
in twenty twenty five or twenty twenty seven. And maybe
that's convincing enough. But I'm almost sort of like, well,
this season, you already know you're not gonna give away
a top five pick or most likely or something wild,
and then it's just bank on maybe trying to figure
it out. Like if you so the trade I proposed,
I should be looking at the exact framework because it
got a lot of traction on, Like would the YouTube
reaction stuff. I know Kenny for Reo looked at it.
There were a couple others that people message me about,
like the Warriors. We're talking about the Warriors going all in.
If you got so three first round picks and two
swaps and Kaminga and Wiggins from the Warriors, Like, isn't
that a trade that you should just do? So you're
getting Golden State's first round er in twenty five, twenty seven,
and then twenty and thirty, and you only get it
if it's between one and twenty, and then you get
swaps in twenty twenty six and twenty twenty eight, Kaminga, Wiggins,
and then you could throw in GP two. Kevan Mooney,
whoever you want to make the money work, shouldn't you
just pounce? If I'm the Warriors, by the way, I'm
making that trade too. But if you're the isn't that
enough to say yes? Independent of owning your own picks
or no.
Speaker 2: No, I think I think that's exactly the logic that
you that should be in play here. And also like
shorting the Warriors ladder half of this decade is not
a bad bet, Like just based on where they are,
you know that maybe they're going to be an attractive
free agency destination. Maybe free agency doesn't matter anymore, like
maybe like maybe that doesn't mean as much as it
used to. So yeah, I think that's right. It would
just be it would be so bizarre to see Davis
be the one when when all everybody is like, you know,
fancifully thinking about is Lebron being the one to go
to the Warriors as like the Big Veterans Star Edition,
but like Davis would just I mean one.
Speaker 1: Which, by the way, doesn't that seem seems old and
young at the same time, right, because it feels like
he's been around forever, so age thirty one is fine.
But then you're just thinking, oh, he's over thirty and
Anthony Davis is injured every five seconds.
Speaker 2: Right, No, I think I think, so what does he got?
He just extended, right, so he can be traded even
though he did sign in the.
Speaker 1: Extension, he'll be trade eligible and he has what does
he have four years.
Speaker 2: Left after He's got three after three after this one,
So yeah, he's gonna which and that extension pays him
fifty four next year, fifty eight and sixty three in
twenty seven twenty eight, which.
Speaker 1: Look so you're getting him through what age thirty four,
age thirty five, that's about like the cutoff of okay,
Like if you're going into at thirty six and thirty seven,
that's when you start to get worried. But that feels
the next three years of Anthony Davis, when he's healthy,
will be probably close to pee Anthony Davis.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like he'll be an all NBA level guy certainly,
you know the first couple. Maybe not by twenty seven
to twenty eight, but like the injury thing is probably
the bigger risker. Like just how much actual court time
are you going to get from him for that? That's
maybe the bigger concern. I would I don't think he's
gonna like not be an all star level player by
the end of it. I'd be surprised by that.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's complicated though? By so when you
look at the teams that maybe have the most picks
to trade and also buy Houston or okay, see, probably
shouldn't be in on Anthony Davis just looking at the
makeup of their teams. Okay, see for sure, Right you
have Holmegren, Heart and Stein. You're done.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess you can make a case.
Speaker 1: Would you prefer Anthony Davis and Shangoon to you know,
Shang Goon and Jabari Smith Junior slash like having kind
of the smaller fours.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's interesting to think about him. Yeah, I don't. Okay, see,
I think i'd rule out, but Houston is kind of
you know, one of the things Houston doesn't really have
is someone that's just gonna score, you know, for them
in at the end of close games, and like, weirdly,
that is kind of something Davis might be able to do.
I don't think that's the number one thing you want
him for, but the Lakers designed their offense to feature
him this year, and at least early on, he looked
great offensively in a more featured role, Like I think
he would give the the Rockets a pretty interesting dimension
because Shanoon is kind of a hub like player, but
he's not He's not date like Davis is gonna get
you more shots I think, I don't know. Yeah, of
the two, Houston I like better, but he is he
is like a weirdly tricky player to trade just because.
Speaker 1: He is he for Golden State. I was trying to
think of teams Indiana should just because he's under contracts,
you shouldn't care necessarily what he thinks. That would be
the okay ghost wing for this, that'd be interesting.
Speaker 2: Trying to think what else, like, yeah.
Speaker 1: Would he be? Would you like him in Memphis? Like
I know they have Edie and Jaron Jackson Junior and
Jay Huff and Brandon Clark, but as sort of a
like Anthony Davis and Jaron Jackson Junior. That's the hell
of the front court.
Speaker 2: That's nasty. Yeah, I mean you could even expand it
with him to teams like well, I was gonna say
teams like what if if there were a better free
agent class, I would almost say, like Brooklyn could just
go a big two again, just go trade for David
and then use that gap space and get your second
star and here we go, Hey, Jimmy Butler and Anthony
Davis and a top pick done. What could go wrong?
Speaker 1: What about? Oh my god, they just slipped my mind.
And we don't lie. What about him next to Wemby?
He doesn't want to play center? How about that?
Speaker 2: I mean, would he be a center there? I don't
know what. I guess we probably would. Yeah, that San
Antonio is a team we haven't really talked about too much.
I think we probably will as we get to certain players.
Speaker 1: Would be a team that I would say should go for.
Speaker 2: It, like Dallas. Could Dallas do it?
Speaker 1: They're talking about it? You think? I mean, like, you're
how many rotation players you're giving up for Davis plus
both your first round picks?
Speaker 2: It's the Butler package plus fifty percent more? Probably, Like
I don't know how you.
Speaker 1: I guess you don't feel bad about moving Kleiba and
Naji Marshall if you're getting back Davis. Whereas if you
did that for Butler, it's all right. It feels like
we like kind of nuked our like bigger rotation. But
now if it's Davis, you're also getting into. Okay, twenty
five first round are gone. You're twenty thirty or twenty
thirty one first round or whatever it is they have
available that's gone. You're not training? Are you training? Derek
Wively Ranton, No, right, like when part of the POB
we're playing those two together.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess so you might have to. I feel
like Lakers.
Speaker 1: Are doing because then it's Luca, Kyrie and Ad and
then he's your fourth best player.
Speaker 2: That's why you're just keeping PJ.
Speaker 1: Washington. I guess as part of that there you go.
Speaker 2: Sure, Yeah, you're just cobbling it together. You're hoping, like
Jaden Hart, you're hoping a bunch of guys just can
excel in bigger roles. I think we've exhausted the Anthony
Davis trade. Okay, Lebron, it's all the same things, right,
Is it just Golden State? Is that the only one
we can do?
Speaker 1: There's no, and he doesn't. It's a different Like if
I'm Anthony Davis and the Lakers aren't doing anything, I
would personally ask for a trade with Lebron. It felt
like he went to the Lakers in the first place
for reasons that transcended basketball, and that's unlikely to have
changed in his age forty season with his son on
the team, And so I'm not saying he shouldn't be available,
but I would question, aside from Golden State, what is
the team that is giving up a But like I
could talk about teams that like he might be an
interesting fit on, but would they realistically give you I
would say two first round picks are more like if
you're not trading Lebron just for a first round picks
unless you're doing him a solid. And if you are,
guess where he's going probably the Warriors.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just I can't I'm trying anything else would
be like such a stretch like where it has to
like you would normally say you would normally just throw
a team like Miami out there, but like that's he's
not going back, that's not gonna happen, not going back
to Cleveland, So like we can rule all the typical
Lebron destinations out. I just don't. I just have no
idea where he would even consider, Like, I mean, he's
not totally in control Houston.
Speaker 1: They want him instead of Fred van Vliet, and then
they're giving up picks basically.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, I just think I think you're right
that at some point, winning a championship is probably I mean,
it's you can't say it's not the most important thing,
but it's not the only thing anymore, Like because if
it were that were the case. I just don't think
he'd still be with the Lakers, you know.
Speaker 1: And it's just tough because I feel like he's able
because his contract situation, the fact that he's Lebron, he's
going to dictate where he goes more than and I
just don't see him. If he made a list right now,
it probably consists only of Golden State, right, would san
Antonio maybe be on there?
Speaker 2: Oh that's interesting? Yeah, I mean well the list would
the list would have Golden State and then like a
giant tier of like seventeen other teams. I guess, but
san Antonio would be one.
Speaker 1: I think that's giving up as the Warriors for Lebron.
Speaker 2: I mean, the thing is that's funny, is like Draymond
is someone I'd feel a lot better about giving up
for Lebron. But like that's never they would never include
him all.
Speaker 1: You know that's gonna be If you were to give
Wiggans and Draymond for Lebron, your defense is done.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I don't think you do that.
Speaker 1: I just but you'd rather give up Draymond for Lebron
than Wiggins, is what you're saying.
Speaker 2: I well, that's a great. My first reaction is yes,
because you could just use Lebron for all the small
ball center stuff that you do with Draymond, and like
the defense would be the defense would just suffer, no
matter what I think. And a deal. That's the thing
with any Warriors trade is you sort of have to
give up one of those two guys, like just to
do any for someone making it, Yeah, for sure, to
do anything of consequence, one of them's got to go,
and it's just always gonna be Wiggins. I think. Unfortunately,
I don't know if that's the right decision.
Speaker 1: And so knowing that though, and the other salary math
involved when you're looking at it in terms of COMINGA, Pods, picks,
like the number of those things that you would give
up for Lebron as the Warriors, what is the number two?
More less?
Speaker 2: I mean you could have This is the wrong time
to ask me about I think trade everybody, all of
them coming in pods, just trade him for expirings or something.
Speaker 1: I think I'll ask you this, then, would you prefer
to give up two first rounders or Jonathan Camena end pods.
Speaker 2: Probably COMINGA and Pods. I think we've.
Speaker 1: Fallen along along.
Speaker 2: I mean the Pods two different the Kaminga thing is
just like I think, I think he's probably gone. Like
I just I think if you don't trade him, I
think you're just gonna lose him. And you can do
the sign and trade, I guess, or you know you can't.
You have to match but and pods. Just like, I
don't know if that guy is going to have a
career at this point. It looks so bad lately, somewhere
in between what we thought he was last year and
what he is this year. But uh, the floor and
ceiling are looking very very far apart right now.
Speaker 1: Our next guy on the board is Herb Jones of
the New Orleans Pelicans, who has technically been in the
rumor mill because other teams are lusting after him. I
do think, though, if we're gonna have the Kobe White
discussion about, well, why wouldn't Chicago move him when he's
not going to extend off this deal, which maybe you
feel differently about Herb Jones because it runs a little
longer and you're able to get him on this deal
in the first place. But like Herb Jones isn't an
extending off of a fourteen point nine million dollars salary.
Grant is he or do you think that he would?
Because I do feel like if we're going to talk
about I know he has a little bit his two
years left on his deal after this one, are we
we're just sure that the New Orleans Pelicans are gonna
be good enough to pay herb Jones twenty plus million
dollars a year in two seasons.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think something will have had to go
wrong if he is extending off of this number, probably,
like because it just it's just such a good deal
right now, and like I'm trying to look at reasons.
I mean, he hasn't shot it at all, and he's
missed a ton of time this year. Maybe I'm trying
to think if basically I'm trying to pin down, like
is his market value going to be higher if they waste.
Speaker 1: His starting salary and an extent like off that number
in the final year would be twenty point nine million dollars.
That's like kind of on the borderline, right Yeah, if he.
Speaker 2: Plays like this like this year. But I just don't
know how to put any stock in anything that's happened
in New Orleans this season, So like I'm more inclined
to believe that he's last year herb Jones where that's
probably even he shot over forty percent. He was fifth
in DEFENSI Player of the Year. He's somewhere in between
there too. He's like like pods.
Speaker 1: I I think you're looking at it from this. He's
in his age twenty six season, so he's not like
super young.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: If New Orleans is going the nuclear route of starting.
Speaker 2: Over, then yeah, then you're trade.
Speaker 1: So I guess my question to you would then be
Zion Williamson is available. Doesn't that then count? And herb
Jones is being mentioned alongside eaves me the oungside. I
don't mean to laugh. He's been good, but it's just
funny to see him looped in there. But me C
and Trey Murphy is I get Murphy. He was just
extended to the poison pill and he's still he's actually
he's not that much younger there.
Speaker 2: No, he's like he was an older rookie, but he's
You don't change your mind on herb Jones this quickly
after an extension, when he's looked good enough in flashes,
when he's been healthy.
Speaker 1: So is that what you're saying is that that's why
you keep him.
Speaker 2: Why I keep Herb? Yeah, I think I think you
know you're I mean, you're getting me on board for
Herb is if if you're blowing it up, then yeah,
because you could get that contract. You The breadth of
teams you could trade him to is is wide, like
and you could so you can get the pick equity
you're gonna want if you're if you're tearing this thing
all the way down or young players or whatever, like
if you what do you what could you get from
from Indiana? If you sent like, do you think you.
Speaker 1: Get one of the youngsters and then two first round
picks or Herb Jones.
Speaker 2: I think you're getting at least one of those guys
and and at least one first Like I just think that.
So and that's not even you know, for any team
that's thinking about Dorian Finney Smith, any team that's thinking
about camp like Cam Johnson's a different player, but any
team is that's in the we've got, you know, a
couple guys in the ten million to twenty million dollar
range we can trade with a pick or whatever else,
Like you're in the Herb Jones business. And so that
might be the argument for moving him. If you think
as New Orleans that you're going to try to be
competitive at all, like over the next couple of years,
then I don't think you do trade him, because that's
exactly the kind of piece that enables you to have
a bad contractor to or to overspend somewhere else or whatever.
Because what even if, even if he's going to be
closer to like his second year or even as his
rookie year production, like, I think he's still just a
bargain making what he's making. So if you're trying to
win it all, you don't trade him. But if you're
blowing it up, then move him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just I would be curious what division is
if Zion is available.
Speaker 2: Well, I think he's just different because of the risk
stuff that's priced.
Speaker 1: I understand that then, But okay, so let's just say
if you're not factoring in Zion, you're just saying, well,
our plan, even though we couldn't figure out how to
compete with more of a veteran roster, we're gonna get
our top four, top five pick or whatever, and then
we're gonna be competitive to the point where it'll be
on while Herb Jones is still on this good deal
I just this isn't I think Herb Jones is fantastic
and you could absolutely get two first round picks for him,
like too good, I'm not moving him for number twenty
eight and then a good like it's too good first
round picks or some equivalent at least. I just like,
what is New Orleans doing? They look and it's more
so than the injuries for me, they look fundamentally intrinsically broken.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a mess, like across the board. I mean,
like it just it's a lost season. I'm all I
think I think we need to be careful judging like
this is just this every it's like a Memphis last
year's season. It's like, what do we even take from
any of this? Like, I just I don't know. I
don't want to make like a long.
Speaker 1: Tougher with New Orleans because this feels like a more
dramatic version of more of the same.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean it was the I don't know,
can go back to when we used to just ask
if our Ingram and Zion a good fit and was
always just like, no, we don't think so. They haven't
played together, but probably not, and so maybe that was
the problem is deep down. We all knew that this
just wasn't a good enough core.
Speaker 1: I'm not expecting to be traded. I think he it's
tough because he does have like the extra time on
his deal, So if you're in New Orleans, I think
by waiting and if you were to move him over
the offseason, you would probably get around the same because
he has two full years left on his contract rather
than one. But you also do risk if you hold
on him much longer and you're not gonna be competitive, Like,
does this turn into an ognnob situation where I think
the package so far well, I mean Arjie Barrat's been good,
but quickly he's on this mega deal and has been
injured a bunch this year, you do risk bag hold
like if again you just said it, if you're not
planning on, like really going for a top six spot
in the West next year, then this guy should be.
Speaker 2: Moved probably right, And I think I do think because
the White situation, as you said, is an alloys if
you wait until the twenty twenty six trade deadline and
trade him, then that would be the equivalent of the
Bulls trading White at last year's deadline. Right when we
agreed that do I have it off by a year
either way?
Speaker 1: Oh g the equivalent of them trading Kobe White at
this year's deadline.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which which we just said they should. So I
guess by that logic, when we thought that maybe the
year to trade Kobe White was last year, maybe maybe
the time to move on Herb is now that by
that logic, if you think his value will be diminished,
But if you're we don't know that, they're not going
to try to win with him. Trade de Jontay Murray
and Cooper Flag Yeah, whoever else.
Speaker 1: Next on the board.
Speaker 2: This, this is Josh Hart Dan And so part of
this is like a process of elimination situation where if
you're trying to make trades involving the Knicks and you
don't think anybody really wants Mitchell Robinson and you're not
willing to trade any of your other four best players,
this is where you gotta go.
Speaker 1: Is I mean?
Speaker 2: Is that how much of including Josh Hart here is
just like you can't trade Brunson or cat or og
or mchal Bridges. So this is just who there is.
Speaker 1: Because aren't they in a weird spot to where I
don't Josh Hart's been good this. I mean, they're better
at both ends of the floor when he's off the court,
But I think there's a lot of noise in there
when you look at the lineups. He's spearheaded or been inside.
But aren't they in this weird thing where you could, like,
do you feel good enough about their core five to say, like,
going up against any opponent, there's no way like they
could beat the Celtics. They could beat the Calves in
crunch time and on any given night, sure, but over
the course of a playoff series, they feel like they
need a significant upgrade where you're not just getting a
backup center or a backup wing and declaring this team
a bona fide championship contender. It's almost like you need
someone because of the way you've built your team, where
Kat and Jalen Brunton are like the tip of your
spear on the offensive end, that do you need someone
who's better to actualize the vision that you want? You
need someone who's even better or more versatile defensively then
Josh Hart in that closing group, And the only way
to get that player would be to trade Josh Hart.
Speaker 2: At the moment, while I was gonna ask, like specifically,
what type of player do you want back? If you're
trading Josh Harden, it sounds like in a lot of
ways you Well, I was thinking like Heart's shooting just
under forty percent from deep. He's been all over the
map and the volume has never been high, but he
does feel like the guy defenses will leave. I know
that's not what you're asking, but it's part of the
same question is just like, who do you need as
the fifth guy that is going to be is going
to present defenses with more problems and is going to
be a bigger defensive value add in a playoff setting
than Heart. And it's just like a better Heart, right,
because you're not asking for like an on ball star.
You're not asking for like defensively if there's like sort
of no limit to how good you want the guy
to be. But like, I'm curious, so this hypothetical player
from this hypothetical team is just like, why are they
trading a better Josh Hart for Josh Hart?
Speaker 1: Unless you well, because you're attaching stuff to Josh Hart.
Speaker 2: Question is can the nick sweeten it enough to make
like we're giving you a B a B B minus
level of a similar guy. You're gonna give us the
A minus guy. Do we have enough to make up
that gap as sweeteners?
Speaker 1: Well that, or could you do something where it's then
really commit to, like go capslock five out to where Okay,
let's just say they're consigned to having a gap year
for whatever reason. Are is Denver because they're trying to
expand their rotation long term, considering Michael Porter Junior for
Josh Hart Mitchell Robinson that Washington pick. And by the way,
I openly land, I don't think the Nick should trade
Josh Hart's I don't know how you upgrade from him. Yeah,
but I am skeptical of the idea. And this doesn't
have anything to do with Josh Hart. That moving Mitchell
Robinson moving pressures at you is going to get you
somebody that meaningfully moves your championship needle. You're more so
just looking at well, our regular season rotation will be
at least a tad deeper. And I'm not saying that
doesn't matter. I don't know how much it matters when
top Thibodau is your head coach.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's it's so interesting. I think we're
kind of getting back to what my first reaction was,
which is like, you aren't gonna trade numbers one through
four on the ORG chart, like and if you're gonna
do anything, and Mitchell Robinson isn't enough. So it is
sort of like Josh Hart is here because it's like
he's the piece you could talk yourself into being like
not fungibles too strong a word, like expendable even that
that's even a stronger word, but like it's just yeah,
like you cause you I just don't know. I guess,
I guess if you could get MPJ. But the Denver
side of that is like, no, thanks, I don't I
would assume that that is the type like just the
dead eye, Like you, if you leave this guy, you've
blown it defensively schematically, and he's got good size and
it's just gonna be someone that makes the Knicks offense
impossible to defend. I think like that kind of you
need a premium skill. How about that, Like you need
someone with the premium skill to offset all the like
all the varied contributions Josh Hart does give you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think it's just there. That's a tough spot.
But would you agree that like they're sort of they
probably can't get a lot better, and they feel like
if you're gonna want to loop them in, I know
where they rank in terms of net rating. I know
what their record is relative to the rest of the East.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: They actually have one of the best point differentials in
the league against top ten point differential teams. Yeah, but
I just can't put them on the level of Boston,
Cleveland or Okay. See, it feels like there's something or
someone significant preventing them from being on that level. And
I'm viewing this in terms of winning a playoff series,
not just their regular season run.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's fair. I think I think I'm trying to
like play devil's advocate. But you're right, like you just
they're not as good as those teams you mentioned. But
that's a small group and it might just be the
case that, like you can't get that good. It's very
hard to get that good. So trading jo I The
last thing is like we've seen a lot of trades
that so just thinking of of like DeRozan in Sacramento. Uh,
well maybe, and I don't know some of the some
of the stuff that's happened in Minnesota where it's like
just adding a more talented player does not always like
improve the bottom line and heart does all of this
all of the other stuff that like, whoever you get
to replace Josh Hart might be a better shooter, might
be a better distributor, but is not going to give
you the transition stuff, the rebounding, the all the hustle,
all the on the margin stuff. So for a team
like the Knicks, I wonder if you know, he feels
like the weak link quote unquote or like the guy
you could move. But I wonder if you would just
not be able to make back all the marginals stuff
that he does that good teams need to, Like, I
think maybe what you need is to keep Josh Hart
and just happen to have another giant salary to trade.
So Josh Hart comes off the bench and just is
like perfect.
Speaker 1: In theory, It's just do they have enough to do?
That would be because Mitchel Robinson plush pressures at you
and get you to like twenty million dollars. Let's say,
and you have pocom Datier you could trade that Washington First,
is that like enough to get that type of a player,
And then maybe I just don't need like or not
even a better player than Josh Hart, but an upgrade
for the starting lineup. I'm not even saying a more
variable option where it will sometimes we'll start Josh Hart.
Sometimes we'll put a big next to Towns. If you're
going to go that route, you just keep Mitchell Robinson
and hope he gets healthy, because I don't know who
you're necessarily getting for him that would be EON's better.
It's just a tough spot. I don't think they should
trade him either, but it's what you said, the process
of Look, the power of friendship prevails again. The Knick
should not trade Josh Hart. Two names here, Grant Isaiah Wiggins,
I mean Aaron Wiggins.
Speaker 2: That'd be a good player.
Speaker 1: They go. They're neither of whom or trade eligible, by
the way, until January fifteenth, for anyone listening, They're basically
just in here because Oklahoma City is so deep. It
does feel like even their win against the Pacers, it
was their offense felt too dependent at times on Shay
Gilgess Alexander. I felt that way a bunch of times
this season, and I don't know how much of it
has to do with well, we just haven't seen their
full group together, like having Hartenstein Enholm Grin and Jalen
Williams along with Shay and the other stuff is just
Aaron Wiggins is playing fewer minutes like of late, and
so it's if he's gonna average under fifteen minutes a
game or something. He's on this great deal. He's a
really good player. Should you be looking to consolidate as
okayce or is it just if we don't think, like
what are you consolidating into? And so like, are we're
not gonna go make this home run trade, especially when
we don't know what the deal is with Jet Holmgren,
So we're just gonna keep these guys who will still
have trade value. They're just there's no such thing as
being too deep. But they have so many good players
that it's I look at Aaron Wiggins specifically, someone who
I think should have a much larger role than he
does right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think like this gets into sort of like
some fundamental I don't know, philosophical things to talk about
with roster building, because like, both these guys are very
good rotation players. You could make the case that either
of them could be a starter somewhere on several teams,
and their contracts are great but like, if you're a
team at the Thunders level, how many of that type
of guy do you need? Versus do you need one
one more? You know, someone that's in the conversation for
being your like third, second or third best player, which
is a super high bar on a team like the Thunder.
But it's like, do you just need more star power
at the top, which means you can play lesser guys
in the same role as we're talking about with Wiggins
and Joe, or is it just better to have you know,
nine to ten deep of players that you can throw
out there and be like, he's gonna be fine. And
I think because the Thunder have like a pretty demonstrated
now need or just another creator probably like a like
that's the type of player that you should probably be
packaging up these really like good value contracts for I think,
and you can. The question is so you can get
to and you can you can add other salary too.
But if it's Joe who makes just under thirteen and
Wiggins is like ten and a half, so we're at twenty,
just say to call it twenty four million.
Speaker 1: And they can take back a shit ton of money
oh too, So who's the bet like, what are we
talking about? I was gonna ask you, because I don't
think they're gonna I don't think that's a decision they
would make mid season to go after the expensive shot
creator type. I was gonna ask you, would you trade
one of these guys and Usman Jang for Cam Johnson
or is that not enough of a I I think
I recognize that I'm way too high on Aaron Wiggins
because I would say no, okay, But I'm just sort
of like, if they don't, because we're talking about shot creators,
if you don't think Aaron Wiggins is a potentially like
why are you gonna think Cam Johnson is? Like that's
not the stuff he does in Brooklyn or in general,
I think you would just be one another calf flock
shooter to maybe try and offset the absence of only
having let's say one and a half to two top
tier creators creators in a playoff series.
Speaker 2: I I think I think I would do that. I
like Wiggins a ton and he's a great three point
shooter and in addition to the has added a lot
off the dribble stuff, as some of his drives this
year have been really eye opening. But he is really
a two and like, I don't know, and Johnson just
has more size. Not a great defender, but like and
and it's just going to get him up, is going
to get threes up. So I think Johnson is more valuable,
but he isn't the type of player we were just
saying they need, right, I think I think he could.
Speaker 1: I would do that. If you're Brooklyn, would you do
I think Jang and Wiggins. I think that the money
comes close. You could figure it out from there. But like,
is that a package you would accept?
Speaker 2: I would do it pick or picks? If I'm Brooklyn.
Oh really, yeah, Well I'm trading with if I'm training with. Okay, see,
I'm not going to start from the perspective of I
don't need picks. I'm going to start from an outrageous
ask p like can we get like four? Do you
guys even like know where they all are?
Speaker 1: So? Is there a name then that, like a bigger
name that would bring to mind that would check the
box that we think they need to fill the Well,
I guess you could argue just because you have j
Dubb with Chet Holmgren coming back, that doesn't a capslock shooter.
Maybe potentially overright not overrighte but negate or overlap with Well,
if you do this, it will make the shot creation
easier on our secondary guys anyway, so we don't necessarily
need to go after the caps lock shot creator.
Speaker 2: That's the thing, Like it's really hard. Like so if
you go get that guy, who's he closing over because
you're gonna have certainly Jada Sga, you're gonna have I
guess chet Ann Hartenstein. Are you closing with both of
those two? I think you have to right now?
Speaker 1: They probably wouldn't given how small they're used to playing right.
Speaker 2: Well, but like if we are in the if well,
I guess it depends on the matchup, But like, why
are we It's hard to imagine in the conference finals
or finals, you're not you don't have those four guys
out there. I think, I don't know, maybe I'm crazy,
but like I.
Speaker 1: You know, I honestly I had this discussion before the
season started with the uncontested guys, and I don't know
if we're ever gonna find out to answer at this
point to it, I argued they were less likely to
close dual big than not.
Speaker 2: Which means Chet is out there right like, is it Chet?
I mean, I can't fathom. Can you imagine closing high
level games for them without Chet? Given like what he
the space he occupies in that organization, I can't do.
Speaker 1: Well, That's not what I was arguing. I just think
that Isaiah Hartenstein, I sometimes I feel not I'm not
saying you're doing this, but I think are sometimes are
we clouded by just how much he's making. Well, if
it gave him thirty million dollars, he's gonna close.
Speaker 2: That's that's in my thinking. I assume you pay that
knowing he's gonna close for you.
Speaker 1: I don't assume that you just paid that because one,
it was kind of the we're gonna keep you from
going somewhere else to comparable money, like New York could
figure out how to get there with their early bird rights.
And then two like this is the the team option tax,
whereas you got two years of guaranteed money, not three.
So that's how I viewed it. But you might be right.
I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I think it's a fact. It's an
interesting question. But anyway, like what are you getting to?
Because I guess maybe i'd say it this way. I
think if you're the Thunder and you're making a significant trade.
You're trying to find someone that's for sure gonna close,
and maybe that means like Dort isn't closing or some
or something, or if he is, then one of your bigs,
isn't it. And that's a really high bar.
Speaker 1: And I guess what's also kind of a high bar too,
is like you Because here's an example. Would would they
be a darn Fox team or do you need that
shot creator to now have size because you look at
well you have Cason Wallace and Alex Caruso and Shake, Like, no,
you need someone who's bigger than let's say Shake, or
at least the same size as Shay.
Speaker 2: I mean, I feel okay with Shae on twos and
Jadab can guard whoever, so, but I would prefer size.
But like, if Fox is available, like can you what
a what a massive swing that would be? Because then I,
like I can't imagine the Thunder have a shot creation
problems if they have deeron Fox with Shay and with
Williams and with Chat, like that's that would solve the problem.
Every in a perfect world, you want all the things
and you wanted in a in a like a big
wing size player. But like, if I don't know who
that is, if we're talking about guys that are even
slightly available, I don't know how you do better than Fox.
Next up boy, Scoot Henderson, our guy? Uh, why is
he not on the block? Is it?
Speaker 1: Because the question isn't it too soon to Yeah, he
did just hit a game winner, so it's clearly too
soon to give up a bottom.
Speaker 2: It And really, depending on who you listen to, he
either has gotten no better at all or has shown
flashes to like it's just really some eye of the
beholder stuff with him, based on you know, relatives to
last year, which was about as disappointing his rookie seasons get.
I think. So if I'm Portland, I'm listening, but I'm
not expecting the kinds of offers that I would want
to trade someone that eighteen months eighteen months ago, year
and a half ago, we believed was a franchise cornerstone. Like,
I just think it's it's too early for them to
do that. But you definitely like he hasn't played well
enough to where you're not picking the phone up when
teams call, assuming they are.
Speaker 1: So Scoot Henderson for Brandon Miller, who says.
Speaker 2: No, Michael No, is Michael Jordan in charge? Still? When
Brandon Miller got picked.
Speaker 1: There, would you prefer to have Scoot Henderson or Jade
and Ivy.
Speaker 2: Oh Man. I think I would probably rather have Scoot still.
But if it were like if we get to the
end of this year and we don't see a second
half even then we'll be skeptical of it because Portland
loves the second half surges guys, then it might be different.
But I I think probably Scoot. I'm giving Scoot more time.
I think before I pull the plug.
Speaker 1: I'm with you, and I would like to see him
with better spacing around him too. I think that that
could go a long way. Next. So this is here,
we are, here we go. So latest the Aaron Fox.
I'm sure you watch the postgame interview clip which when
when you watch it wasn't the stuff he said, it
wasn't bad. I'm just I'm with him. I'm like, yeah,
like it doesn't matter because you guys suck right now
pretty much. The rumors are that the news is that
teams have basically circled him as the player to go,
and he has he will be extension as well again
this summer. He could wind up getting over three hundred
if he makes an All NBA team, but he has
one more guaranteed year left on his contract and teams
are watching. I don't I haven't seen any reporting that
the Kings are listening, but we know that Rich Paul
did have a meeting with the Kings organization to kind
of see where this is all headed. Should this, given
the state of the Kings, should they trade It's not
even should he be available? Is he untouchable? Do you
think they should actually trade him?
Speaker 2: I think the only way that that should be a
consideration is if, and this has not been reported, he's
just like it gets to a point where his play
starts to suffer or the vibes get real bad, because
it's very clear he's like sort of done there. And
I don't think you take that that postgame media availability
as like the kind of evidence you like, how do
you want him to sound after his team has just blown? However,
many games, you know, they just can't win games late.
Speaker 1: They are grant in games where they're tied or ahead
in the final five minutes, they are six and eight tier.
There's no there's no trailing in that they're six and
eight when they're tied or ahead.
Speaker 2: And they have two of the last three Clutch Player
of the Year Award winners, DANU, can we just cite
this whenever we talk about how just absurd the Clutch
Player Award is and how unpredictive it is. So anyway,
they like it's getting harder. We both when we did
this a couple of weeks ago, said we thought the
Kings would get better than they were, and like the
fact that they keep losing these close games is like,
I don't know that changes my opinion. All the underlying
numbers are you know, they're not super encouraging relative to
where they were a couple of years ago, but like
still when they generally have a they have a positive
net rating, like they're they're not a bad team, they
just have lost close games and things can snowball. Anyway.
I think that's the only scenario where you trade him
before trying literally everything else. And that extends to DeRozan
the bonus like Kegan Murray, like you try, you probably
fire Mike Brown, although they just extended him. Like I
think I try everything I possibly can before I trade him,
particularly talking about this trade deadline, because you do have
another full year to extend him, So like, that's my
last resort is trading him unless he says unless it's
clear like it's over, which I don't think it is.
Speaker 1: I yeah, I think for me it would have to be.
He asked for out and now it's okay. He really
only has if he's not going to sign this extension,
he just has the one year left, right, we need
to make the move. What I keep coming back to,
and I did mention this during the Jimmy Butler episode,
but Greg Whisker of The King's Harold phrased it like this,
if you don't trust this franchise to continue building around
the group that they've assembled, why are you trusting them
to then rebuild? Because if you're trading Daron Fox, it's
it's a rebuild, right, Like we haven't talked about that.
You're not trading Thearon Fox and just changing the cosmetics
of your team and potentially getting better or more well balanced.
Speaker 2: Correct, Well, I just don't know who you're taking back
that you know.
Speaker 1: It's not like you're going to trade Dedaron Fox for
Jimmy Butler and you're shrinking your window but you think
that that for some reason, Yeah, well or worth shooting.
Speaker 2: Apparently it's it's a different situation. But like the Halliburton
for Sa bonus trade ironically was like, well, we're gonna
be really different and but like you know, we're still good.
It's just where I don't see that trade where you're
trading Fox for a very different type of player Malik
Monks are lead ball handler now and or Dero we
run it through Deroz and like, I don't know what
you're doing because what the team needs, well, one, in hindsight,
is probably not to make the Derozean trade. And two
like a backup four and a backup five and like
a wing defender, it needs like component parts. To me,
like I was gonna have a longer conversation about can
this function with just all these offense only guys? I
don't know, but like it's what you need is not
like the thing you should be getting back in a
Fox trade, right, So that's why I think you start
someplace else other than trading him.
Speaker 1: Which and it does it kind of blow your mind
that domas a bonus is not Is it just because
of the contract situation that the Aaron Fox and we
know that clutchboards met with the Kings. It's like, why
aren't we talking about it then? With the Bonus because
he gives you limit, Like, so part of why their
defense is well, it's not so bad statistically, it's not terrible.
They have to sell out their perimeter players to ward
off shots at the rim because sa Bonus is not
a good rim protector, right, and that then makes it
harder to shoot gaps on closeouts or adequately contest three pointers.
And it's not even that they're giving up the biggest
share of wide open three pointers. It's just that it
makes life so much harder on everybody else. And so like,
why isn't he the name? Is it just a trade
value thing too, or is it strictly the contract stuff
with Fox?
Speaker 2: I I think, well, Sabonis is where I would start,
because I think, like the numbers are are tough, like
forty million this year, forty three, forty six, forty almost
fifty in the fourth year that he's got left, so like,
I'd be hard pressed to well, first of all, let's
go back to when they signed with that extension, Like
where was the competition that was going that high for him?
I don't think it extended. So yeah, I feel bad.
Speaker 1: To renegotiate and extend him unless wasn't part of the value.
He said, Well, then the deal is technically shorter because
you're not getting to get the free agency inside.
Speaker 2: I just like, I feel like I have to be
I feel like I need to be careful talking about
the Kings and Sabonis because I I've just been so
broken record about like he's a good offensive player and
it's seeming like a great guy, but it's just like
he can't be a huge piece of a team that
actually wins. Like so like, I don't know who's knocking
the door down for him at that pay rate.
Speaker 1: I do agree with I agree with you that point
that I just don't I even think with the Aaron
Fox having only one guaranteed year left on his deal,
if you put both on the market right now, there'd
be more suitors for the Aaron Fox, and by virtue
of that, you just get more. Wait, ram My counter
with a derozean, how good can the Kings be with
him on this team? And this is now, what is
this year four or year three and a half of
the of the Sabonis in Sacramento.
Speaker 2: Right, something like that, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Why have you not the stuff that we're talking about,
the components that you mentioned, This has been in need
since day one, and it's been what you did with
DeRozan is you addressed one need you wanted another shot
creator while exacerbating others, especially if you've viewed Keon Ellis
as the human seesaw that you view him as apparently,
and I think that's the biggest criticism of the Kings
is why are we starting with the two best players
on this team? And even like Kegan Murray, I hate
to use the word untouchable, but like you're not looking
to move him, Like, why have you not done a
better job optimizing what's around them? And you did it
for maybe one year where you just leaned all the
way into offense, But if you wanted to provide a
more balanced attack, the way to do that is to
not consistently feel more one way players or shallower rotation.
And that's ostensibly what they've done, and they've even I'll
argue a step further this year, they've like how many
two way players are on this roster? Truly, there is
Keegan Murray who has probably been more of a one
way player this year. But in theory, there's Keegan Murray,
I think the Aaron Fox on some Nights or Knight
is there, and there's ke Ellis And now you've marginalized
Keon Ellis without really leaning into the offense first. I mean,
I guess the make up the players that you're giving
time to. Okay, that does look like an offense first team,
but it's not like you're first an offensive efficiency again,
and so I just use the word components, which was perfect.
This is a year's long thing of just the front
up is actively looking at the roster and say like, no,
we won't, we won't do this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's it's interesting because like, well they did
draft dave On Mitchell and but then like that's just
another one way guy. You know, you're not you're not
really addressing your inability to compete at the highest levels
by adding a guy like him to the rotation.
Speaker 1: And why did you again the injury stuff whatever, Maybe
he'll end up being good for what this team needed.
Why is Devin Carter on this team?
Speaker 2: Right? Why not just take a shot at a wing
that you know, pete.
Speaker 1: Drafting someone else who's under six four?
Speaker 2: So I think we should be just to be accountable.
Like I actually, I like I now wish that I
hadn't been quite so equivocal about the Derozean trade, because like,
your very first reaction is that's dumb. They don't need that.
But then it was like, for the price, why do
you not add that level of talent and just hope
they'll figure it out. And I think that's where we
both ultimately landed, was just like, yeah, you do that, right,
Like we were aware of the it's suboptimal in a
lot of ways, but if you can get Derosen for
what it costs, you should just do that. And now
it really feels like maybe you don't because he was
he's so duplicative and he so has changed the way
they play on offense, like the threes are way down,
which is like, yeah, that's gonna happen. It just it
didn't work. And I mean, honestly, we've probably talked about
this at the time, but when they could have traded
Malik Monk, like you probably need to just trade him,
like because now what now look where you are, Like,
I just he's not something that you there you go,
We've got tomorrow and Malik on our next slide here,
like can you move either of those guys? And if
you do, what are you looking for? Like? Who? Who
do you? Just? Are we going to talk about Cam
Johnson and DFS again? Like is that is that where
you go?
Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting, I think you could still defend the
Damar And we did talk about this, I believe, and
I asked Greg Whizzinger about this on the King's look Ahead,
that does the DeMar DeRozan arrival portend that, well, Malik Monk,
they're gonna look to move him at this new number
and hope to use him as more of a premier anchor.
And that honestly that if you could get what you listed,
you know, a wing defender and another backup big or
a combo forward without moving either of these two guys,
let's talk but you realistically probably like these are the
two that I look at and say, well, why isn't
it them? Plus whatever? Yeah, like are we is it
a meggot? Are they going after Jimmy Butler? And then
they're including Kevin Herder and Picks? I just like that's
where you start, I think, And even if you don't
trust the King's direction, I would argue, that's where you
have to start, because unless Fox ask for out now,
you don't get to play. But we have to wait
and see if he asked her out over the summer.
So we're not gonna do no, You've done enough for
doing nothing. This is where it starts. I'm not saying
either of these two guys are the root problem. I'd
said this when I talked about them the other day.
They're a confluence of problems of like minor to moderate
problems that have now co laced into something gigantic to
where if the playoffs started today, they wouldn't even be
in the play in tournament. And that's the I don't
know the name, you've already said that, like, are we
just revisiting mckam Johnson, Dorrian Phinney Smith stuff? And those
guys alone aren't gonna fix anything. And should the Kings
be taking a swing at a Jimmy Butler who is
Damar DeRozan's age bracket? But you have to give up
picks to get him, in addition to what you already
gave up to get Tomar, which really amounts to a
swap and Harrison Barnes, So maybe it's not too much.
I I'm probably not looking at the mega trade like
go after Jimmy Butler or I don't even know what
the other player would be. But this team needs to
be more proactive somehow, Like why like we haven't heard
them really mentioned with a Larry Nance junior and you
know what, you get zero points for recycling. How often
have they been mentioned with Dorian Phinney, Smith, Kyle Kuzman,
and Cam Johnson. Those are the names that have been
brought up for over a year. I'm not going to
give the Kings a pat on the bat, like it'll
be really cool on February seventh when we see all
the stories about how the King's like almost traded for
the same three guys again.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, well you know what they need. I
guess this is I don't know if it's too far
of an edge case, but like they need the PJ. Washington,
Daniel Gafford series of moves that Dallas made, Like that
that kind of thing would be exactly what would would
improve the team without like fundamentally altering the core. Now
it's different because lucas better than Fox, Kyrie is better
than Sabonis, So you're just starting from a higher level
from your your main drivers of offense. But like, get
the combo forward that shoots threes and can guard four positions,
get the backup big that's actually good. So you're not
playing Trey Lyles and Alex Lynn and whoever else like
that and so, and I like, could you you would
think you could do something like that with Monk or
DeRozan as like the main outgoing salary. I think, because
what a Dallas? How did Dallas just use a single
first to pull all that off last year? Two? Okay,
that's good, I think. I think if you can do that,
that's the type of thing you look at way before
you get into Fox. But but if you aren't going
to do that, then I don't know. I don't know
what to tell you, like because you can't just start
with the nuclear option. I don't think.
Speaker 1: No, I'm with you there. Next up, I think this
is our final player, Jeremy Sewen.
Speaker 2: So the reason he could be on the block but
isn't is that you just don't believe in him as
an optimal fit. With Wemby, it's a weird positionless thing.
You like all the hustle, the defense, the way he
attacks the basket, but is that actually valuable in a
significant role and might somebody else view him as like
a more of a key. I don't know, Like what
do we think about him on the Kings just for example,
as like someone to play the four and run around?
Speaker 1: Apparently there you go.
Speaker 2: Maybe we've just spoken into existence. That's the thinking, right
as you're just not sure of his fit, like why
else should he be out there?
Speaker 1: Well, that and the fact that he's played. He's averaging
over fifteen points a game this season. The finishing is
probably the best of his career. So you're trading him,
I would say at the peak, given the level responsibility
he shoulders on the defensive end, probably at the peak
of his value. And you're doing it because of what
you mentioned that you don't think that he's the optimal
fit alongside Wemby. And just to that point, Wemby's effective
field goal percentage with Jeremy Sewen on the floor of
this season is forty eight point nine. When he's off
the court, it's sixty point nine. These two and the
Spurs have won the minutes they've played together, but it's
done mostly on the defensive end. So I'm not saying
trade him for draft equity, although myself I'm more talloused
about this. I might consider it if the picks are good,
but it might be more of a nudge of can
you do something that's a consolidation trade without making the
home run swing unless Darrek Fox would be a great
fit on the Spurs.
Speaker 2: Love it, yeah, that does.
Speaker 1: But it's Jeremy Sowen has not been bad this yar
to making clear. It's almost more intriguing to me because
he's been good. I don't view him as the optenal
fit alongside Wemby, especially if your your end game is
what we want. Stephan Castle to be a huge part
of this team as well, and you also have Devin
Massel by the way. So yes, there is a positional
void that in fury Jeremy Sohan can still slot into.
But I just don't think offensively he's built to play
that role long term in the Spurs to be the
best version of themselves.
Speaker 2: Would you feel differently if Castle right now we're shooting
like thirty four percent from three? You know, and you
you could because I think I think the problem is
you can't get away with if Castle is gonna be
like a real questionable shooter at least for the next
couple of years, because you're already I think if you're
the Spurs now, I don't know what you're where you're
when you're gonna peak with Wemby. But like, I think
this year has shown that, like it's time to start
thinking about like what kind of like we could win fifty,
you know, forty five to fifty games next year, Like
that's you should probably expect that if Wemby is this,
so you got to start thinking about, like can we
put in two non shooters in a in a lineup
next to Wemby, like and if if the answer is no,
I think certainly Castle is just going to be a
starter forever. But so Hann then is coming off the
bench as like a defensive specialist, and I don't know,
like do you want him for what he's gonna make
on his second contract in that role? That's another just
making another argument for it because it seems weird because
he's in his age, he's age twenty one. Season has
shown promise, Like why are we talking about this? But
I think it's because the Spurs are already at a
point where you have to start thinking about how this roster.
Speaker 1: Fits right, I guess. And if you're acquiring a dr
and Fox or just a bigger name, they've been mentioned
for Jimmy Butler two, so ann is a name that
it's it becomes easier to trade because like that's just
the collateral damage of doing that type of business. It
becomes more fascinating if you're going the notch or two
below to where it's how many name times if this
name come up? But are you doing salary plus so
in for Cam Johnson. Yeah, that's that's like the borderline name, right.
Speaker 2: It's it's the way I'm like hamming and hawing about
it is is like, Okay, that must be a pretty
good suggestion because you think you would definitely think about it,
but I'm not sure because you're just weighing so Sohan's
like I don't know potential, like what if he can
shoot eventually or what like a decent volume against Johnson
being like, what's six years older almost seven years older,
but but has the shooting skill that you sort of
you know, I think you want next to next to Wemby,
Like that's a bigger question, is like can you just
put offensive players around Wemby in trust that the defense
will be great because he's there, Like, what kind of
team do you really does it make sense to build?
Speaker 1: And I you know, in someone's this defense, Like I
do think the three point stroke looks better, but he's
taking fewer and he's making less of them. He's at
twenty six point seven percent this year. I I'm just
I guess I'm wondering I would trade him for Cam Johnson.
I'm trying to think of who the worst player is
that I would consider moving him for anyone on it?
Like what about a DeAndre Hunter? Is that too low?
I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean I think I think I probably, Oh, that's tough.
DeAndre Hunter has been so good. I think if like
if we get to the deadline and Hunter is still
doing this, I think I would definitely trade so in
for him. But if if he turns back into what
he's been, I don't think you do that.
Speaker 1: Is there any other like I'm just trying to think of,
like what would be the name of I mean, I
guess we came up with it, the Cam Johnson, Dianny Hunter.
Speaker 2: Quick, let's do a different type of player? Would you
do it for HERB Jones? Just to cite somebody, else
we talked about. Yeah, oh yeah, but the Pelicans probably
don't unless we're in blode What.
Speaker 1: Would you do so in and a pick for Herb Jones.
So let's say Jeremy Sewen and that Atlanta pick in
twenty twenty seven. I mean, you could give them twenty
twenty five. I think New Orleans would prefer twenty seven,
just because they have their own pick this year. That's
gonna be really good. Do you do that? Which who
says no to that?
Speaker 2: I kind of like that. I think I think if
you're the Pelicans, you probably you're getting a good first
and basically another first, which is what Sohenna is.
Speaker 1: I think the Pelicans say no, And the argument would
be Herb Jones is the best player going out in
that deal, and we're then hoping that the Atlanta pick
turns into someone as good as Herb Jones.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Atlanta is like gonna be decent because they
don't have Yeah, that's that's a good point. I don't know.
I mean, he's an interesting player because you could still
talk yourself into being a really effective, maybe starting level
guy on a good team. He's like sort of is
that now he's mostly been a starter for a pretty
good Spurs team. But like, I don't know, with with
with Wemby, you sort of always have to be thinking
about like can we aim a little higher?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Like can we trade? Can we step ladder our way
to someone that's gonna be you know, no questions asked,
Like he's just he's part of this core. I like,
I think it's fair to be ambitious like that, Grant.
Speaker 1: Unless you have anything else to add, are you ready
to take us out of here?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I'm just happy to. We really fed the rumor
mill like we should. We should keep.
Speaker 1: Tracked created it. You're welcome.
Speaker 2: We we concocted a rumor mill out of names that
are not in it except for Fox, which we'll see.
Thanks everybody for listening, for watching. Please remember, if you
haven't already rate, review, subscribe, follow us on subscribe on
YouTube for sure. Leave some comments there, mention anybody we
didn't that that you're you have the same feeling we
do about how like why talk.
Speaker 1: About Julius Randall?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Well I think that's just I'm a one man
crusade of bench him, slash trade him.
Speaker 1: I don't want would you trade this? Is so?
Speaker 2: But you're gonna bring up Julius Randall. Mid outro.
Speaker 1: Julius. If you're Minnesota, would you do Julius Randall for
John Collins? Oh?
Speaker 2: Man? Wait, so but what does that help me? I
save like four million dollars this year?
Speaker 1: But I guess if you, if you're arguing as the
timberlves that you didn't trade Julius Randall just because you
think he's coming off the books? Yeah, doesn't John Collins
make more sense for what this team needs than Julius Randall?
Speaker 2: I mean, actually yeah, he kind of. Maybe you get
a pick? Well, why is why is Utah want Julius
Randall just because.
Speaker 1: Maybe they want to get the money off the books?
Speaker 2: This is where we are with Julius Randall.
Speaker 1: We just whoever I think Minnesota has like Detroit's second
or something. That's so maybe you're getting a good second
round pick plus Julius Randall expiring money for John Collins.
Speaker 2: What a world? What a world we live in?
Speaker 1: That one didn't? I?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you really did. I was ready to say no.
I mean, I'm about as low as on Randalls as
anybody it could be. But I was once there with
John Collins, So I don't know, let's maybe they just
exchange problems those two teams. Do you have anything else
now that you're out you want to get? Do you
want to talk about it? Dante de Vincenzo trade Well
Rate Reviews, subscribe to all that stuff, Tell your friends,
tell your enemies, and we have to get out of here.
With the apology to a shout out to Frank milla Keton,
an apology to Jared Allen before Dan comes up with
someone else to discuss trade it