Speaker 1: What is up, fellows, Echoes, I am Dan Valley coming
at you with the one, the Only, my certified fantabulous
co host, mister Grant Hughes. It is live mail bag time.
Our first mail bag of the season. Took us a
third of the way through the schedule to get the one.
I'm not even sure if we've done a live mail
bag before. We've done live shows, but maybe this is
a first. It's the first of the season, that's for sure.
We have lots of great questions to get to, leading
with the existential crisis of the Golden State Warriors, to
whom neither of us are beholden to, and then we'll
get to some stat panning. We'll try and get through
as many questions as we can in the next hour
or so, and then we've got we've got loaded stat
padding for you today, Like we really stat padded our
stat padding section. We're excited to add it up. First
question of the day, though, Grant, how the heck are
you doing?
Speaker 2: As Steve Kerr said, that's uh, we're going to keep
that in house. It's you know, it's what he say
about the dreamland thing. It was a good answer, but
it basically was like, we'll just we didn't say in house,
but it was essentially like a none of your business situation.
That's how I like to live my life. I like
to keep all my disputes in house, or you know,
just happy thoughts either way.
Speaker 1: Did you So?
Speaker 2: I was watching that game, and I don't know if
this is a great sign. It took me a lot
longer to notice that Draymond hadn't been in the game
than it probably should have. Whether it was it's like
things were going pretty well, and well, yeah, where's he been?
Because I didn't catch the argument and the him leaving
the bench in real time.
Speaker 1: No, and do you assign before getting to the actual
Warriors question that we have, do you assign any concern
to this? I just feel as if, given all the
things that have happened with Draymond Green, this is part
of the Draymond Green experience, as you're going to have
these blips, these curveballs, these antagonistic moments, and you're just
gonna have to live with it. And maybe it's just
harder to live with because because this isn't the Draymond
Green that helps be your head, the same Draymond Green
that helps be your head those four title runs.
Speaker 2: That's the difference. Like, there there have been instances a
lot like this and there can you imagine how many
there have been in practice and just you know, the
situations that we don't even know about. There have been
so many and it's not a big deal, which is
a weird thing to say, except for what you said
where at some point the like the juice isn't worth
the squeeze is like the wrong analogy, but it's something
close to that where it's like you put up with
all the Draymond stuff because of all the all the
negative stuff and the headache stuff, because of all the
good you get along with it. It's kind of it's individual.
The package is not divisible, like you get all the
Draymond experiences like a total thing. But now that like,
I mean, you have fourteen turnovers in the three games
leading into the Orlando game, and that just people you know,
if you've watched them regularly, they're just like egregious, like
unthinkable turnovers, and he's you know, so he's just not
the same player he was, which of course not like
nobody is at that age.
Speaker 1: So it that's the difference.
Speaker 2: I don't know if I guess it's a very different question,
and maybe we can get to the question from Bill
here because it kind of touches on it, like does
it does his decline and performance and maybe value to
the team make it more likely that he gets traded?
The specific question is is it too late for the
Warriors to include Draymond Green and a COMINGA slash Pods
trade to improve the roster and give Steph a last
chance at a playoff run? Is it too late? So?
I guess what's what we're presuming from that question is
like is his value so low or is he such
a tricky fit elsewhere that like he doesn't actually profile
as like someone who improves the value of an outgoing
package with COMINGA and Pods. Is that how you're reading it,
like the too late part of it, you know? Or
I'm not sure we can get into what those trades
might look like. But I'm curious how you're taking a question.
Speaker 1: I look at it as twofold is to where that
it's a broader is it too late question? Too? Is
it even worth it because you're not just giving up
on the idea of Draymond Green or at that point
John Vian cominga and pods. It's oh, are you willing
to include future? First? Is the team with Steph and
Jimmy Butler and any of the guys who are remaining
and who you're getting back, are they going to be
good enough to contend for a title? And if the
answer is no, you could still talk about trading Draymond Green.
But the appeal of throwing first round picks on the
table on top of that is not going to be
that attractive. And then the other element to it is, Okay, well,
does Draymond Green have value? I think he might. I
think he'll definitely have value. I don't know if you
put him on the market that you would just get
a first round pick out right though. I think because
of what he can still do defensively on certain nights,
and just the fact that he does have a player
option for next season and so we're not talking about
a long term contract, you could view him as salary
ballast to put it, like super cruelly at that point. So,
but if he doesn't, if he's not, if that team doesn't,
if a team that's acquiring him isn't a help doesn't
hume as a helpful player, Because whoever the Warriors are
getting presumably is coming from a team that is currently
rebuilding or probably resetting, would be my guess. And Draymond's
not going to be a part as he's heading into
his late thirties a part of their plan. So if
you're going to accept him as part of the package,
my thought process would be, well, can I reflip this
guy or do I have hum is the avaliable, valuable
mentor to some of the younger guys for the rest
of the season and we revisit his value over the summer.
Are you secretly hoping that he declines his player option
because he's at what like twenty seven million or whatever
it is the following season, He's not going to get that.
I'd be shocked if anyone gave him that annually on
the open market. But could he get sixteen eighteen over
a longer period of time and he wants to lock
down whatever money. There's so many moving parts to it.
But do you think if they were before getting into
what players might be worth giving up on Draymond for
If you put Draymond on just the trade market, Draymond
is a standalone contract and player right now, do you
think you get a first round pick for him, and
I think that Bert does not believe that you're gonna
get it from you.
Speaker 2: Know, he's he's very anti Draymond trade. It would seem
I just don't know how to So the thinking about
like the concept of trading him, My first thought was, well,
who's who's got to have Draymond? You know, like, what's
what's the team out there that's like this is this
is someone that we believe to be valuable enough to
our operation to give something up of consequence. And it's like, well,
it's got to be a team that has zero problem scoring,
and it's got to be a team that needs like
this kind of defender and and like secondarily facilitator. I
don't really know how valuable his facilitation is, like outside
of playing with Steph, It's probably got some value, but
it's it's so specific, and he sort of had to
do it because the way defenses cover him, like with
the ball, he has to be a threat somehow, and
shooting has never been that So if you put him
on some other team, I just I just don't know
what that would look like. So like, is this just
go through the best offenses in the league? Denver I
don't know. I gotta believe Denver feels a lot better
with Aaron Gordon in those minutes.
Speaker 1: Like the Knicks are the.
Speaker 2: Second best offense in the league, Does he make sense
next to kat I don't hate it, kinda like that
that actually has a little bit of logic to it.
Doesn't make any sense with Mitchell Robinson Houston. That's weird. Like,
you know, you could just go down the best offenses.
It's really hard to find about a no brainer fit.
Speaker 1: What about the Lakers just well, that.
Speaker 2: Would be like finally going to play with his true
his true first love Lebron or something like that. I mean,
they do need defense, is he Yeah, that's a good.
That's a good. That's a good option of some not
great options, because you could, well, just so he's got
He's never gonna be on the ball with the Lakers though,
right Like ever, so what do you do with him offensively?
Speaker 1: Well, he's not a lob threat, but becauld you run
just screen and rolls to death with him and Luca
and have him I.
Speaker 2: Feel like you'd switch everything. Yeah, I don't know, that's
I mean, I'm I don't want to shoot it down.
That's a better example than any of the teams I named,
like San Antonio.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm, what about well you would have to take
back maybe if they're giving you a pick, would you
take back Paul George Like it's kaminga Draymond and whatever
other salary and then the Sixers are sending you Paul
George in a pick. I could see that.
Speaker 2: I mean, the Sixers just want off that money basically
they yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean he and to be fair like Paul George,
really he's not been bad this year. It's moah price
versus availability and the minutes that he's playing. Thing.
Speaker 2: What Paul George, Jimmy Butler and Steph Curry on the
same team. What a team that is in twenty eighteen
or something like nineteen.
Speaker 1: I think. So that's the challenge. And so if you're
trading Draymond Green, I don't know, there's the emotional component
behind it, and you have to wonder if he provides
the value in a larger package, is it worth jumping
through that hoop or do you just think the player
you're getting back is well, this player is such a
good fit. We think it elevates our elevates our title ceiling. Well,
we're using Draymond basically as salary at this point or
the equivalent of second round picks. I just don't We've
run into this problem with the Warriors talking about it before.
I think Steph is good enough to where you could say, yeah,
if that trade is on the table, you still go
after Now. I know people have had the discussion do
you need a player better than Steph Curry at this point?
And that's akin to saying you just need another top
ten player, which is I just find that a little
it's reductive. Yeah, I still struggle to find the player
that would make me comfortable that the non y Honest
Division just assuming that because look, their Yannis offer is
a lot better than some of the other teams that
are being.
Speaker 2: It's not it's not terrible, right, it's not terrible.
Speaker 1: They put all the picks on the table like it's
it's that's definitely better than the Knicks. It's better than
Miami's best offer most likely, even though they have Kohli aware.
But the nony Honest Division, what are the names that
start to stand out there? I think if you were
going with the biggest name possible, if that's the goal here,
I keep coming back to Anthony Davis. Mm hmm.
Speaker 2: I mean, so he would pass the threshold test that
I was kind of thinking of, which isn't that different
from what you're talking about, But like I view it
as I guess you have to answer the question first,
do you think Draymond is in the Warriors' best lineups today?
Speaker 1: Like?
Speaker 2: Is he closing games assuming he doesn't leave for the
locker room after an argument? Like I think probably. I
think the answer is still probably. So that's that's the
threshold you have to cross if you're trading him, and
that's eaving aside the possibility that's like Steph just says, no,
that's not no, thank you, we're not trading him.
Speaker 1: You think Steph would say, being a close personal friend, yeah,
I just hope you haven't had anything. I can call
him you want.
Speaker 2: Would do you think it would be good for the
pot if we just had him on? I've never really
thought to ask if you thought that.
Speaker 1: I think that's I think that's what would he say.
I think if you gave him, I think he would
say I think he would say deal him. I think
he would say it.
Speaker 2: I I think it depends on what you're getting. I
think I think you would need, man, I don't know
the situation because Clay wanted to leave right, so that
like took all the It took Steph out of having
to weigh in, I think, and even then he tried
to convince him to stay right like I think, but now.
Speaker 1: That is it sort of Dams already broke though, so
he might there's some of that.
Speaker 2: There's some of that, and I think, now what two
years down the line, it's like the the finite nature
of this seems competitive window like it's it's all the
all the clearer now that everybody's a couple of years older, right,
the end is way closer now than it was then.
So maybe there's enough urgency on Steph's part to be like,
I don't want to do this, but we gotta. And
it's easier because we are like all three of us
will not have you know, we won't all three be
one career one team guys. I just it's I think
my gut says. It's still really hard to imagine Steph
green lighting that, and he would almost he would have
to maybe that he would have to, right, I think.
Speaker 1: It's for the A fine exercise would be would Steph
think about green lighting the trade for this player.
Speaker 2: So it would have to be a no brainer at
that point. Anthony Davis, I think a great name. I
think he would do it for Davis.
Speaker 1: Okay, but not a Trey Murphy or Derek White.
Speaker 2: Then I don't know. I don't think so. I think
it would have to be a quality of player where
it was just like no one could hold it against him.
Not that anyone in Golden State's ever gonna hold anything
against Steph, but it's like if it would, it would
feel like a betrayal of sorts because there's again like
it's a necessary condition of a Draymond trade, like Steph
has to say he's okay with it now.
Speaker 1: Just asking questions here, what if the Warriors that they
they're probably putting everything on the table, and this team decides, hey,
we think he had we have his hair apparent or
a big man of another big man of the future. Here,
we don't know what our next big name that we're
gonna be able to acquire. Who that's going to be.
The Warriors put literally everything on the table.
Speaker 2: Bam Adebayo, I mean, he's he might be more valuable
than Davis if you're factoring in durability, So I mean,
I don't, I don't know it's you. You could make
a case, I guess if you're gonna know Brainer Anthony Davis,
because of the availability question marks, you would have to
do the same. Well. Davis is weird too though for
the Warriors because he's just killed them, Like he's been
such an unsolvable guy for several meetings and series so like,
I mean, he seems like the bigger name in a way.
But if you're like, who's gonna help us win in
a sustained way, It's like, I don't know. Bam is
pretty hard to beat, and he has like so many
He does a lot of what Draymond does, but a
lot of what Draymond can't. So it's like the fit
would seem to make a ton of sense there too.
Speaker 1: I don't know what about Kawhi Leonard.
Speaker 2: I've always kind of liked that just because I think he's,
oh you like, well, I mean, is that kind of
is a wild take because nobody should be that interested
in having Kawhi, But like he's I think he's probably
a better player than Butler is. Still, like even if
you I like, just the ceilings higher, I mean think
about that team you were talking about Paul George Steph
and right, yeah, I mean that's on the Davis level probably,
that's probably one where if that, if that was what
was gonna happen, Steph would have to like think about it.
Speaker 1: I yeah, I think that Kawhi Leonard would do more
for the team ceiling if everyone's healthy. But I think
Anthony Davis might have more like future value because he's
less of a wild card where I could see Kawhi
Leonard is retiring at some people.
Speaker 2: Well right, yeah, but you're in the Kawhi sweepstakes because
it is California, Like, there can't be that many teams
he would consider playing for. And Golden State, I imagine,
is one that's a that's a short or short PJ
flight back down to San Diego. So so I want
to is it too late for the Warriors to include
Draymond in a in a trade.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think it is. I just don't
think they will.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think it's too late at all. I
think there is a question of like is it too
late in the sense of like would it even matter?
You know, like is he is him and whatever else?
Enough to get this team where it wants to go. Like,
but then that's not even a Draymond specific question. That's
just like can this team do it right?
Speaker 1: And that's what's so fascinating. I've asked you some variation
of this question probably a dozen times this year, is
that if you were to fill like throw names out
of the equation, what is the type of player that
makes you feel like, what is that play the what's
the biggest thing anyone they acquire in a consolidation trade
needs to do.
Speaker 2: I think I'm still stuck on someone that and this
is a superstar almost by definition, so like, okay, great,
it's just someone that with it's got to be kind
of with their athleticism and just individual ability, can just
beat his guy and get into the paint and draw
other defense like just a second, call it a secondary creator,
but just someone that you don't need to run a
bunch of split cuts and a bunch of handoffs and
a bunch of this and that to get a paint
touch to then start the offense going, you know, And
it takes the Warriors like fifteen seconds to accomplish that
because they don't have a beat your guy from a
stance to player. Butler does that some, but it's foul
griff and it's not a blowby thing. I think they
need that kind of guy where it's just.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: That was fun when we thought maybe that that would
be in the bag. But I think I think that's it.
You could say more dynamic, offensive, big guy for sure,
but I still think just someone that can make stuff
happen offensively independent of the warriors like system, and they
just they don't have that. Guy like Pajemski stands out
because he cannot do that and he's like they asked,
they need him to and it's just beyond his ability.
Speaker 1: And the final leg of this question would be part
of the appeal of trading Draymond is because of that
extra salary. I don't know who's the best player that
you could acquire without including his salary, because it's a
struggle to I mean, you would be kind and I
think they could get there because what's kaminga at twenty
twenty four. They could definitely get there. But like if
you wanted to five, if you threw everything on the table,
because Jared Junior is at thirty five million, is that
front core then too small? I mean him and Draymond
Intuitive On offense, I would say, you don't have to
worry about the Jeneral Jackson Junior's three point efficiency's always
all over the place, but he'll take them. He's maybe
not as athletic as you were hoping, but we saw
mostly last season he could create from dead stops for sure.
Speaker 2: Yep, no I had. He wasn't someone I was thinking of,
but yeah, I mean because of the position he plays,
any ability whatsoever to create from nothing is like super
valuable because that's normally guard stuff, and you're sort of
limited in the kind of you can't play another small
guard for example, like just I don't know why he's
not popped into my head, but like Jeremiah Fears can
just beat his guy. He's not obviously on the table,
but like, you can't really play a guard of that
size next to Steph and get away with it against
really good teams. So the guard side of that, when
you're looking for that type of player is kind of limited.
Whereas if it's the center, great, like, yeah, that's that's perfect.
Speaker 1: This is an interesting comment. Video editor for Hardwood Knox
Andrew Willett. I feel like it's size, but get the
secondary creation that granted talking about you might need two transactions, Yeah,
getting a creation in a big because even Anthony Davis
I think falls short of that and that little bit.
Could that be? The other thing is is it just
the Warriors need two medium sized trades that you know,
we're trying to galaxy bring this and get them a
huge name. But if you I'm trying to think of
what would be like a meet like a you know,
like who's a big that's not making too much money
that maybe you go out you take a fly er
if you were able to get a Robert Williams and
a freaking secondary creator.
Speaker 2: Cole Andrews suggested in the next comment, I mean Kobe
White is the level of of you know, if we're
talking to trades. I don't know if if you're getting
a d and Kobe White, but if it's Robert Williams
or Daniel Gafford and Kobe White, you know, in two
separate moves like that gets you pretty, that gets you closer.
So I think what you're looking for, it's White's definitely available.
It sounds like more. I think the report was like
more than ever the bulls are willing.
Speaker 1: Which is just malpractice because you should have already been available.
He should have been long gone. Yeah, I do think
that's even though that path feels a little more complicated,
doesn't it maybe feel more light, It feels more likely
than anything, is more likely than them trading Draymond, even
if they were getting honest, I would probably just assume
that Jimmy Butler is the outgoing South.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, maybe right, Yeah, that's that's the other
thing is that the green lighting of that trade by
Steph would be just like that might not even be
one the Warriors would feel like they really needed like
his full approval on because it's just not the same
even though, right, Butler's a better player than green Right.
Speaker 1: Now, that was our default question. So do you want
to pick? You can take the first pick of the
Now we're just get to bounce around all these great
questions we have. Yeah, let's see here.
Speaker 2: Uh, I'm trying to make sure we don't get too
much overlap like topically here, Okay, let's just.
Speaker 1: Do this one.
Speaker 2: From Maddy l And light of all the talk about
the Clippers potentially giving their pick to Okac, could you
explain how pick protection works exactly in particular when we
hear someone has the worst pick of three different teams. Also,
how do teams go from having no picks to trades
to having, for example, three first rounders available at the
start of the next year.
Speaker 1: Thank you?
Speaker 2: Uh well, I guess let's take the first part, which
is how pick protection works.
Speaker 1: Just take more confusing if you believe the Board of
Governors apparently.
Speaker 2: But well apparently, I mean that is you know, that
is something that I did just skim what some of
the anti tanking proposals are, and it's just the idea
would be to limit the types of protections you can
put on picks to either top four or top fourteen
basically right, because at the moment you can protect anything,
like there's sections of picks that are protected, like the
Warriors had the Washington one, which is like it was
protected twenty one to thirty or what was it.
Speaker 1: It was some kind of weird twenty one to thirty,
And so it's the more interesting part of that pick
is still.
Speaker 2: Right, right, which is you don't see a lot of
those What you typically see are hey, Dan, I'm trading
you this pick. In a trade, you will only get
it if it falls outside of the top just let's
use the Utah, Okay see example, because that's kind of
top of mind. So the Jazz had to dump Derek
Favors salary. They attached a first rounder to do that.
Oklahoma City Opportunistic took the deal, and the Jazz have
owed the Thunder a first rounder with protections on it
that have changed over the last couple of years. But
so this year. The example is if it's inside the
top eight, the Jazz keep it. If it's ninth or worse,
the Thunder get it, and I don't know what happens
that usually that's the other complicating factor is like they'll
roll over like if not conveyed. You can then condition
different things to happen to that pick. It can be extinguished,
it can turn into two seconds that seems to have
been pretty popular for a while. It can turn into
a second.
Speaker 1: Turned into nothing. That's what turned into States does right?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think that's right. So that's the basics of
pick protection. I hope I'm not like over explaining.
Speaker 1: It's really just the it's the selected range where you
could get the pick. An unprotected pick is you get
it a first round pick, let's stick with no matter
where it lands. They could win the lottery and get
the number one pick. You get it. They could finish
twenty fifth, you get it. And it's that the I
think for me at one point, what was more confusing
is how do these and I still get it wrong
sometimes is how do these picks all of a sudden
open up?
Speaker 2: Right? Well, that's that's the third part of the question
is like built into the calculus here is the Stepian rule,
which is a team cannot basically trade or cannot be
without its first round pick in two consecutive drafts. Right,
but if you have somebody else's first does that factor?
I never remember it?
Speaker 1: Does you have to guaranteed though? So right, if it's conditional,
that's where you can't then trade an outright first like
the heat run into like some of this stuff, like
some of these issues, and that's where the conditions get confusing.
The oka I know I.
Speaker 2: Was gonna say, so this is the example that Maddie
raises of, like how does the team have no picks
and then at the start of next year suddenly there's
three What there's like there's simil cases. Now that's that's
an ex Usually it's not no picks. Usually it's like
they can trade a maximum of one, which is like
kind of where the Lakers are or some other teams
are at the moment the Bucks, and then if you
get to the next league year, it can be up
to three because one the latest down the line seven
years off pick that you can trade probably comes into
play in two. You've done something to make it so
that you're not violating the Stepian rule by trading three picks,
Like there's enough years in there to where you've got
alternate years being conveyed or whatever, right, Like, is that
I feel like.
Speaker 1: That's not Let's use the Lakers as an example. They
owe there twenty twenty seven and twenty twenty nine first
which means they cannot trade what right now. As of
right now, they can't trade twenty twenty six, twenty twenty eight,
or two thousand and thirty right, so those.
Speaker 2: That would be two and two years in a row,
and you can't.
Speaker 1: Do that, right And because you can go only seven
years out into the future, you have to look, that's
two thousand and thirty two is as far out you
can trade a first round pick right now, So they
can trade thirty one or thirty two, that's the pick
they could trade. But what you said about the new
league year is once the new league year resets, you
can say it's the equivalent of trading a first round pick,
because it is. But they're basically trade like on draft night,
they can trade this year's first round.
Speaker 2: Pick, the guy they pick basically right that you're just
picking for that other team mostly or.
Speaker 1: The right you're picking for that other team. So in
that scenario, because it's you're talking about a new league year,
they're trading their twenty twenty six first round pick. But
they can also once the new league year resets, trade
out until two thousand and thirty three, So all of
a sudden, you can trade thirty one, leave the gap
in thirty two, and trade thirty three. And it's something
similar to what the Bucks are doing is they can
only trade one first round pick right now. That becomes
three when factoring in this draft as you see that
two pick bump, because what you're effectively doing is you're
not trading a future first round pick anymore, you're trading
a current first round pick. Right. Is basically how I've
always defined and what teams do. And this is not
to confuse it further. There's no way like around it.
But is the swaps. It's just what we can't trade
you an outright first round pick. But look at that
the Bucks again when they got Drew, they traded Drew
Holiday for Damian Lillard. They gave Portland all of these
swaps because you don't you can as long it doesn't
have to be your own or it doesn't even like
Phoenix has traded like a swap of a swap of
a swap, which gets really confusing to track as well.
And so that's the part that I think is more
confusing than the all they could be confusing. But the
protections are I feel like, are way more straightforward than
the Steppian rule gets complicated because of the way that
current first round picks are. However, you want to frame
what happens with the new league year.
Speaker 2: And then last thing like how to teams or what
about when we hear that someone has the worst of
three picks, So that would actually apply to what is
it Milwaukee, Atlanta and New Orleans this coming draft, right,
because New Orleans traded the best of its own and
Milwaukee's twenty six first to Atlanta in that Draft night trade.
So Atlanta gets the best of those three, No just
gets the best of those two, right, right, So.
Speaker 1: It would just be let's just say you're owed, because
it happens a lot with second round picks or something
too is Well, let's say Oklahoma City is going to
get the most favorable pick from Philly, Los Angeles, or Utah.
So most favorable would be who has the highest pick,
which which is effectively of Utah is tenth and Philly
is sixteenth and Los Angeles is first. They get los
Angeles because that was ranked highest with first, and if
it's the worst, they would get Philly finished the sixteenth
in that scenario. So that what's interesting with those is
I don't know if they come into play nearly as often.
Just it's it that that's like you need to have
an embarrassed you need to It feels like have an
embarrassment of riches already to even like offer those types
of paths, Like you need to write multiple first round
picks in the clip to even offer that type of package.
Speaker 2: Well, I do think too, like if this is confusing,
like I get it, because I feel like we are
at peak complicated pick protection and like obligation status right now,
which is got partly in addition to curbing tanking. It's
got to be why the league is looking at like
we gotta we gotta simplify this process because like it's
an interesting it's like it's worth knowing, right, Like if
your team, Oh, everybody loves the trade market, right, that's
that's all everybody wants to talk about. It's like, well,
you got to know what your team's pick situation is.
And it's like even for fans of one team, it's
like it can be very complicated. So just because teams
I don't know have gotten create like the swaps of
swaps and the phoenix of it all, and like there's
so many encumbrances at the moment that I get it.
Speaker 1: If it's if it seems like just.
Speaker 2: I don't know, like an advanced math class or so
like an advanced logic class or something where you just
have to juggle several ideas.
Speaker 1: It easier. Yeah, I hope it was probably a journey.
It was way easier to track these a few years ago,
because now I find myself double checking so many things
because of it's not not so much the protections, but
it's just like the swaps are just they're not confusing,
but as well, did they swap this pick? Did they
actually even have their own pick? Even than the Phoenix?
Is just I couldn't even tell you whose pick they're
gonna have in a given season at this point. It's
just it's it's insane, And this question is kind of
adjacent to it, and it touches on what the league
has talked a lot about with regards to tanking. But
it comes from, Uh where is this one come from? Uh?
Dark wing duck? How many teams tanking is too many?
How close do you have to be to competing for
a champ or how close do you have to be
competing for a championship in order not to tank? And
should front offices be fired for unintentionally not being incompetent? Uh? Grant,
I'm gonna do something a little bit more extensive on
the tanking stuff. I don't know if is there a
hard and fast number for you. Let's tackle the first one.
How many is too many? And I think if you
get to there's probably a point of the year where
it feels like eight or nine teams are tanking and
that's too many. I think that's too many. Once you
cross the threshold of like flagrant entire season tanking anything
above four makes me uncomfortable, I will.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I And you also don't see as much of that,
I guess, Like, so, who are those teams this year?
Like from day one this was a tank and even and.
Speaker 1: Like Charlene count or did they well.
Speaker 2: So that's what I can't It can't be because there's
no payoff to tanking, so like they're out that they.
Speaker 1: Don't say there's teams that think they're good and just
organically so the Kings aren't tanking, the Kings suck.
Speaker 2: No, that's I think that's an important distinction because the
process Sixers kind of took this to a level that
was like from the start the goal was to be bad,
and they took more steps I think than almost anybody
that I can remember to just stay bad, right, whether
that's like how who they played, how much they played them,
the style that they played, like all that stuff. Am
I like wrong that we haven't really seen that level
of sustained purposeful losing, certainly since the lottery odds were
like rejiggered, like the payoff was just it was you
might you might get in the top four, or you
might not. I think that went a long way towards
curbing that. So I would say that in general, like
the most egregious tanking you don't see anymore, but in
some ways the whole, like what Dallas did a couple
of years ago to keep that top ten protecting first
that turned into I guess that would have been the
lively pick that they traded with the thunder Flour, Like
the teams that are pretty good but decide we'd rather
have our pick than make the play in or something
like that. Doesn't that feel like a bigger problem in
some way, or at least like because then tanking is
creeping into like this team isn't shitty, Like they they
could compete night tonight if they wanted to, and they're
choosing not to. That feels like a bigger problem.
Speaker 1: How often does that happen? Though some version of it happens.
Speaker 2: I mean the Blazers have done it's the shutting down
the Jazz I've done it. It's the the teams that
are competent that are deciding we're gonna purposely not be
competent or competitive. If you're Brooklyn, if you if you're
you know, the Wizards, like that's not on the table
for you.
Speaker 1: It's a difference. That's the That's the other distinction though,
is by tanking, are they trying to incompetent? Do they
think that? Let choose Washington in Brooklyn as an example,
that these teams should have done more to maximize the
immediate value out of their roster, because what the I
think what the Wizards are doing is probably the most
ethical brand of tanking, if you want to call it.
That is, they're not They're still they've played some of
the like the veterans that they have, but they haven't
actively gone out and tried to upgrade the roster yet.
And so is that a problem that they've been in
this rebuilding period for the past three seasons or like,
isn't this what teams are supposed to to do? Like,
how else are you suppose, especially for teams that we
know free agency is dead, but the threat of a
player wanting to leave or not wanting to be there, Like,
they're not a team that's going to First of all,
I don't think most teams should do this, but you
can't really build from ceiling to floor where they would
just consolidate and get a star right and then try
to work their way back there might be some teams
that could believe they could do that. So how do
you get that initial star you draft to draft them?
And how where are you more likely to get that
star higher in the draft? Yep. And even once you
draft these guys, whether they're drafted highly or not, they
need to play, yeah, to develop them. And so that's
that's what I struggle with. And even we have zero
Dave and the chat said easy way to curb tanking
is worse two teams locked out a lot lottery and
locked into fourth and fifth pick. That's not as nuclear
as some of the other proposals I've seen, but it
just feels like we're already seeing teams that aren't terrible
win the lottery when you look at what just happened
with Dallas. I don't know that we need to add
another variable because now all all you might be doing
by trying to address tanking is perpetuating certain teams being bad,
whether it's organically or deliberately.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think like the second part of that question
is really interesting to me, just the how close do
you need to be to championship contention to justify not tanking? Cause, like,
what we we're so hard on the teams that stick
in the middle, like the bulls of the world, and
like I mean the Kings are we to some extent
are kind of that way. I mean honestly, like I
think we've been critical of Indiana prior to last year
of just like, ah, they won't they're not. Really, it's
so stupid, like just because what you just said is right,
like the way that you look at the teams that contend,
like Jannis drafted, Steph drafted, Yoki's draft, Like now, these
are all over the map in terms of where they
were picked, but like Anthony Edwards in Minnesota another like
the best teams.
Speaker 1: Typically have drafted their guy.
Speaker 2: So like we knock these middling teams because they're not
willing to tear it all apart, and also because we
don't have like skin in the game. There tend to
not be our favorite teams. We don't have to watch
them eighty two times like a fan would, so the
calculus is different. But like how do you then? I
guess this is another version of like how do you square?
Because we do it, everybody does it. We pile on
these teams that stick in the middle. But we're sitting
here talking about like it's kind of bullshit to just
tear your team down if it can be competitive, because
if you can't compete for a title, then what are
you doing. The goal is to win a title. So
if you're not just stripping everything down when it's the moment,
it's clear, you're not a top flight contender, Like that's
a mistake strategically, right, because like, I don't know, it
makes for some like tricky arguments. I just think, like
I don't know where that line is. I guess, like
what teams are we cool with not tanking? Like where
is the line is it? Is it a playing team?
If you're a playing team, you should always be you
should be tearing it down if you're in the top six. Okay,
most of the time, we're not gonna we're not gonna
knock you for for not like trying to seek better
draft position. Is it that clear cut? Or I just
don't know where the line is?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Do you think that having the play in tournament
has made it easier to distinguish where that line should
be or has it been harder?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: I think we just don't.
Speaker 2: We make jokes about like, oh cool, another play in
for the Bulls and the Hawks and the Heat and whoever, like,
like who cares? You know, they're obviously the no playing
team is ever gonna win anything. So I think I'm
just playing like Devil's advocates, so like, obviously that's stupid
to care about the play in, right.
Speaker 1: I think what's interesting is that where it feels like
the Bulls aspire to just get in the play in,
like that's what they're trying all they want. That's the high.
Speaker 2: That's as high as they want to climb.
Speaker 1: You'd almost you respect a team like Atlanta where maybe
they misread how good they were, but like going for
it and then it just kind of fails. Yeah, I
don't know how could you need to be, But I
would think it's tough because in the West it feels
less wide I mean, the league feels less wide open
so long as the thunder exists. But I think the
idea of the play in, especially when if you look back,
we've had seven consecutive different NBA champions in theory, the
idea of getting into the play in and oh, like
could anything happen there? Would that give teams an incentive
to You'll get some extra games of gate revenue if
you make it in the first round of the playoffs.
But the NBA postseason is set up so that the
best teams typically win. It's so much harder to upset
a team four times in seven tries than if it
was the one off like we see in the NFL,
like the way their playoffs work. You're not going to
be able to replicate that in the NBA unless you
do you do something where could you bring the first
round back to best of five and then that increases
the value of getting into the play in because in theory, oh,
like we could be three out of five is so
much easier than four out of seven.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, it's tricky. I do think, like just to
maybe try to wrap the tanking discussion, like the simplest
answer has always been, it's more about incentivizing winning than
it is disincentivizing losing. So like the example of if
you're one of the two worst teams, you're you're stuck
outside of you got to pick fourth and fifth. But
like I guess, in a way, that is incentivizing you
to not be in the bottom two. So it's like
win more. That's that that is sort of a positive incentive.
So I don't know It's just it seems much harder
to like, what can you put out there for teams
in that like lower middle class that are that are
candidates to tank or to go for a play in?
Like what can you give them? Because the play in
I don't think, I think pretty clearly is not enough
on its own. But how what else can you give
a team to incentivize these last fifteen games of the
year you're out of contender, try to win as many
of them as you can, Like, what what can you
as a carrot dangle if you're the NBA as opposed
to just like I don't know, penalizing them somehow?
Speaker 1: What do you think about the idea of locking the
lottery odds on March first? And so if you know
where your lottery position is already, does that incentivize you
going into the plane? Hmmm?
Speaker 2: I guess you wouldn't be what you would not be
incentivized to lose. So that's good, right because it does
not help you. I don't know if that incentivizes you
if you're locked, does that incentivize you to I think
you might still rest guys that you would otherwise rest
because you're worried about wear and tear, you know, like, well,
I think that to some extent that does help because
it but that just removes the incentive of losing. I
don't know if it incentivizes winning, which is like it
sounds like I'm making a distinction that doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: But I think you are two separate. That's that's a
fair point. And I don't know how you're We've already
kind of seen it with people are gonna react to
the NBA Cup differently when there's half a million dollars
per player on the line. And Andrew Will in the
chat says, what's the downside of a single elimination tournament
of all the non playoff teams for the number one pick,
throwing some prize money? So players care about it? In theory,
that'd be cool. I just don't think players are gonna
get up to compete so that you could potentially draft
their replacement.
Speaker 2: That's the dynamic that's weird that yeah, Like I mean right,
because the organization would be like, guys, we got to
like the front office would be super motivated, the players
especially like imagine there's like a positional overlap too. It's
just like it would be difficult to really want to
go for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't have any perfect answers, and we'll dig
deeper into the topic of the final leg of this
question from dark Wing Duck though, should front offices fire
for failing to tank? Be fired for failing to tank properly?
This could be I think a lot of people viewed
as a Utah Jazz question. I just think you can't.
Is that more of a coaching thing? Is it more
of a player It's just you can't fault the Jazz
for being more competent, especially on the offensive end when
they've done the This is short of they need to
trade lowry marketing, I guess, But like, think about how
how good are the Jazz? Sorry if Walker Kessler Nevert
gets injured.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, no, I mean that even ties to the
like where's the line this year's Jazz, I think are
just they're too good to have started the year trying
to tank, and and that's that's been a problem. Like,
I think it's more a front office to me? Is
more is dropping the ball more if it's full of veterans.
The roster's full of veterans. It's just the bulls thing
or even the Kings where it's like your veteran led
you know the stealing is not high. You can't just
keep running it back like that. To me is a
more agree just I don't know, failure then like what's
happening in Utah, because in some ways that's what's happening
in Utah is like a positive just because it means something.
Guys are pretty good.
Speaker 1: They George got better. That's kind of part of the
whole reason why you do this. Maybe should there be
some sort of an impartial committee that you have to
be forced to because franchise valuations are so going up
so wives that if you are not in the playoffs
for five consecutive years, that you need to be like
a committee comes in and decidesable have you taken the
steps necessary to even attempt Because the.
Speaker 2: DAN wants a greater government oversight. You heard it here.
First he wants he wants the federal government to take
over the NBA front office.
Speaker 1: After that that I do not. That's that's a tough question.
I think only the only reason you get rid of
a front office for overachieving by not under achieved is
there just has to be a disconnect between what is
ownership expecting, what was the plan that was laid out.
And if the plan was, oh, Utah is going to
get top four lottery odds in three consecutive years and
then we're gonna move on, then okay, that's they've failed
at that job. That's what was mapped out. But some
of what's happening in Utah is lowry marketing blossomed a
ton Walker, Kestler ended up being a great acquisition pick.
Whoever you want to frame it. Kiante George is now
kind of Dean Austwitz don't love him still because of
the defense, but Caante George is still like he's getting better.
And you do have Ace Bailey like that might be
the player that you were kind of waiting on. So
I don't have answers, and we're gonna go more at
length at this Do you want to take us to
another question?
Speaker 2: I kind of want to hit this one real quick though,
just to so this is from it never makes no sense.
Would any of the tanking be a problem if the
season was shorter. But I don't know why I think this,
but my gut says that if the season were shorter,
just everything would be better. So like I assume that
tanking would be less of an issue. I don't know,
maybe because like a smaller sample means it's harder for
separation at the very top and very bottom to occur.
Because I don't know, I just I wanted to hit
that because I've never really thought about that as as like,
what's what's another benefit of a shorter season? You might
see less tanking? I don't know, what do you think
do you.
Speaker 1: Think that going to sixty five games or sixty games
or whatever? Like, is there that because doesn't it all?
Doesn't it even would it incentivize more early tanking? Because
oh interesting so much, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2: So because you know you got to get after it
if you're trying to be at the bottom.
Speaker 1: Because right now Dallas is a great example a mid
season tank from them is they could fall below some teams,
but they're gonna be hard pressed to really blot them out.
So it's going to increase the like, you know, the
the egregiousness of it. There's probably no perfect solve.
Speaker 2: Tanking's a hard thing.
Speaker 1: This all of it turns out.
Speaker 2: Also other than unless you're gonna do relegation, if I
think you would, really that would be that would incentivize
them teams because the money you lose getting relegated to
some second tier league for a year would be motivating.
Speaker 1: I wonder if sports betting wasn't legal, how big of
a topic would this be.
Speaker 2: Is it wouldn't be that's okay, I want to do.
This is from Ogeary nine thousand. If there was one
retired role player that played for your team that you
could add to your current team, who would that be? Parenthetical?
The player cannot have made any All Stars all NBA
teams or have been the leading scorer while on your team. Well,
this is this is killing me because it means la
Charle Spreewell can't be my pick for the Warriors and
I take him from your Knicks. Uh, the player you
choose will only be as good as when he was
on your team previously. So I guess that's that means like,
it can't be. I'm trying to think of the player
that got traded to some other team.
Speaker 1: It can't be.
Speaker 2: Like, if you're the Mavericks and you choose Jalen Brunson,
you don't get Nicks Jalen Brunson. You get You're the
best you get is Mavericks Jalen Brunson just hypothetically, Okay,
that's a good one. Am I gonna take Jordan Poole?
Is that?
Speaker 1: Who is that? Who? I did not well, I did
not see that coming.
Speaker 2: I said, oh my god, that's not my official pick
because I before I read the parenthetical, I was going
to take spree Well because all NBA first Teamer All
Defensive was an All Star. Is exactly the type of
player Golden State would need right now in the backcourt
next to Steph because he could guard ones and twos.
We're talking ninety one ninety two spree Well or ninety
two ninety three. I forget which, man, because who else?
Let's you can chip in on the Warriors and I'll
help you on the knicks. Is there someone that's like
at that level like Igodala?
Speaker 1: Does he?
Speaker 2: I don't know if he solves anything for what this
team needs right now?
Speaker 1: Is there?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 1: I'm trying. I'm trying to reread the criteria too on this.
So if there was one time.
Speaker 2: I couldn't say like DeMarcus Cousins, for example, for a
number of reasons, because one, you wouldn't get King's DeMarcus
Cousins and he's made a bunch of All Star teams.
So it's a role player specifically.
Speaker 1: From the Warriors. You want some jack? Yeah, he want Jack?
So could they? Are you saying they never could have
been an All Star? They never could have been an
All Star with your team, and they could have went
maybe and been an All Star. So like DeMarcus Cousins,
what if you wanted to pick him would be viable?
Speaker 2: Because I I read it as he cannot. This is
about a role player, so it cannot have been someone
that's ever been an All Star or All NBA or
anything like that have been well, let's see, I don't
know that's it depends on how you read these clauses.
I guess it's more you could interpret it as this
guy cannot have been an All Star, All NBA or
leading scorer while on your team. So maybe maybe Oh damn,
you're speaking to my heart. Yeah, I did enjoy the healthy,
healthy ish version of Andrew Boge. I guess you could
go way back like Chris Mitch Richmond must have made
it all. He made a couple of All Star teams.
Speaker 1: They make them with the Warriors, though.
Speaker 2: I don't know he did, not sure he'd be pretty
good if he didn't make him with the Warriors. He
might have let him, might bet mollin probably let him
in scoring when they overlapped.
Speaker 1: No, he didn't. He won Brookie in the year with
the Warriors, but he did not make it. Uh make
an All Star team with the Warriors.
Speaker 2: That might be it. That might be it, although who
knows what his game looks like now? But we'll we
won't dig that deep. Okay, I'll take Mitch Richmond then
if if we can fudget that way, all right? For
the Knicks, man, I mean, is the answer just Gallinari?
For you? You get peak Gallinari, peak Gallinar.
Speaker 1: I mean they need a bigger wing. What about Well,
this wouldn't fall He didn't make it with the next
but Larry Johnson.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so do you get peak Larry Johnson or you
can only get you only get as good as he was.
Speaker 1: With Well, Oh, I shouldn't say, I say a heart
and Stein would be a good one.
Speaker 2: That's the thing. Like, So you can't take like Derreck
Rose and say I get peaked Dereck Rose for example, right.
Speaker 1: And also on this NIXT team, I don't think peak
Dereck Rose. But right, because Emmanuel quickly would be more
appealing to me than him.
Speaker 2: What about hold On, you don't want peak Derreck Rose?
Speaker 1: No, that's crazy. I have Tyler Kohlick. Okay, I'm trying
to think along the lines of just someone who might
be more of a wing because Hart and Stearin when
you have Robinson in Towns, I don't think is the right.
Speaker 2: Okay, you need a wing. Uh, I'm sure Alan Houston
made All Star teams. I wonder if I mean, did
Spreewell make All Star teams with the Knicks?
Speaker 1: He must have.
Speaker 2: Uh, just trying to get spree Well picked here is
really what I'm.
Speaker 1: I think he did. I'll double check that. What about
would Spencer Haywood qualifies a wing in today's game or
does he need to be more of a big?
Speaker 2: You've you ask anything about Spencer Haywood. You've exceeded my
Spencer Haywood knowledge.
Speaker 1: I have none. He Oh, it's pretty well did make
an All Star team, But then he made one in
two thousand and one.
Speaker 2: Too bad. That would have been a great pick if
he hadn't.
Speaker 1: Oh, Jason Kidd, that's still guardy. I don't know if
I want to guardy. Oh, you know what I might
just because they don't really have like this night. Dante
Devincenzo interesting, Yeah, just guy who's gonna shoot sham it
on steroids.
Speaker 2: Get ten threes up and yeah, I mean there's.
Speaker 1: Gotta be Anthony Mason, but that's just like I don't know, Yeah,
I don't think Anthony works today. Yeah, I think I
might be dark.
Speaker 2: Stark's probably made an All Star Game and he's not
like a.
Speaker 1: Did he I don't know. I don't know if I would
need it. If I'm the Nicks, I don't know if
I need him on it.
Speaker 2: You want a bigger wing than Stark's probably.
Speaker 1: Right, what about Quentin Grimes.
Speaker 2: Stark's Starks did make an All Star Game ninety ninety four.
Speaker 1: I think I might lock myself into even though he's
not really a wing. Dante DiVincenzo. I'm like struggling to
think of what would be the the other guy that
again if I'm I'm thinking just about how they played
with the Knicks specifically. Yeah, yeah, I think it's I'm
gonna go with I'm gonna go with Dante DiVincenzo, and
I think lock it in, Okay, I like it. Larry
Johnson was tempting, but I just don't know defensively if
he would be like archetype wise might make a lot
of sense, But defensively, I don't know if he does
enough of what I am looking for if I'm running
the ducks. All right, this question is interesting, Grant, and
it comes from where did I lose the name?
Speaker 2: Here?
Speaker 1: Cosmic Raccoon. Who are the most the best veteran minimum
bargains in the league this year that signed those vetman contracts.
They gave Josha Kogi as an example. He's certainly done
way more in Houston than I thought that I thought
he was going to. Yeah, uh mamu in Toronto signed
a minimum.
Speaker 2: Yep, I'm looking I'm looking for that. John Hollinger just
wrote up a good value article and like, both of
those guys are in there. So I'm hunting for that
so I can refresh. One.
Speaker 1: Do we start listing Celtics?
Speaker 2: Cada has been a huge one.
Speaker 1: Well on a yeah, he is on a minimum. I
think Marvin Bagley is one. He's been pretty good this year.
That's a just you laugh, But I mean.
Speaker 2: It's just incredible that we're here.
Speaker 1: Where where you're.
Speaker 2: I mean, when's the last time you said something positive
about uh about Bagley?
Speaker 1: What about Tim Hardaway Junior has been very good for
day this year. Yeah, I gotta get I'm not gonna
find it.
Speaker 2: Let's see who else is in a huge value. I
guess like rookie scale guys don't count.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not and like it. Even if they were
second round picks, I'm not considering them. Jordan Goodwin in Phoenix,
so you're not counting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like Nem hard you're not counting in Dallas for example.
Speaker 1: Yeah, is Congolest beast all off? That's minimum because he
would definitely be one then too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they converted him, He's got to be that's yeah,
there's all like uh, Dominic Barlow in Philly. Yeah, I
think he got converted. Man, there's a lot, right, isn't that?
Like it feels like a lot of guys this year
have been Yeah, Cam Spencer isn't Cam Spencer on a minimum?
Speaker 1: I guess he was.
Speaker 2: He was a rookie. Maybe he's a rookie scale, but
he was a second rounder.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah he was he converted last year or he
you know.
Speaker 2: Andrew's got our Andrews got our Celtics here, Walsh and
why not that's pretty good?
Speaker 1: Did you say those guys?
Speaker 2: I know he said Cada and Garza?
Speaker 1: I said why not Garza? And you said Kata? And
who was the other one he listened to?
Speaker 2: I mean, arguably the best of the group.
Speaker 1: Yeah there, man, there have been a lot this year.
I think I'm trying to do we miss anybody?
Speaker 2: I'm sure we did. Okay, I want to let's see
whatever there was one that I saw? Okay, we'll do
this one from Bryan Sapporik. What's the most that a
team should pay the following free agents this summer? This
will assume opt outs on all fronts. Trey Young, James Harden,
Lebron James. Let's take Trey first, so he opts out,
we don't need to. I guess go through how many
teams actually could pay him? Just say in a vacuum,
Trey Young is worth X. We can do years and dollars?
Like what are you?
Speaker 1: So? What is he eligible for?
Speaker 2: Let's start the extension? It gets just the Fox number right,
like four for two twenty nine? Is that what it?
Speaker 1: What it is? Basically? Well, if he the clients the
player option, wouldn't it be.
Speaker 2: That's a exten He's eligible for an four year for
four years two twenty nine on an extension, So if
he declines it, what can he start at thirty percent?
Speaker 1: He's signing a max deal next year, and he's in
the seven to nine year range, right, so he could
come up to five years, two hundred and eighty eight
point eight million dollars is and then a four year
max for him would be too twenty three point one.
Speaker 2: I'm not touching either of those, I can tell you that.
So let's say, is he worth maybe maybe we can
zero in on it this way. If I told you
that Trey Young signed for four years, years and two
hundred million, are you like that? Seems I'm not doing
flat fifty, just fifty a year average annual value. So
for example, the player option he'd be declining in twenty
six twenty seven is just under forty nine million. So
if you go out average annual fifty, you're gonna be
talking about because that's forty nine million in next year
seventy almost thirty. But that's to be in the mid
to low twenties with the cap going up by the
end of it.
Speaker 1: What you're if you're starting it out, if you like
you're saying you're paying him his max salary next year,
which is he can't even get.
Speaker 2: No, I'm I'm saying the total value is two hundred,
so you're probably starting it at like forty or or
something like that. You're saying, fine, and two hundred is
what you're Yeah, I said four for two hundred, a
four for two hundred. It's not I'm not paying I'll
we don't need to do the math.
Speaker 1: I'm not.
Speaker 2: I think I think, like to me, he's worth forty
million a year, I would say overall. So like if
you're starting that at that's the crazy thing, Like is
he gonna take a ten million dollar plus pay cut
in twenty six twenty seven salary to get one?
Speaker 1: I think if you could lock onto that, if you
could do forty million a year or so four for
one six three, even if it was do you get
the fifth year? If you go five for two hundred,
you're locking down him. That's what's that.
Speaker 2: Do you want the fifth year?
Speaker 1: But what I'm saying is from Trey Young's perspective, Okay,
you're you're slated to make fifty next season, but you
can guarantee yoursel an extra one hundred and fifty million
dollars over an additional four years. You might need to
take that security when looking at the the climate, I'm
gonna say I'm probably with you. I think he's worth
about He's like in the twenty five to thirty percent
of the cap range for me, and it might be
something slightly under thirty percent of the salary cap. I
think even when he gives you the defensive effort you're
looking for, it's not He's not gonna be good on
that end. And the other thing is is we have
yet to have enough evidence that he can play in
these different ways. We've seen him play off the ball
a little bit more, we've seen him play a little
bit faster, but can he exist in these systems that
want more functional variability. It's look, it's probably flown under
the radar. I still think what Luca was able to
do in Dallas before they try like they had played
faster with Luca. What Jalen Brunson in New York's offense
this year. Yeah, there's still those possessions where he's pounding
the ball like Trey Young has never played off the
ball as much as Jalen Brunson does. Right, now, so
that would be my biggest content. And then of course
there's just this season and then last season have not
been the best versions of Trey Young, which complicates that
even further.
Speaker 2: Which maybe is what you're getting going forward given his
age and small guard stuff and all that. So I'd
say we're somewhere in the neighborhood of the most you
would pay him is forty million, assuming raises per year.
Start just talking about like the first year of his
new deal, and we're probably not getting over like like
one seventy over four years, right, Like, yeah, some like
I'm not I think I'm lower on him than you are.
I have concerns with him specifically of like can he
be a role player period? Like is that just?
Speaker 1: Is that?
Speaker 2: Is that not possible? And then if the answer is no,
then it's like, so is he a six man now?
Like is that how we're gonna do?
Speaker 1: That?
Speaker 2: Seems crazy that we would consider that.
Speaker 1: But do you think it's more about him specifically or
about the league zagging away from that type of not
that type, that kind of archetype. I guess because there's
still helio centric offense in the NBA. But think about
some of the teams that run it feel uniquely vulnerable
in ways that others.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's I mean, I think it's him
more than anything, just like to be he has to
be so good as a driver of offense because of
all the other drawbacks that like, he the bars just
really high for be for for a team to say
he's the guy we're oriented around. I just I think
it's it's almost unreasonable. It's like the X he would
have to be, like you don't have to be Steph,
but you got to be pretty close to like Dame
Lillard of you know, five years ago or or something
like that. And I just don't think young is is
quite that Well.
Speaker 1: Here, here's a fun stough. So the next name would
be James Harden. Who's making Look at what James Harden
the number is slated to be at next season or
like his player option, he's at sub forty two next year.
Are you paying James Harden more than Trey Young in
a vacuum or is it because Trey Young is younger
and you're hoping for better out years that you'd be
willing to invest more in Trey James harder to me
might be more. I might here's a way our frame it.
Would you be more likely to give Trey Young a
four year and one hundred and seventy million dollar deal
or just give James Harden a two year, ninety million
dollar deal.
Speaker 2: I think I'd rather do the hardened deal. I'd want
it shorter. If you do the Trey Young deal for
a couple of years, that's maybe a different conversation, just
because in both case, I mean, Harden, Harden is kind
of the trend is what it is now with his
with his contracts, I think they're gonna all be shorter.
But I wouldn't you say, like, Harden was much better
than Tray last year, and injuries have had plenty to
do with it, but Harden's been better than him this year.
Speaker 1: So like basically the only thing that keeps the Clippers
offense afloat. Yeah for a lot of the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So yeah, I would pay hard and more, but
I would never go more than like a one plus one.
I just right, like, you can't be that this he's
there is his age thirty six season, Like you can't
you can't his go further down the road than that.
Speaker 1: His max salary next year could be There's no fee.
I can't imagine the Clippers. It would fifty eight point
one million dollars. So if you were to go like
a two year max on James Harden, you're talking two
years and one hundred and thirty about.
Speaker 2: Which you don't have to because he's already like he's
anchored down around forty million. Like you're, I think you
can go below that to probably given his age. What
about Lebron?
Speaker 1: Is some of the US splitzer packing a bleak picture?
Speaker 2: What does he so this I mean talk about like
a watershed moment?
Speaker 1: Is this?
Speaker 2: I know he took slightly less than the max, but
like he's not. So he's at fifty two zero point
six this year.
Speaker 1: His mask, he's a fifty eight point one next year.
Speaker 2: Now you're I will only go on one plus one
every right, and he probably is only.
Speaker 1: You think if something Team K came, well, I think
he's so he's limited. He's gonna be limited by the
over thirty eight role too. So okay, there's that. That's fine.
There's the problem with Lebron and I think we should
evaluate it outside of this, is you would sign him
to a MAX just because of what it would do
to your attendance or your marketability as a team.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're not going to do.
Speaker 1: That with Trey Younger James Harden. So if you filter
that out and you're a basketball team entering the twenty
twenty six twenty seven season, what Lebron James as a
player still worth and that will be his it could
be his age forty two season. That's nuts.
Speaker 2: I mean he's still that's so.
Speaker 1: Like he's still just twenty and seven and he's shooting
the three balls not falling. His two point shots still
fifty six seven from from two.
Speaker 2: I mean, he can't be your best player. I mean
he could be your best player if you have the
like a really ideal supporting cast and you're trying to
finish fifth in the conference or something like that. So
I think that drops him below like the fifty million
dollar range. Although if you're factoring in like all the
things you're talking about.
Speaker 1: The game, do thatay?
Speaker 2: Yeah, because if you exclude that, like what is he
worth on the court, you price in he's gonna miss
time too. It's it's probably pretty close to like hardened level, right,
like we're talking forty something like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, man, he's just such a well so is James Harden,
that's Trey Young. To be fair, they're all brilliant playmakers.
Is who's the of the three, Who's the one you're
promising the most money to for their encore value next season?
Speaker 2: Honestly, I might say Lebron just because I guess it
should be hardened, just because he's played at the highest level. Well,
Lebron was good last year. I don't know, it's it's
not Trey.
Speaker 1: I guess. Here's the other thing too with Lebron is
as we're recording this how many games he's played in
eleven games, and so it's just it might take some
time with him. And so I'm just wondering. I'm not
expecting a forty one year old to all of a
sudden be an MVP candidate moving forward. But the Lebron
that we've seen to this point, after missing more time
than ever in his career right just consecutively, might not
be the Lebron that we're gonna see if he's still
healthy come March April playoff time. So I think I
go with Lebron as well. James weren't like he might
have the more the higher individuals soon, but I also
can't tell if the Lakers pecking order in hierarchy right
now is kind of screwing with that for me? Because
Luke is there, because Austin Reeves is there. Is Lebron
still who's the best defensively of this group right now?
Is that still him?
Speaker 2: He would certainly mean by default size, Yeah, so I.
Speaker 1: Think it would be him. I'd be willing to just
go I'd give him fifty, but at that you're saying
he's your best player, so he's probably more closer to
forty five. But I would pay him the most out
of anyone from this group. How much you think? It's
a pretty sobering question. Yeah, all right.
Speaker 2: I see one that I like here from Demos kind
of related to the above question. I'm not sure which question.
Maybe it's the offensive rebounding one. But look at the
recent he has a Kevish's injury where he said that
in an interview not injury, where he said that in
the past, it was exciting to see NBA coaches playing
their own style. Nowadays they're all playing the same Do
you agree with that? I think it's pretty clear we don't.
I think the criticism that all teams play the same
way or coaches coach their teams to play the same way.
I mean, I guess there's a kernel of truth in it,
and that like generally speaking, you want to play faster
and shoot more threes. I think the other trend we're
seeing is you generally want to play all of your
players lower minute totals and shuttle them in more. Because
we're learning that like the ability to play as hard
as possible is like a hack that the Pacers really
kind of leaned into last year. But in terms of
like the way teams go about trying to generate shots
and scoring chances and what they do defensively schematically, I mean,
I just I guess on some level, yeah, like if
you're not really looking closely at it, I guess you
could say that it's pretty similar. But it's like that's
only because the objective of the game is the same
for every team. Like you're trying to score as efficiently
as possible, and you're trying to force the other team
to attempt to score as inefficiently as possible, and there's
just like stuff you should do to achieve those goals.
But like, right, the actual styles I think this this
year in particular, is not the year to be making
that argument because there are some pretty distinct personnel based
stylistic choices that we're seeing. There's some pretty extreme like
attempts by certain teams to like push boundaries of like
how far can we go with offensive rebounding, screening, all
kinds of stuff. Right, Like it's like, what would you say,
do you one? Do you agree that, like you kind
of can get it when people say that things are
kind of homogeneous, but also like it just ultimately like
at the bottom of it, that's just not true.
Speaker 1: I think that there's a perception problem more than anything,
And that's.
Speaker 2: What do you think that stems from?
Speaker 1: Like why? I think it stems from until maybe things
change with Amazon and NBC. But I think that the
league's primary broadcast partners or the outlets that are most
tasked with covering the league don't. It's not that they
have to masturbate over everything that's happening on the court
every single night. I'm not looking for that masturbatory coverage,
but they don't. They analyze the game from the same
old way, and it's legacy debates or it should. We
talk about trades a lot. We love trades, like the
transaction game is huge, but so little has to do
with what's actually happening on the court, and when they
are talking about it, it's overly simplified to where there's
just I don't hear this a lot, but the version
of who wants it more? Defense is an effort thing
you're not spending time. There's more people doing that, and
there are people in this space that do an excellent
job of doing that, but it's not mainstream coverage. And
I think for you and I or anyone who works
in this the like in the business, the podcast or
media member, whatever, you're in your silo because you're exposed
to such talent and such nuance on a daily basis,
because that's what you see out But the information and
the coverage that is readily available that is most widely disseminated,
it's the it's not informative in any way shape or
you have some of it, like there's a place for
like there's a place for legacy talks, absolutely, but just
the stuff that's out there or the stuff that is
looking to incite the most reaction is this is a
larger comment on probably social media in general, where it's
all about garnering these reactions that you're gravitating towards these
they're not even just magnetic topics or even polarizing. They
almost feel disingenuous a lot of the times where how
many people it's dumb when I see it With writers,
it's no one gets paid enough as a writer to
actively do this. But you do start to wonder if
a lot of the talking heads podcasters around TV are
they just playing a character at this point because these
questions just have no bearing. And I think that's the
biggest thing with a perception problem, And just on a
fact basis, I think you hit it is that teams
are trying to do the same thing and they're just
going about in dramatically different ways. And what I think
is not being paid enough attention to is the three
point attempt rate is down this year. It's the right.
Speaker 2: Pre point attempts are like the stand in for or
like the first thing anyone points to when they say
everybody plays the same.
Speaker 1: And yes, it's down only a tick, but it's I
don't know, if I had to go back and look
how many years that it's actually dipped over the past twenty,
would you even predict one? I might not. Yeah, And
so I think that it has It shouldn't always be
on fans, because one, you have enough work to do
as a fan to go find out where the game
you want to watch is being inhered at this point,
it shouldn't be on you to then seek out how
the Warriors play defense, or like how to spot a
zone defense or how to spot peel switching. That stuff
should be it's available, it's out there. There's everything is
saturated when it comes to NBA coverage, but that stuff
doesn't feel as accessible because it's not as widely disseminated.
And I think that's to me, that's I don't think
it's because fans are stupid and it's too complicated. I
think the two things are is that the companies behind
it that are driving the coverage is this is the
easy thing to do, This is the one that will
draw the most reaction, whether it's negative or not. And
then the other thing, and this is to give credit
to the media, like not credit in some defense of
the media of which we are tangentially a part of.
There's eighty two games, and you have very little time
and space in between possessions, in between games themselves to
go if you if you cover more than one team, Like,
it's just impossible to cover it at the scale of
what NFL writers and media members would do while also
earning like a reasonable living, because you need to carve
out time to Actually, it's not just about this is stupid.
You don't get paid to watch games. You get paid
to produce content. That's what we're paid to do now,
And the watching games and doing the research, it's I
just think it's harder. I'm not saying the game is
harder that people who cover the NFL, or I'm not
saying that by any like media times could run circles
around probably any NBA x's and zero. But I do
wonder the time or the number of games, coupled with
the speed of the games, if that just makes it
harder to get into some of the nuance of the game.
It's not that fans are stupid, it's not even that
the media members are stupid. It's just sort of this
logistical hurdle. I went on for way longer than I
thought what's going on.
Speaker 2: I think that's all really well said. I don't have
a lot to add what I would. What strikes me
as interesting, though, is that.
Speaker 1: I think if you.
Speaker 2: I think if you give broadcasts, uh, the broadcast broadcasters,
the people providing the NBA product and pack packaging it
to fans, if you give them a little credit and
assume that what they're doing is what fans want, you know, Like, Hey,
the reason that we have legacy debates and we talk
about who played harder and wanted it more is because like,
generally speaking, the average fan is like, I understand that
I like this kind of content. It's the and in
that you know, that's a problem because it ties into
like heads doing just rage bait all the time, right, Like,
but people want that, they respond to it, they watch longer,
we have the numbers, like all that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: So it seems to me that the level of discourse
that leads to all teams play the same seems to
be what most fans actually want because everybody with a
stake in it understands like, well, we should serve fans
what they want. I don't think networks are necessarily wrong
or media outlets are wrong in covering the game the
way that they do, because I think the reverse is
like if they knew a way to make people more
interested and to keep attention for longer and to drive
dollars in traffic and whatever more effectively. They would cover
the league that way.
Speaker 1: So I do think it is like this.
Speaker 2: Is what fans, like capital f fans like generally speaking want.
But it's so interesting that like it's a feedback loop
because that's exactly the group that's saying all every team
plays the same and there's no identity anymore. It's like
you think that because you're being fed nothing but what
you want, you know, by by the algorithm, by just
whatever the numbers are telling networks to to say to you,
does that make sense? Like it just feels like a
and And the root of it all is that.
Speaker 1: It is easier.
Speaker 2: It is easier to say, well, this is what fans want,
let's give it to them. And it's easier as a
fan to say, like, I don't know leaning into like
how many ball screens Team X sets, and like how
quickly they get into their actions and like positioning on
the floor, Like I don't have second spectrum, Like how
am I supposed to? Like?
Speaker 1: It's just that I don't.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of people want to engage with basketball
on the level of granular detail that it would take
to actually appreciate that teams play differently. I'm not sure
there's an interest in that.
Speaker 1: But don't you think that? And I'm and I think
you might be right. And it's especially when it comes
back to the transaction game in the NBA. It's this way.
I don't follow any sport as closely as the NBA.
Maybe tennis, but there's you're not there's not trades in
the individual sport. People like trades. That's just a part
of It's the same with the like knowing that it's
the same with MLB for sure. I don't know how
if it goes hard with the NHL.
Speaker 2: I don't think anything's quite the same as basketball though
I don't think. I don't think it gets to that
level really well.
Speaker 1: So one the NBA built it feels like an entire
generation on free agency, like remember the not forget about
Lebron leaving and free do you remember the year's long
lead up to Lebron's free agency? Unlike anything I've ever
experienced as a sports fan. But what I really want
to ask you is, I think you might be right,
and we know that this is and you and I
have seen like data on it, just based off the
stuff that we write and cover and even the podcast,
Like we know our busiest time of the year is
when it's the trade deadline, and it's over the off
season when a lot of podcasts do their worst numbers
because that's when transactions are happening. But doesn't it isn't
it reasonable to think that if places were willing to
invest in these types of coverages and stick with them,
you have to have a stomach for there to be
some short term pain if you want to shift the
long term tenor because can we say, what is the
outlet that has come or the company that has come
closest to providing this that type of analysis consistently and
then stuck with it. It's it feels like it's going
to take an iron stomach, which none of us have anymore,
because anything longer than sixty seconds is basically considered long
form content. Yeah, if you were here at the seventy
five minute mark of this podcast, still listening, you're probably
in like the zero zero zero point one percent of listeners.
Speaker 2: Right like, because talk about an esoteric conversation, We're just
like we're not even like talking about the game. We're
talking about like the methods of consumption, and like is
the market driving the content or is the content driving
It's just like I mean, so it sounds like what
you're asking is, like, what's the example of the quote
unquote smart basketball media property that has only operated that
way and has lasted a long time. I don't think
there's anything that rises above the level of like niche.
And I don't mean that as a pejorative. It's just like,
I don't know if there's mass appeal, and I'm trying
to think of an example.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Let's let's just use like I think dunked On does
smart basketball discourse and it's very popular for what it is.
But I can't. I have no idea, Like it's a
fraction of like your ESPNS and your like your other
media monsters right that are giving you none of that
kind of content, but giving you all the legacy talk
and that this team.
Speaker 1: Wanted it more.
Speaker 2: We're painting with a broad brush because there are some
like ESPN, and just to use them as an example
or Prime or NBC or whatever, like there's real discussion
of like with nuance and like granular detail and value
hit your micuh and but just just generally speaking, it's
it's hard to do smart discourse and have it last
shout out.
Speaker 1: That was gonna be our last question. Why don't we
do one more to goes on? Like not the heaviest
note possible, grant Well, I don't think we're gonna well,
I don't know why I want to do this question.
I don't think we're gonna close on the happiest note.
But what would you do if you were running the
Sacramento Kings right now and you can't can't Let's not
paint with generalities here to where I would just move everybody.
Do you like, do any of these guys have real value?
Or are you better off just sitting them and being
bad and gutting it out and when they're expiring contracts
maybe use them to take on bad money attached to picks.
You're you are controlling the Sacramento Kings right now. Vivek
has given you actual carte blanche. He hasn't hired your
next coach before you've been hired, or shoving a coach
down in your throat. What are you doing with the
Sacramento Kings.
Speaker 2: I think I think it's pretty clear, and I thought
I think BJP by the way I apologize or not,
I think it's gotta be. We can get more detailed
about it. But I do think there's an opportunity right now,
if you're gonna go on the multi year rebuild track,
to really capitalize on it, as in so far as
you can with flattened lottery odds, because a lot of
the other teams you'd be worried about being worse than you,
Washington Washington's in year two, they're the Wizards are gonna
be a little better next year, I don't you know,
And like your Brooklyn's, there's other teams that are a
year or two ahead of you in the process. So
if you are trying to bottom out, I think next
year and maybe the next couple, there's a chance to
be in like pole position for that right as far
as as much as that matters. Who knows what they'll
do with the lottery odds. They might flatten him even
more towere there's no point. So having said that, I
am willing to take on longer term bad money, which
you probably have to do to move Levigne specifically right,
like I think, I.
Speaker 1: Think, I think, I think if he's willing to decline
his player option and do what Rudy Gobert did in
Minnesota to whear, Okay, what is he at Let's say
fifty million next year or whatever it is. And he
declines that and says, hey, I'll sign three for one
hundred or three for something that makes it more palatable.
But what I was actually, when you're throw I do
this all the time. Yeah, take back bad money? What
is the bad money floating around there right now? The team?
Speaker 2: Are you?
Speaker 1: Are the Sixers compensating you to get off of twelve bead?
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, this might be a Paul George thing. No,
that's a good point, I guess.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Maybe we can talk in specifics more, but my general
plan is, like I'm ready for a two to three
year We're gonna be bad. We're gonna, you know, accumulate
draft capital. We'll take shots just the playbook. We'll take
shots on second draft guys. But we got to get
out from under the current core. And that might mean
having like a worse I don't know your right to
point out like where's this bad money, Like who's who's
got it? I think you've got to be willing to
take on wherever that stuff wherever it comes from in
order to get draft picks to you use or trade
or whatever.
Speaker 1: It's just got to be a full reset.
Speaker 2: Now, if there are specifics you want to get into
with certain players, we could we can do that.
Speaker 1: Next. Who We kind of already went over this a
little bit, But who do you think is their most
Aside from so, I'm moving Keon Ellis, that's step one.
It's just that's over with, and I would like to
move everybody. But realistically speaking, I think I'm coming into
this by saying I'm not trading Sabonus right now because
he's injured and I'll get no value for him. Now,
if teams came with an offer, I guess this would
actually be the better, more specific question. If teams came
in and they just gave you expiring contracts, that's it
for Sabonis, for Monk, for everyone. Are you at that
level of clean house where I don't care whether I'm
extracting value. I want flexibility and I want to increase
the value of my own picks moving forward. Are you
at that point with the Kings.
Speaker 2: Not with Sabonis Because of what you said, I think
there's he's got this year, next year in the following
year average value of like forty five million over the
three Essentially, I think there's some point between now and
the end of that deal where you can do better
than the expiring salary. I would hope, and so he him.
I would need to be getting much more than just like, well,
you're you don't have forty five and forty eight in
the next two years to worry about. You're just clearing
that off. I think there's enough value to be extracted
from that that you can't quite go that route.
Speaker 1: Now. For Levigne, I mean maybe.
Speaker 2: He comes off the books anyway, just out.
Speaker 1: So it would be a good test of how much
do you loathe Sacramento. Is he just gonna right, just
get me out of here?
Speaker 2: DeRozan's different because he's got that the partial guarantee for
next year. Yeah. I So to answer specifically, I don't
think you you don't You're not giving up Sabonis just
for flexibility, right, because what's that even mean?
Speaker 1: In Sacramento. I am more likely because you can help
facilitate trades. But I'm with you. It's when even the
Clippers and the Lakers talk about these Grand Cat or
Peat grand cash place plants in twenty twenty seven. I
just come back to why, Yeah, I would be more
likely to do that. I'd be less likely to just
take expirings for Sabonis right now than I would is
the Kings to be like, look at the distressed star
market right now, like who could we get in on
and try and really just like accelerate this without being oh,
we didn't give up our twenty twenty six draft pick.
Could I get Anthony Davis? Could I get LaMelo Ball?
I would investigate that if I'm not if I'm keeping
my twenty twenty seven pick, because we talk about teams,
they weren't tanking out of the gate, but they might
as well have been, Like they're in position to continue
just racking up those losses. I'm not opposed to them
doing that, but I'm not doing the thing where I'm
giving up my twenty twenty six draft pick, which could
just be in the top five. You can't. But no,
you can't. But if there was a challenge trade out there,
if Memphis wanted to get off John Morant's long term
money and you wanted to roll the dice on that,
I'll keep going back to the LaMelo Well, that's something
that I'm not totally opposed to, because I think I
don't view them as having their best player of the
next great Kings team on there. They had a chance
when the Bonus and Fox were there, and they they
fucked it up. They fucked it up. But I'm not
opposed to the idea of could Sabonis, when he's healthy,
be partnered with someone else and we are relevant again
and were it feels like we're building towards something without
bottoming out well.
Speaker 2: Right, because the point of bottoming out would be to
like if you ended up a two to three year
bottoming out stretch with the rookie version of LaMelo ball,
you'd say, like pretty successful, right, Like if you could
imagine the Kings in Charlotte's position of a few years ago,
where it's like, hey, this is the guy we got
now you kind of have a better sense of how
good LaMelo is now. But like that type of player
on a rookie scale contract, you would view that as
like a successful effort, right. So yeah, I think you're
right to give the alternative of if you could just
get an early to mid twenties star on a rookie
scale deal like Jaw or even like Davis. Davis is
harder for me.
Speaker 1: But of the jar or LaMelo or.
Speaker 2: Even like I don't know who else are we even
it's really those those two guys like Trey Young is
a lot scarier for me.
Speaker 1: If I'm they think about mid mid twenty stars, is
that they're just not available generally, well, like.
Speaker 2: If and if they are, there's something up like with
Jaw or with you know, there's there's real questions for sure,
would you do.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think of like another name that was
bring to mind, So I'm thinking of ones that aren't
gonna cost you the farm. This could be a terrible
functional fit. But I'm also kind of at the point where, well,
what's at Zion? What happens?
Speaker 2: I mean, I kind of love the flexibility you get
with this contract so like because you can get you
because then it's like, all right, plan Plan A flopped,
We should have seen this coming. You can't stay healthy.
Plan B is we just wipe that off the books, right,
because you can do the same thing with him next year.
Speaker 1: I think this is I'm just playing off your California
comments from before. If you call that, why.
Speaker 2: God, I mean, I don't think so. I think I
would I would take that off the list of things.
I would try as sacramound we bottom out or you
go get the mellow or equivalent to sell some some
hope to fans that like, this might be the guy
that we can build around.
Speaker 1: This would have to be a three team situation. I mean,
maybe they'll be interested in King's draft picks. But Darius
Garland might be another name to throw in there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, he's I mean, he shouldn't be.
Speaker 1: Darius Garland with Domonte Sibonis. I'd probably still prefer Peak
Clamelo with Sabonis just the size form LaMelo, but that
offense probably ends up in the top five in the league.
Speaker 2: It's it should be good if if Garland can ever
get back to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. Do you have one? It's it's super
quick from Greg war Which former coach would you want
to have on hardwood?
Speaker 2: Knox Grant former coach?
Speaker 1: So we can't play. Yeah, So to talk about the
state of the game today, hmm, that's a good question.
Speaker 2: I mean, stan Van Gundy has got his like got
a pretty good head on his show, like for a
for a quote unquote older coach. I think he really
does appreciate ciate that teams are playing differently, Like that's
what we're asking, That's what's being asked, right Like, who
would you like to sort of elucidate what we're talking
about with respect to like stylistic differences and stuff. He
would think he would do a good job at that.
Speaker 1: Does so can we pick anyone who's like what if
they're an assistant right now? Sure? I wouldn't mind talking
to Jeff Fang on d either. Asking Chris Paul questions.
Speaker 2: Got a lot of questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, what about Greg Popovich?
Speaker 2: I was thinking that, Yeah, like we I don't feel
like he would tell you anything.
Speaker 1: I think he would.
Speaker 2: He would be like, none of this matters, man, Like,
let's let's talk about wine.
Speaker 1: Phil Jackson's a no for me. No, what about pat Riley?
Speaker 2: That would be interesting? You think he's still got Yeah,
I mean he look, he'd let the heat do weird
stuff on offense this year, so he's he's definitely like
still out there looking for advantages. There's gotta be like
who would just be like a ton of fun like that.
Speaker 1: Mike Puttenholzer, I feel like, philosophically, like when you look
at the way he's running past teams would be interesting,
but he feels toneless when he like, that's just not
someone I could be a good podcast guess. I mean.
Speaker 2: I would have a lot of questions for Taylor Jenkins.
He's had an interesting couple of years there with Memphis
for a lot of reasons.
Speaker 1: He'd be interesting to talk to him. You're grooming for
sure would be on the list of those questions. Talk
about an expert Steve Nash, What was it like coaching
as a collective with Kyrie and Kevin Duran And actually
Steve Nash would be He hasn't mind the game with
Lebron though, so maybe that's yeah.
Speaker 2: I feel like we already know what Andrews got.
Speaker 1: Joe Mazoula.
Speaker 2: Could you imagine if we had him for like an hour, Like,
would he get six minutes in and just refuse to
speak anymore and just like look at us like we're idiots?
I think, yes, yeah, man, he's currently employed though, so
we can't unless you think he's gonna get fired, we
can't go with that.
Speaker 1: Oh, Bratt Stevens would be interesting, right.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, he's another one that he's too cagy. He
wouldn't say anything. I don't think Okay, we need someone
that's got who's got like nothing to lose. Yeah, just
that was like he's not he's not trying to coach again.
Speaker 1: Mike D'Antoni.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I was gonna say don Nelson. Don Nelson
would would say anything.
Speaker 1: We all just get like totally blazed out of our
minds and we're just The thing is.
Speaker 2: Like he's so forthcoming that he has already said a
bunch of like I don't know if we could get
anything new out of him, but I would like to
talk to don Nelson.
Speaker 1: Sewan Sween. He's not a bad one. David Blatt is
still solid. Oh man, Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of good options.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a ton. I think this is it feels
like the obvious one. But I would love I'll even
I hate drinking wine, but I would get the most
expensive bottle of wine possible. Just be able to talk
who so Greg Popovich and ask him questions about anything
at everything?
Speaker 2: Right right? Yeah, I assume if he would answer, because
like you could ask him, you could ask him like, hey,
remember when you guys were kind of the first shoot
a lot of threes and nobody like or like to
find the value of the corner three, like how did
that conversation start? And like you could just anything, like
I would love Tim Duncan stories because those don't exist
because he never talks like you could get all kinds
of great stuff out of there.
Speaker 1: And the Spurs like to get.
Speaker 2: Back to the kind of where the questions stem from,
Like the Spurs changed how they played a ton of
times over that dynastic stretch.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, go ahead. They were at the.
Speaker 2: Forefront of like three different like oh shit, this is
how you should play now, like they were nobody.
Speaker 1: I was going to ask about, like what's the coach
that feels like they've overseen more functional shifts in how
they actually operate because Tom Thibodeau, as an example, for
the most part, stubbornly committed to his principles. Phil Jackson
is the same way. I think even you know, maybe
Eric's currently employed those where Carlisle has changed a bunch,
but those were I.
Speaker 2: Think Carlisle's a really good example because remember like the
knock on him was like he calls every play and
just from that to the Pacers style was just like
the the the distance between those two is vast. I
just had somebody that I was thinking of the change
that they played. Now I came, I mean again at
Stanman Gundy, like the Orlando for out thing, and that's
coming on the heels of like coaching some Miami teams
that did not play that way. Briefly, I mean so,
and then I don't know that I can't really pinpoint
how I would describe the Piston's style when he was there. Yeah,
I don't know. There's a there's a lot. I think
Carlisle is the guy though, like.
Speaker 1: He just he's Oh, you're talking about the answer my question.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Yeah, answering your question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's a good one. But Grant, I
also think it's time for stat Petting is back. Do
you want to go first? We have some joint one,
We've got some I got some trivia for Grant. How
do you How would you like to begin?
Speaker 2: So? I have some things that that I put together
for you that I didn't tell you about. I don't
think I told you I had some. So we're gonna
go back to an oldie but a goodie here, which
we haven't done this in a while. Dan, I'm gonna
give you two teams and a player. You got to
trade this player, and he's got to go to one
of these two teams. So it's up to you. You're
gonna have to justify your decision. Generally speaking, these are
players we've had in the rumor mill to one extent
or another.
Speaker 1: So we had in the room, they've they've been podcast before,
got coaches in the room, got players in the room.
We're gonna start with LaMelo Ball, Portland Trailblazers or Toronto Raptors.
Speaker 2: Where would you like to see him traded more?
Speaker 1: I'd like to see him in Portland more. That team
has a good defensive base. And so you said, like
having him if you get to keep Tamani clinging and Denny,
if that's your four person core moving forward, I'm all
over it and him and on Handsome if he's still there, Hey.
Speaker 2: I think you would probably get to stay. I like
the idea of Denny Avdia going against like a defense
that isn't completely dialed into stopping him and him alone.
Speaker 1: That would be fun, all right.
Speaker 2: Jonathan kaminga Brooklyn Nets or Sacramento Kings.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm gonna say Brooklyn Nets just because I'm not
gonna wish the Kings on anyone, even if I wish
better for the Kings fans themselves, and I do think
that when you kind of look at what's happened with
Keegan Murray even need Clifford and Keon Ellen. Who's the
organization're gonna trust to develop a younger talent At this point,
it's not even a question. It would be Brooklyn.
Speaker 2: I think that's right. Next player, Anthony Davis, Toronto Raptors
or Atlanta Hawks.
Speaker 1: Oh man, I think the Raptors. I might be too
low on Yaka Pertle. I just I understand his importance
as a screen ear and a decision maker to that team.
And if you're not gonna have an A plus passer,
I think all the stuff he does on offense wilcome
that much more important. But if you want to get
bigger and more menacing on your front line, Calmery Boyle,
Scottie Barnes, and then that's just not Mama's game. I'm
gonna say the Raptors.
Speaker 2: I think I go Hawks. It's close, but just because
they need someone to rebound. And then on paper, the
Davis tray is probably gone. I guess the Davis, Jalen Johnson, Alexander.
Speaker 1: You could keep Tray. Wouldn't the point be to keep Trey?
If you're well in Atlanta?
Speaker 2: Yetti Davis or no, you want to have the You
want to have the bigger conversation about her? Are they
better with or without him?
Speaker 1: Challenge? Trade Trey for Anthony Davis. I don't what are
you doing with Kyrie at that point? In Dallas though?
Is what what are you doing with Ryan Imhart? Do
you go with Brandon Williams? All right? Big name Giannis?
Speaker 2: I did a coombo going to the San Antonio Spurs
or the Golden State Warriors, the Knicks or you Dan's
going off the board.
Speaker 1: I think I think the Spurs. The idea of Giannis
and Steph would be a lot of fun. But Wemby
and Yannis defensively, and they should compliment one another offensively,
But that might be or do we enter I know
this is infringing upon Oklahoma City's territory, but if you're
even keeping one of Steph Castle and Dylan Harper as
part of that, are you just entering the territory of
Is this maybe gonna be the greatest defense of all
time in a single season? That's that front line is insane?
Speaker 2: It's I just think I think it's the Spurs as well.
And I think it's just because I want to see
what would happen with Wemby with a player like that
next to him, Like, I just like, what do you so?
What do you do with them?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 2: How do you like on either end of the floor?
Just his ability to roam on offense, Like you can't
gear maximum defensive attention towards Wemby if Yannis is like
bowling balling down the lane and just knocking all the like,
what do you Yeah? So I think that's the right. Okay, Okay,
slightly smaller scale here, Kobe White, Miami Heat or Orlando Magic.
Speaker 1: Oh man, we're still doing the guard thing with Orlando.
That's kind of terrifying. I'm gonna say. I'm gonna say Miami,
I'd be interesting. I think that he could probably fit
the way they're playing offense really well. I don't know
what you do defensively with him and Tyler Hero there,
assuming Tyler Hero is still there. But I'd be more
intrigued with him in Miami just to another team where
it's oh, do they have the A plus pass or no?
But now you have a bunch of different decision makers
on the ball.
Speaker 2: All right, A couple more, Lari Markinen probably not getting
traded to the Detroit Pistons or the San Antonio Spurs.
Speaker 1: Detroit's just like that's the band, and we've already sent
Youannis to San Antonio. But marketing, I feel you put
him on Detroit in the East and you could probably
make a case that Detroit might win the East at
that point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the fit is like just you can't beat it.
Speaker 1: All right, A couple more. I'm trying to decide which
to use here.
Speaker 2: Uh, Okay, we haven't talked about this guy. Don't even
know if he's in the rumor mill.
Speaker 1: We we might put him there.
Speaker 2: Dylan Brooks Los Angeles Lakers or Toronto Raptors.
Speaker 1: I think the Lakers, I don't. I do believe that
people are underestimating how much adding a non shooter to
the lineup could impact a team that doesn't take or
make enough threes as it is already. But they just
need like a big, nasty defensive wing. And yeah, I
want to see him and Lebron on the same I
absolutely want to see that.
Speaker 2: Be best buddies right away. All Right, I think that's enough.
Speaker 1: We'd spoiler, al Is, I did put Dylan Brooks in
the rumor mill in something that will be dropping on
Saturday around those parts. Very exciting I have. Is that
the only thing you have for me? That's it, all right?
So I have two things that are Grant specific. Are
you ready for the first one? Just some basic trivia here, okay,
Grant Five NBA players have dropped fifty points in a
regular season or playoff game before their twenty first birthday.
How many can you name? I will give you three strikes.
Speaker 2: Fifty in a game before their twenty first birthday. Correct,
Brandon Jennings.
Speaker 1: He is the youngest player in NBA history. Fun fact
to have hit the fifty point threshold. He did it
in twenty and nine with fifty five, So you're right
where I was. Lebron he did it twice. You have
two of five. His highest was fifty six points.
Speaker 2: Before their twenty first birthday. Now I'm just in strike territory.
Speaker 1: I feel like you're missing an obvious I thought this
was the one of the three that you have not gotten.
I thought was going to be your first pick. If
that's any consolation.
Speaker 2: Oh man, does that mean this must be recent?
Speaker 1: Thing, and I'm just.
Speaker 2: Cooper Flag had forty, right, I don't think he had fifty,
So I'm not gonna say him, who's another youngish Yeah,
this is gonna get bad. Fifty before twenty one, I
don't I don't even have anyone coming to mind right now.
I'll guess Anthony Edwards.
Speaker 1: That is strike one, Okay.
Speaker 2: I think the strikes are going to come fast and
furious here. So I'm now trying to think, like, who
who would be obvious? Sure it happened within like the
last two weeks, and I just.
Speaker 1: Was like locked that it did not happen within the
last two.
Speaker 2: Weeks, all right, Fifty before, Man, this is not this
is not only is this not a good sign for
this exercise, this is not a good sign for the
rest of stat padding. Because my brain is not working
very well. I will just say I'll just start going
usual suspects. I'll say Kevin Durant, strike two. Okay, here
comes strike three. I will say, I don't know. I'll
say Wimby. I don't think he has a fifty.
Speaker 1: But he's on there. Three of five. He dropped fifty
in twenty twenty four. Look at you, grant you need
to believe in yourself.
Speaker 2: Okay, if you don't believe it, you will, Uncle Dennis, Uh,
I'll say, Luca.
Speaker 1: That is strike three. You still did not get the
name I expected. The two remaining were Kevin Porter Junior
dropped fifty in twenty twenty one. Devin Booker seventy point
game in twenty seventeen. That's the wow. Seventy point game
is what I thought you would get.
Speaker 2: No, I did not remember it was that far back.
I don't know how many strikes I would have needed
for Kevin Porter. I don't think I would have got.
I totally forgot he had fifty.
Speaker 1: I thought you were going to get four on that.
I would never have remembered the KPJ one either.
Speaker 2: Yeah, man, Weirdly Booker Booker seventy does not feel that
long ago, but time as a flat sir.
Speaker 1: No, that's when I saw the year. I was just like,
oh shit, yeah old we washed. This Next one for you,
Grant is where would these NBA MAX salaries ranked today?
So I'm going to give you an NBA legend and
you have to guess whether their highest single season salary
for their career where it would rank in today's NBA.
But I'm going to give you an over under and
then I'll reveal the salary at the Okay, okay, So
Michael Jordan, would his highest salary of his career have
been a top fifty salary this season? Yes? Or no?
Speaker 2: Ooh man, I don't know if he ever made forty.
Speaker 1: Top five?
Speaker 2: Would it be a top You said, would it be
a top fifty?
Speaker 1: Correct?
Speaker 2: I'm gonna say yes because I'm pretty sure he made
at least thirty and I think that might be enough
to get into the top fifty.
Speaker 1: You are correct, it would have ranked fiftieth, just behind
Chris Middleton. Michael Jordan's career high was thirty three point
one million dollars.
Speaker 2: Okay, she keeps a lot of money in like ninety
seven dollars.
Speaker 1: That is Shaquille O'Neal. Would his highest salary have been
a top fifty salary this season? Oh man?
Speaker 2: What was Shack's highest salary? That's I think it would have.
I'm gonna say yes.
Speaker 1: That is incorrect. It would have ranked sixty fourth. It's
twenty seven point seven million dollars, just behind RJ. Barrett.
Speaker 2: The most Shack ever made was twenty seven million.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Man, Okay, Carmelo Anthony. Would his career high salary
have been a top seventy five salary this season? I
mean he had to?
Speaker 2: Oh man, so we know that that doesn't even have
to be that high. That might only need to be
just over thirty did mellow?
Speaker 1: Ever, man, I.
Speaker 2: Guess he's been out for a little while. I'm still
gonna say, yes, it would have been top seventy five.
Speaker 1: That is correct. His career high of twenty six point
two million would have ranked sixty ninth, nice, just behind
John Collins.
Speaker 2: So twenty six guy, this is good. I need to
keep this information. Twenty six million is good for top
seventy five.
Speaker 1: Got it? Derek Rose? Would his career high salary have
been a top eighty five salary this season? All right?
Speaker 2: I'm gonna guess he never made more than like twenty
three million, So I'm gonna guess that was not in
the top That would not be in the top eighty five.
Speaker 1: You are correct, and this one was bait because Derek
Rose his career high of twenty one point three million
would have ranked eighty sixth this season, just behind Vooch.
All right, here we go, Grant Magic Johnson would his
career high salary have been a top three hundred salary
this season?
Speaker 2: Well, all I remember is that he signed one of
those incredibly long contracts, and so I think he was
stuck making very little for a very long time. So
I'm gonna say it would not have been in the
top three hundred.
Speaker 1: Your correct? Again, it would have ranked three point one
million dollars, would have ranked three hundred and second, just
behind Deron Holmes the second. That's tough, Grant Kobe Bryant.
Would his career high salary have been a top fifty
salary this season?
Speaker 2: Oh? What was the number that everybody got all bent
out of shape? That felt like it was like two
for forty eight or something back like over ten years ago,
or like wow, clearly winning's not the most important thing
to him if he's getting all this from the Lakers.
I definitely made that argument in a past life. Uh,
top fifty, you said, correct? Did he make more than
twenty s?
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say, yes, that is incorrect. He's thirty point
four million dollar career high salary ranked fifty ninth, just
behind CJ. McCollum, Tim Duncan. Would his career high salary
have been a top one hundred salary this season.
Speaker 2: Hmmm, man, I wish I could remember that what he signed.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say no, it would not have been a
top one hundred. That is incorrect. Twenty two point one
million was his career high. It would have ranked eighty third,
just behind Kyle Kuzma the compstor great all right, three more,
Alan Iverson. Would his career high salary have been a
top one hundred salary this season?
Speaker 2: I gotta say no, that is incorrect.
Speaker 1: It would have ranked eighty ninth, just behind Norman Powell.
Twenty point eight million. Wow, he made twenty okay? Kevin Garnett.
Would his career high salary have been a top seventy
five salary this season?
Speaker 2: If you'd given me top one hundred, I definitely I
would have said yes. Seventy five makes it harder. So
we knew Mellow at twenty six was just above that.
Speaker 1: Did Garnett ever make twenty six?
Speaker 2: I'm gonna say, oh, what was I'm gonna say no,
I'm gonna say it is not inside the top seventy five.
Speaker 1: That is incorrect. Kevin Garnett's career high salary was twenty
eight million dollars, which would have ranked sixty third, just
behind Derek White this season.
Speaker 2: Another Celtics legend.
Speaker 1: Final one here, Dirk Noavitzky. Would his career high salary
have been a top seventy five salary in twenty twenty
five twenty six.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna say no, because he took the sweetheart deal
towards the end, and those should have been like the
big Goudie earning years.
Speaker 1: That is also incorrect. His career high salary is twenty
five million, which would have ranked seventy second this year,
tied with equally legendary names such as Josh Giddy, Fred
Van Vliet and Trey Murphy.
Speaker 2: Oh Man I wish Nick Wilson in the chat did
say inflation adjusted question mark, it'd be interesting to look
at those that Jordan figure thirty years ago making thirty million.
That's that's got to be up there.
Speaker 1: It wouldn't have been as it would have been. I
thought it was confusing enough to explain without adjusting for inflation.
It also wo I'm just it wouldn't have been stat
padding if we included inflation adjusted. But it was just
funny to see how in a short amount of time,
how much. It seems like like the mellow stuff to
where it's oh, that's just twenty six plus million dollars.
It's like not even a top fifty salary anymore.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what a what a heist it would be to
get a Carmelo Anthony making twenty six million dollars right now?
Speaker 1: So we we have some group ones. Now do we
want to do? We want to get to those. Yeah,
so let's do should we do the building a lineup
of smalls one? This one seems difficult?
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, this was I wish I had like a
day to research this, but let's dive in.
Speaker 1: Okay, so grant, we are tasked with building a starting
lineup that would rank in the top five defense. Here's
the catch. None of the players we select can be
taller than six foot five, and we are maxed at
taking one player from a single team, so we cannot
just draft Oklahoma City Thunder players ad nauseum, I will
humbly defer to you for the first pick of this draft.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm gonna this is such a no brainer pick.
But and it's you pointed this out. I did not
think there was any way this guy was listed at
six' FIVE i thought he was, taller but we have
to take, him and we have to burn our thunder
pick BECAUSE i was gonna Take Alex, caruso but you
pointed out That Jalen williams is listed at six foot.
FIVE i don't believe, it but we're going with it
because we need somebody that can guard up and it's
really hard to find.
Speaker 1: That any.
Speaker 2: Play we're gonna have no problem like with the, ballhawk
jumping passing lanes, guys but we got to have someone
that can credibly guard almost any four and did spend
time last year as like an elite rim. Defender remember
that that was a fun stretch of last season When
sido was like one of the best rim protectors in the.
Speaker 1: League he's the rim protector on this. Team he's still
contesting over forty percent of opponent shots when he's on the.
Floor he's the rim protector on this. Team, IMMEDIATELY i
don't know who else we were, Draft, no it's got
to be. HIM i will say that does Remove Cason,
Wallace Alx, caruso And Lou dort and Aj mitchell if
you're so inclined from the board pick number. Two now
this is already getting, tough isn't. It, Yeah i'm Gonna
i'm gonna go With Jalen. Suggs, yeah he is pretty,
strong and he is just an absolute menace and is
gonna be able to force a ton of. TURNOVERS i
don't trust him to guard up as, much BUT i
think that you could put him on bigger players and
have him uck up a ton of possessions away from the,
ball because it will probably be easier as we go
through this to find guys who can defend the ball.
Speaker 2: Adequately we don't care about, offense Right we're the top
five Defense, okay cause not Saying i'm picking, him But
Anthony edwards, qualifies and, like if we care to help
the rebounding overall quality of the, Team we're not going
to go that. Route, MAN i THINK i think this
guy's too, old But i'm still we still have to
be able to guard. Up AND i Think Drew holliday
can still do well against like finger wings and. FORWARDS
i don't like him against ones and twos.
Speaker 1: Anymore but can we play him just the first fifteen
games of the, Season that's the? Thing?
Speaker 2: Yeah are we? Sure are we worried ABOUT i guess
we're only drafting five, guys so we're not like depth
is not a. Consideration you can talk me Off Drew,
holiday BUT i do think we still need someone that
you can throw on forwards like The we're gonna be
fine in the. BACKCOURT i Just i'm struggling to find
someone THAT i like better as like A i, mean
like he what he, Started Kevin durant like in the playoff.
Speaker 1: Series CAN i throw this out from a rebounding guarding up,
perspective we're still pick number three. Here, Yeah Josh. Hart
he's not shutting anybody. Down he's not turning off the
water the way That Drew holliday.
Speaker 2: Would the rebounding is is a big deal, though like
you're you can't just it doesn't matter how effective you have.
Speaker 1: Toossessions, yeah, right you got to end the.
Speaker 2: POSSESSION i think there's room For Josh. Hart there's no
Other bridges is too, tall og is obviously too. Tall
there's nobody else you'd think about on The Knicks, McBride
it'd probably Take heart because of the. Rebounding all, Right
i'm gonna Allow Josh. HART i THINK i think we
can work with. That we do need, rebounding.
Speaker 1: So my pick was going to. Be ACTUALLY i Had
Anthony edwards in my. Head oh, really BECAUSE i WANT
i want the rebounding and he gives you a little
bit of, that and it's now can he guard? UP
i don't, know but we know he when he's locked,
in he can turn off the water of elite. Players
AND i don't know if we're using J dubb as
kind of our back line. Guy so you Have, Sugs
Anthony edwards and Because Josh hart's not going to be
that guy if he's on the, Team so we have
two guys that we're not gonna use in that.
Speaker 2: CAPACITY i, mean you could Go Chris dunn if you,
want like the on Ball Derek white To Derek white's
another pretty clear one good shop blocker for a. Guard
so who are our definites right? Now suggs is on,
It jado's on.
Speaker 1: It i'm kind of not married to anybody.
Speaker 2: Else, OKAY i Think, HEART i. DON'T i, mean is
there a better defender Than? Hart, probably but the rebounding
is if HE i think maybe we both looked At.
EDWARDS i think we put it better Put edwards on the.
Speaker 1: Team, Okay i'm with.
Speaker 2: That So edwards is there with what About Niki Alexander.
Speaker 1: WALKER i, DO i do love naw.
Speaker 2: He guard up a little, bit is? He do you
like him better Than hart Done white or guarding?
Speaker 1: UP i might like him better Than Derek. White he's
also contested an insane number of shots at the rim
this year To Nikil Alexander.
Speaker 2: Walker, YEAH i kind of just Want Derek white, Now,
OKAY i care too much about the, offense BUT i
Think Derek white's really.
Speaker 1: Good, Okay so we Have Derek, White Anthony, Edwards Jalen,
suggs And Jalen. Williams that is already. Good. Four we
need one?
Speaker 2: More, yeah we needed. This. Now this guy's gotta BE
i don't know if this player, exists he's gotta he has.
To maybe it needs to be heart because of the
rebounding and the playing up. Stuff Just Dyl, brooks he's
got to be six seven or six.
Speaker 1: Six if he's six,' five i want to medal because
that becomes the. Obvious, Pick, correct yeah you are you
looking it up? Right now i'm looking. Up Now So
dylan BROOKS on nba dot com is what will agree
what we agree. To use he is listed at six,
Foot seven. Holy ship that's bigger's. Too big, he was.
HM hmmm i thought he might be six. OR five
I thought i could sneak it. IN there i think we.
BETTER go i.
Speaker 2: Don't know do you feel like if We, pick heart
everybody's gonna, be, like actually his defensive numbers are not?
Speaker 1: That, GOOD yeah, i, MEAN yes. I do. I'm trying
i'm just trying to think of WHO what, i mean
we really, want to like to we go with Like
A drew Smith in. MIAMI ord, I.
Speaker 2: Mean I think i think we.
Speaker 1: Should GO so I think holiday is.
Speaker 2: A candidate we Haven't Mentioned marcus.
Speaker 1: Smart either we don't. Need to, that's fine That's fine
Smart And. Drew holiday I'm Taking drew holiday. NINE times
I think i.
Speaker 2: Am Too gary payton the second should be mentioned because
that's why he's in the league, is defense but and
he's technically a. Power forward We Took Derek White.
Speaker 1: Io desumu to do some. OF that I think i
think we might Be At drew, holiday territory or at
least the Idea Of.
Speaker 2: DREW holliday i Think it's Holiday, or heart and it's
just DO you I think holiday is not going to Rebound,
like heart which might be, what Matters, but holidays JUST
like I think holiday is still probably a.
Speaker 1: BETTER defender i Would. Vote holiday I'll vote holiday too
because even some of. The Names max pristy doesn't throw.
That out so we ended Up With, Jalen Williams, Drew Holliday,
Anthony Edwards, jalen Suggs And. DEREK white i think that
team right ranks top five. In defense, say no. IT'S
not i Mean Having antony Edwards And derek white goes
a long, way There and jabb we have we have
what two number two options and a number one option on.
The team? Pretty, good okay are? YOU ready i. INVENTED
this i don't know if it's, out There, grand sorry
are you ready to do A game? I invented i'm?
So ready, start bench, trade cut. Friendly, fire addition we
begin With The San. Antonio spurs our four player Pool Is,
steph Castle, Dearon Fox, Dylan Harper. Devin vasselle so you
have to take the lead on.
Speaker 2: This team, All right i'm. Gonna, start oh this is
this is. Already hard the start should. Be easy you
Know Where i'm you Know what i'm gonna. Do here
i'm going To Start, STEPH castle i am going to
BENCH what i thought you were? Gonna, do, Wow Bench,
DYLAN harper i am going to Trade, dearon FOX and
i am going To Cut. Devin vassell sorry. To Everybody
wall what order would you have?
Speaker 1: GONE there I think i would Have flipped Harper. In, castle,
okay FINE but I find i kind of saw where
you were Going with Fox. And, vissel yeah, all right
do you want me to give you the? Next, one yeah? Let's,
alternate yeah.
Speaker 2: All right so For The, Washington wizards dan, start, bench
trade Cut, Bilaal, Kolabali, keishawn George, Trade Johnson.
Speaker 1: Alex sar i'm going To Start. Alex sar i'm going
To Bench. Keishawn, GEORGE ah i can't. Do this I'm
gonna i'm Gonna Trade blahkola bali And Cut. TREY johnson
i don't feel confident in that last. Part though.
Speaker 2: That's tough the trade in the cut is like you
don't want to do either.
Speaker 1: Of those but that's why this is A tough i
Think would blah get what Would trade johnson be the
one who got more in? A trade? Right now, OOH
uh i don't.
Speaker 2: THINK so i don't. Think so that's. The thing you're
almost complimenting the guy you trade because, you're, saying yeah
You're help you're helping us by getting.
Speaker 1: Us Something The Oklahoma city thunder grant start, bench Trade, Cut,
Chet Holmgren, Alex Caruso, cason Wallace And. Jalen Williams, SO jada.
Speaker 2: I am going To. Start jadob i'm Gonna. BENCH chet
i am GOING to i think you get More, For
Wallace so i'm Gonna trade Wallace and i'm Gonna. Cut
Caruso the thunder just got a.
Speaker 1: LOT worse I think i probably would have done what you.
Speaker 2: DID good, i mean that's how we know. It's Wrong
The houston rockets. Are next dan start, bench Trade cut
Alpha and Shangoun. Read shepherd you know where. That's Going
Jabari smith junior And A. Men thompson this is the
hardest one.
Speaker 1: So Far so i'm going To start Alpa. And shangoon
i'm going to Bench. READ shepherd i am going To
Trade amen thompson And Cut Jabari. SMITH junior i think
to me it comes DOWN to i do Believe that
Shangun and shepherd will be better at driving offenses for
an entire Team than thompson and you could probably get
so Much From hen thompson in a trade, right, Now.
Speaker 2: Argue yeah could you get more? FOR him i think
you probably still get More, for Shingoon. But thompson would
you get a haul for?
Speaker 1: That? Guy YEAH so i feel confident in. THAT decision
i might, have Started. Read Shepherd maybe i'll regret. That
one Grant Your New. York knicks start bench Cut, trade, Ognanobi,
McHale Bridges, mitchell Robinson And Karl.
Speaker 2: Anthony towns, ALL right i am starting O g i,
am oh, All right i'm Benching McHale bridges And, trading
CAT and i Am Cutting. MITCHELL robinson i don't know
what you're Getting, for cat but he can't be a
starter a BENCH so I don't i don't know what to.
Speaker 1: Do, THERE yeah I think i think that's Right Because,
mitchell robinson with the health stuff and the, lower salary
what are you gonna get for him in a? Trade? Anyway,
yeah yeah. All Right, Charlotte horns oh this is, Me
sorry i'm, gonna yeah this has to.
Speaker 2: Be well this isn't gonna be that hard. For you
start bench, Trade Cut, LaMelo, Ball, Miles Bridges, Conk Nipple
brandon Miller.
Speaker 1: Oh Man So LaMelo. I'm starting that'll surprise no one
who listens to. This Podcast maybe. I'm pilled i'm Gonna Bench,
conka Nipple Trade brandon Miller And. Miles BRIDGES good gtfo
he could.
Speaker 2: Be cut that's the correct order unless you want to
go Your. Trading lamello but that's. Not you that's not
a move you, would Make so i'm.
Speaker 1: Not would you have.
Speaker 2: MADE it i think it's more interesting if You, start Canipple,
bench Miller trade LaMelo And. Cut bridges bridges is the
easiest cut we've had of, any TEAM and i don't
think that's gonna change the rest of.
Speaker 1: The Way Grant portland trailblazers, start, bench, Trade Cut, Tamani Kamara,
Donovan Klingen, scoot Henderson And. Shaden sharp this is.
Speaker 2: Fucking hard this is really hard because there's it's just
completely four totally, different players, All right so the starter
is something it's like you can't miss on. The starter
so a prisoner of the. Moment situation, RIGHT now I
think I'm starting Shade, and sharp which who And then
i'm gonna Bench To. Moni kamara i'm going To trade
Scoot and i'm gonna cut clinging.
Speaker 1: Wow yousing so You thing scoot. HAS More i i'm
probably tantalized By the Shade and sharp. Upside too and
if you're not gonna, pick him if you're saying you're
gonna start so, and so so you're kind of just
like just out on any of these guys becoming a
cornerstone at, that point Unless. It's, scoot yeah.
Speaker 2: IT'S tough, i MEAN like i think before, THE season
i probably would Have said I'd pay kamara MORE than
i Would pay Shade, And sharp but that would have
been a dumb thing. To say sharp's upside is still,
just yea, Who, knows right. That's tough if You throw avdia,
in there everything gets a. Little simpler but.
Speaker 1: That's why that's why he wasn't in it, All Right
Memphis Grizzlies, Dan, Start, Bench, Trade Cut, Cedric Coward, Zach
Edy Jaron. Jackson Jr And. John, morant okay so this
is harder if you're thinking about gaming out the. Actual
FRANCHISE but i am going To Start Jaron. Jackson, Jr Bench,
cedric coward, do, It Trade zach Edy And Cut. Jahn
morant what is his trade value? Right now are you
seriously give me the team that is giving up a
first round Pick For john morant? RIGHT now i think
maybe this is Stupid Because. Zach edie what are they
giving Up For zach edy with? The, health yeah you
have to you have To Trade, john Morant Cut.
Speaker 2: Zach edy the thing the takeaway here is there's no
scenario where you start Or. Bench jaw he's firmly in
the trade. Or cut this is how every front office
should make. Its decisions they should all get in a
room and just, play, start, bench, trade cut and then
that's How you that's how you game out the.
Speaker 1: Trade. Deadline mike the friendly fire of it all was,
interesting too because it's normally just players from. Different teams
but when you're starting to think about it from the same,
organizational perspective it. Gets harder maybe we should bring if you,
liked it comment or let us know in our discord
and we'll bring. That, back otherwise do you have, Anything?
ELSE grant i don't think so that's a.
Speaker 2: Good invention i'll just say that because you have to
be a super big trend not to, my knowledge so
it's new. To, ME no i think that's gonna Do
it thanks everybody for your. Mailback submission sorry if we
didn't get, to you we'll try to get it, next
time and thanks for the in the moment comments. As,
well please as always remember, rate, review subscribe do all
the things as we like to say during our discord
links for that and the YouTube and. Podcast description tell,
Your friends tell your Enemy shouts Franklin. L, Keena Apologies
jared allen