Speaker 1: Fellow sickos. I am Dan Valley coming at you with
my certified fantabulous co host, mister Grant Hughes. It's twenty
twenty five NBA trade did my big board time. I
pitched Grant on this idea, only for him to inform
me that Sam Vessini of The Athletic also made one,
so we did not. I guess we cribbed it from him,
but I cribbed it unknowingly at least that's the case
that I'll plead mister Hughes before we get started, how
the heck are you? I'm doing well?
Speaker 2: I did.
Speaker 3: We talked before we started recording, just fresh off of
robust discord discussion that I was really enjoying. And I
did note in there that I had to leave because
I had to go talk about trades with some cicco
and that was appreciated too. We'll talk about that later
some of the top Hopefully. I don't think it's going
to be a stale topic because it seems like it's
been a big one all season, or at least a
couple of them. But kind of energized by that, so
excited to talk about that towards the.
Speaker 2: End of this and also excited to like get.
Speaker 3: Organized with trade season that's like fully here and seems
like it sort of has been for a while and
kinda I don't know, I like to get this. I
like to sort of get ducks in a row trade
wise before everything goes to you know, gets a little
too chaotic.
Speaker 2: So hopefully that'll be helpful.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this season, how are you? Sorry?
Speaker 2: How are you?
Speaker 1: How are you?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: I'm great, I'm the same as you, although maybe still
a little bit healthier. It sounds like probably, so I'm
with you. But this year it's I know that some
of the apron limitations were in place already, but this
is the first year where everything's kind of in play,
and so that makes prep even more important. But then
you also kind of have to balance where it stresses
me out because I feel not out of my element,
but I'm used to just being so much more. I
don't need as much prep when thinking about which team
can do what as I will this year. And then
you also have to resist the impulse to explain everything
because quite frankly, I think we've seen like our audience
doesn't necessarily there's look the sickos and discord go join
it and other people who care about this, but the
minutia of getting into it, I don't expect most of
our listeners to care about it, and so the impetus
I have to explain all this stuff that I'm trying
to figure out behind the scenes. I've gotten better at
resisting it, believe it or not, even though I go
on tangents all the time. But that's something I'm struggling
with even more this year.
Speaker 3: It's funny, like, you know, trade talks and that whole
side of covering the league has for a long time
now we like joke about it. How it's just like
that's what gets traffic, that's what people want to talk about,
and it's I think outside of a small subsection of people,
it's like it's not because they're interested in like how
do you match salary and what are the rules? It's
just like my player needs this. What players out there could?
Speaker 2: I get? That's fun.
Speaker 3: It's like the two kification of the league. And so yeah,
now when you talk about these trades, it's just like
you have to ignore I think if you want to
keep it in the realm of what people are interested
in about trades, you have to just like just like
you should get like a counter on how many times
you're allowed to say second apron or aggregate or whatever,
because like, I don't think people care about that. It
sucks that though, like that is just part of it now,
and so I think we should make a pledge to
try to not get into the weeds too much and
try to stay more focused on to the extent that's
even going to be possible, we'll see on just the
like what people actually enjoy about talking about trade stuff.
It's just like, let's get this guy there and see
what happens. Like that's fun, right, You got to kind
of stick to that stuff.
Speaker 1: I hate being the bear bear news though, where you
do see people post trades and ask you about it's like, no,
Milwaukee can't trade two players at once.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, that's like ninety nine percent.
Speaker 3: I mean, the fake trade economy is in a weird
spot right now because the one almost all of them
that you see out there are just like, yeah, that's
not legal.
Speaker 2: That literally cannot happen. Thanks new CBA.
Speaker 1: Do you want to describe to the kids, the impressionable
youths listening and watching how we approached our NBA trade
Deadline big board.
Speaker 3: So it's not necessarily a ranking of the best players.
It comes fairly close to that because I think and
you can amend this however you like or add to it,
but it's really just like they're here one based on
So you're not here if there's not a decent volume
with you know, solid credibility of you being in rumors
or speculation or whatever. It's the names that we've probably
heard swirling around most that aren't just like pulled out
of thin air. It's it's it's and you'll hopefully there
won't be any surprises here to the listeners and viewers,
like these are names you've concluded.
Speaker 1: A few bombs in here just to see like why
why is Lebron ranked at number twenty seven? Well, well,
and we'll.
Speaker 3: Also at some point later do like, hey, why aren't
these guys not on this edition? But why aren't these
guys on a big board? It's just they haven't really
discussed we think maybe they should be. And then if
you've made the board. I think the quick and dirty
way to describe the ranking system is just like what
could you what would you fetch on the market, Like
what what kinds of offers are we hearing discussed like
what's your what's your value? So like you know, and
that even really has some it's it's not that simple
because like, well there's picks involved for some guys and
their salaries for others, and just like what's the return
package look like? And hopefully we've got this organized in
a way that is pretty close to like biggest return
package at the top, descending order going down, because that's
going to price in all the things you'd normally think about,
which are how old is this player, how long is
the under contract is? What's his contract relative to his production?
Like all that stuff right, So that I think is
are the two kind of sets of ranking criteria we
have here.
Speaker 1: The only thing I would add to is we did
exclude I would say we looked at this through or
tried it. For the most part, there's like a standalone
value lens where it's all these players are not I'll
use the Pacers as an example. There's been speculation about
Bennett Mathern and Jarris Walker. I don't believe that the Pacers, though,
would just trade those guys to get picks back, Like
you're trading those guys as part of a larger consolidation move,
so they don't make our trade deadline big Board because
you're not I hate using the verbiage of selling people,
but you're not auctioning off this player. These are mostly
populated by teams that are looking to sell or contract
situations maybe that have forced hands.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, I think that's a good distinction to make.
Speaker 1: And with that, let's get started. Standard big board rules apply.
Is it standard? I guess people have a top fifty
big board. We just went thirty deep. I will alternate.
I guess the reveals and moving on. So I'll just
begin it at number one. I don't think this will
be debatable, mister Hughes, but we are going with Jimmy
Butler hair color.
Speaker 3: Watch, which, by the way, like I mean, I don't know,
did you take the changing hair color things as anything
but like pretty classic Jimmy trolling?
Speaker 2: Or is there like I want out and this is
the team I'm choosing.
Speaker 1: So it would have if he did it purple, it
would have made more sense. But because it's orange, I know,
orange isn't necessarily a primary heat color, but like that
yellow that they have, it can look kind of orange, Okay,
And so I just didn't, I thought. But it's also
so we've seen him use his appearance to send message
messages control people before, so I understand it. But if
if he really wanted to stir up discussion, like Dallas
Maverick's blue or something, it is blue.
Speaker 3: For a minute, though before orange there was blue. Yeah,
for like a day. It wasn't when you you know,
when you're searching for photos to put in articles like
the Getty stuff or whatever, there's.
Speaker 2: Some blue in there.
Speaker 1: So I don't know, man, I didn't see the blue.
I saw the I saw the orange. Well, then that's
the way to send up. But then he should have
because orange had to be of his list of teams,
the Suns, he should have done it purple then if
he was, I mean the problem maybe you want to
get Kings fans hopes up.
Speaker 2: Perhaps, Well that's.
Speaker 3: The problem is so many teams have so many different
jerseys now, like almost any color you chose could be like,
oh well, the Sun's city edition alternates from twenty twenty one.
Speaker 2: Where blue? So that must you know.
Speaker 1: He said he wants to go to the Thunder too.
That's how we should have taken the arms right.
Speaker 3: Thunder could do it debate here though, I mean, well,
did you want to put up number two? Just well,
because that's the only that's the only debate I could
really think about between So Jimmy Butler's one, I think
I think, first of all, before we do that, you're
right to have him one. His name has been the
most discussed recently, Like he's the only guy where we've
gotten the here's the list of teams he might want
to go to at this level of the big board.
So like that that warrants being number one. And then
the only debate is really like is the package that
Miami can get for him being on essentially an expiring
contract that we should talk about too, Like you know,
the Ingram's deal. Ingram deals have been scuttled because people
don't want to pay his next deal. You're you're signing
up for that with Butler too. It's not as long
because the over thirty eight rule, but per you know,
per year, you're probably talking more than you're going to
be giving Ingram wherever he signs next. So that's a factor.
He's said he's gonna hit free agency. That's another factor.
So you might just be renting. I still I'm still
inclined to think this is the biggest, Like what we
sent out for Butler eventually, assuming he gets traded, will
probably be a bigger package than anybody else sends out
for anyone else, Right.
Speaker 1: I would say yes, just unless there's a name like
Anthony Davis ambling onto the trade market that we haven't
seen yet. Because but it is fascinating because he's thirty
five and the contract situation, but he's still if you
compare him to Brandon Ingram, who spoiler alert, is not
next and like Brenninger's been on the trade block for
it feels like roughly forever, or at least theoretically on
the trade block forever. He's the most bankable option even
of when you're looking at some of the cheaper, higher
end players. Yeah, other teams might if you don't want
to go all in, you're gonna prefer looking at someone
with a middle end salary who maybe plays the wing
and hits the reason and that's it. But he is
when you're just look at his playoff track record too.
I know he's older, I know he's gonna hit free agency.
That was like to mention the contract he's there was
Player options fifty two point four million this summer. I'm
assuming he won't, like I guess because the deal is
so short, has to be so sure he might end
up getting max money, but like you're probably looking at
it at least forty million a year for him, right,
I would assume so.
Speaker 2: And this is maybe another thing we didn't really talk about.
Would you say that.
Speaker 3: Ingram or Levine or Butler have like a broader number
of teams that would realistically trade for them, because often
that's a factor in like driving up market value, as
you just have like the number of bidders or number
of interested parties might make offers higher because I don't
I mean, Butler does not should not have appeal to
like a large swath of the league because of his aige,
because of the cost. Like if you're in the middle
and you think he puts you over the top, then
you're interested. But like rebuilders know this nonsense about like
he's interested in signing with Brooklyn or something that was
out there, Like no, like why do the Nets have
any interest in that? Let alone, Like they have the
most cap space, they don't probably have enough to sign
him to begin with, so.
Speaker 2: Like how do you weigh that?
Speaker 3: Like because I do think like even someone like Ingram
just makes more sense on a UTAH, for example, than
Butler does. So is there a case that Butler should
be lower for that reason? Or do we stick to
the the size of the offer?
Speaker 1: I would say in some instances that matters, this isn't
one of them. And I actually think in a lot
of it says it takes one team. Yeah, and so
what's more likely that one team's going to go in
all in on Jimmy Butler or Brandon Ingram? And the
answer to me would be pretty clearly Jimmy Butler. And
so I get it, But like brand ingerm specifically is
tough because that dude is just I Also, you have
to weigh the scalability of the fit too, which I
think factors into the demand that you're talking about. Where Jimmy,
I think we tend to conflate scalability with shooting, which is,
you know there is some there's a relationship there. But
like Jimmy is not a high volume shooter, but like
he can fit probably anywhere I would like. He doesn't
need to be in your traditional pick and roll offense.
He doesn't need to be on the ball all the time.
And I think his offensive performance doesn't normally inform his
defensive efforts, so I think that's also what makes him
super appealing. Whereas with brandon Ingram, and we'll get to him,
he's coming up and this, but like, how many teams
do you think brandon Ingram can realistically fit on without
having to have said team retailer so much of.
Speaker 3: What it's doing that that's a great point, like we
really do brandon Ingram better shooter, so therefore, oh, he
fits in more places. And then Butler is just the
exception to that rule because he's not taking anything off
the table if he's not on the ball, looking to
get his own right, like he's a cutter defense, Like
space is enough when the games matter. You know, we've
talked about that all the time. You mentioned his playoff
three point shoot, Like I think usually it's not far
off the mark to focus on, like, well, can this
guy space the floor if he's off the ball, If yes,
he's scalable, Like that's usually a pretty good shorthand. But
that's not how this works for these particular guys.
Speaker 1: I think Number one and arguable to me, I think
we're about to get into an interesting portion okay, if
you want to take us to number two.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Zach Levine's at number two I think now.
Speaker 3: And it's easy to say because he's playing really well
the market. It like if you look at where we were,
which is Bobby Mark saying the market is what I mean?
We always have how many times we joked about this,
Like I don't think Bobby Mark said it might have
been Wojes back in the day saying the market's barren.
Bobby Mark's talking about the bulls needing to give up
first to get off of Zach Lavine. We've It's to
the point now where two years and ninety five left,
that's a lot. That's that's superstar money. I don't know
if Levin. I do know Levin is not like a
number one option superstar on a good team. He is
exceptionally scalable because of his shooting and his on the
move shooting. I don't think that price is as onerous
as it seems. It's worse now in the you know,
various hard capping and apron environments than it.
Speaker 2: Used to be. But I do think the.
Speaker 3: Bulls should be able to get it, like in a vacuum.
Certainly they should be able to get a first for
him and like not bad salary, which.
Speaker 2: Is very different from where we were.
Speaker 3: I will concede, it's still harder if we're talking about
the specific circumstances of the league right now, where no
teams just are terrified to spend too much and like
the fits just aren't great salary wise.
Speaker 2: But I actually, I actually feel very.
Speaker 3: Good about him being second. And I was going to say, like,
is there a case for him over Butler? I just
don't if you're imagining the offers out there, I don't
think Levine's gonna get as much as Butler will. But
I mean, is he the safer investment potentially just because
you have two guaranteed years like that, that's not nothing
with Butler potentially just leaving wherever he lands.
Speaker 1: And is there also this is certainly an argument for
him over brandon Ingram, of course, But who do you
trust this has This is a form of scalability. It's
not the entire thing, to be clear, But who do
you have more confidence in that their game or they
could be impactful when they're scaled down? Yeah, would it
be Butler on offense? Specifically? Would it be Butler or Levine?
Speaker 2: I think probably still Butler.
Speaker 3: But but I just Butler's just a cut above, like
he's in a separate level at least right now. The
age is another factor. Levine looks healthy. He's missed very
few games this year, so like Butler could break down
or by the way, this is why part of the
reason the heat are where they are with Butler is
because of his durability, which you know has been an issue.
Levine hasn't been an iron man, but like he's healthy
now and he's younger, so I don't know. I think
it's still Butler, but maybe the question is Levine or Ingram,
Like who do you like better as a scaled down
threat there?
Speaker 1: I think it's Levine by far, because what does Brendon
Ingram do without the ball right in his hands? And
the other thing is, I don't know if this is spicy,
but like Zach Lavine is probably a better one on
one defender than brend and Ingram. I think there's always
the off ball stuff with Zack Lvine, but if you
go you can watch too. I mean, the Bulls defense
is awful, but like Zaqulvine is also playing I wouldn't
say out of position, but like he's a guard's someone
that I view on certain teams. Yeah, he can scale
up to the wings, but the Bulls are not one
of those teams. There's just there's always gonna be the
off ball apses with him. But if you start even
to dig into the numbers after watching, he's navigating screens
better than he has in a couple of years. And
just the individual defense in so far as you're able
to lock in on those, it hasn't been terrible. And
I would just argue that I don't think Brandon, like,
what does Brandon Ingram give you defensively?
Speaker 3: It's all it's kind of theoretical, right, because he's got
always he's got the link. He could be disruptive somehow.
You're just but it just really hasn't happened. I think
maybe the edge Ingram has, although it probably comes with caveats,
is he is a better passer and has better facilitation
numbers than Lavin does, because Leavin, you know, is in
the four assist per game range, has been there several times.
Speaker 2: But it's like we always knock him, and I think
fairly for.
Speaker 3: Being like a he's gonna make the one read pass
and and I think Ingram might be a little better
at just like mapping the floor, you know, seeing the
pass before the as type thing. But that's that's really
not what either of these guys. That's not the skill
any team is like really, you know, focusing on if
you're trading for either of these guys, just a small thing.
Speaker 1: No, And I think the bigger, bigger thing for Levine
of course it's the offense, but it's like the dynamic
shot making of he gives you more rim pressure than
Brandingham at this point. So if you put him on
a team with I mean like with super charge spacing
or something or someone who else is like if you
put him on the Nuggets, which has been a team,
I think the fit is questionable going from him and
Michael Porter Junior when you're talking about what does that
impact have on the defense your size in general, But
like him being able to get to the basket, he
does that better than MPJ. And but he also just
the self created shots, I mean he's shooting. His effective
field goal percentage on self created jumpers is fifty seven
point four and among the fifty nine players that have
taken at least one hundred of those looks, he's fifth
in efficiency that is absurd.
Speaker 3: He's a throwback like Slasher right on a good team
where it's like the ball gets swung to him because
he's not your number one option and he's gonna hit
that three, or everyone's freaked out about him hitting the
three so they close out hard and he's dunking in
a half a set like that's really it almost feels
like we haven't seen the best version of Zach Lavine
because it's almost and maybe this is his fault for
wanting to be something else, but doesn't it seem like
he really would excel just as a luxury second third
option who's just like feasting on defensive attention being somewhere
else like that, that really feels like the best version
of him to me, who is.
Speaker 1: The best number one or teammate he's ever played with?
Is it still Towns?
Speaker 3: I was gonna that's been so long like he did
overlap with Towns. Yeah, because Towns has been in the
league longer than you think. Uh, I don't know. I
mean like, yeah, if Towns. If you think Towns is
better than DeRozan, it's probably Towns.
Speaker 2: Who else is he?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 2: Who else were we even thinking about? I think that
that's kind of it, right.
Speaker 1: And I guess the argument would be, Okay, so he's
been in I mean in Chicago, like when DeRozan was there,
he's been someone who's been a number two technically.
Speaker 2: I mean, DeRozan is a weird guy to play with,
like as a number one.
Speaker 1: Thing is, so we just really haven't seen and he's
certainly never been in a situation where he can be
on the floor and for extended stretches be the number three.
Speaker 2: No, because that.
Speaker 1: In Denver you could argue that would happen, and on
other teams you'd argue that would happen. And by the way,
relative to Ingram, don't you value that he still has
that extra year left on his deal, whereas do you
prefer Yes, Okay, he might be overpaid, but it's two
more years after this one versus well, now we got
to figure out what to pay and for how long
to pay Brandan Ingram after this season.
Speaker 3: I think so, although like I think so, the concern
would be we're in exactly the same place next year
where a forty five million I think he's forty eight
next year on the last year of his deal, where
that's just because of the aprons and all the cap
environment and all these teams just being stuck and immobile
and inflexible, where that number is just like, oh my god,
do we have to pay to get off this now?
Speaker 2: Still I don't think that's the case.
Speaker 3: I value the security because with with Ingram, with Butler,
even although you would imagine that in either case, wherever
they go, there's a been discussions about here's what we're
willing to do.
Speaker 2: Are we good with that?
Speaker 3: And the flight risk isn't the rental risk isn't as
big as maybe it seems. I still value just I
have control, like this is not an asset that I
risk losing for nothing.
Speaker 2: I don't know. That's just me being risk averse.
Speaker 1: And also, if he's going to opt out, it either
means that he played so well that maybe don't care
because I found years of player option, or traditionally when
that happens, maybe it's because that number is actually going
to come down because he's a green to re sign
on a longer deal for a smaller number.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just like the extra year.
Speaker 1: By the way, the team that I really want to
say he gets zach Lavine now I want him on
the Pistons. Like Kim Hardaway, Junior Fontacio and Jay and
Ivy for Lavine, let's call it in Well.
Speaker 3: He's just the ultra ultra like premium version of the
Beasley's and the Hardaways and the guys they've tried to
stick around that core.
Speaker 1: But he might be able to lead because the offense's
been so bad, hasn't been great with Kate n Jayden
when Ivy's healthy, and then when you run Ivy alone,
like the offense is in the twenty second percent time whatever,
zacclviem probably a better chance of propping up those units.
I think at the stage number three, Cam Johnson, is
that controversial at all?
Speaker 2: Here it is for you because you thought it was
Brandon Ingram. No, I think let's we have to do the.
Speaker 3: Ingram versus Johnson discussion. Right, it's just the for for
Johnson is we've used the word scalable. This guy is
like actually almost like definitionally scalable because he's mostly the
biggest value is catch and shoot player that's passable on
defense at either forward spot, like that's okay, cool, Like
excellent role player, which means wide market.
Speaker 2: The salary is in a range.
Speaker 3: That's not like I don't think he's overpaid, and he's
got a couple of years at two years forty five
point two million left.
Speaker 2: If you're not watching, if you're just listening.
Speaker 3: I think it's still a discussion between him and Ingram,
just because Ingram is viewed as more of like a star,
I guess. Uh. But to me, the cost, the plug
and play status of Johnson's game, it's just I think
it just recommends him over Ingram.
Speaker 2: And you're not worried about like, are.
Speaker 3: We just not going to be able to meet the
demands for his next salary and next contract.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would agree with everything you said. And the
other thing that I do wonder though, is what do
you view Cam Johnson as positionally? Like is this do
you consider him a wing or is it we just
had this discussion during our mailbag, or is he a forward?
Because I think with Brandon Ingram, you can consider him
a wing and maybe that would drive up his appeal.
Whereas Cam, you mentioned he could be passable defensively, but
he's not like a great rebounder. He's also not great defensively,
and so do you yeah, okay, on offense he can
be a two three four really whatever you want him
to be, but he can't be that defensively.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I mean you're just asking I think, what
position does he defend? And I think, like, he's definitely
not someone you're comfortable with on the other team's best
forward or best wing, so you're gonna be hiding is
too strong, but like you're definitely going to be looking
for assignments for him that are not you know, like
high volume shooters and scorers. I still think, like maybe
the question is, can you put him in a switch
of a switching defense and just like be okay there,
I think probably I feel like the answer is yes,
Like he's not going to be a difference maker, but
I don't. I think people's opinions of Cam Johnson since
he's been in Phoenix have been all over the map defensively,
and we you and I have definitely talked about he's
just a four sometimes right, like that's just where he belongs.
I guess I I guess I would say I don't
feel worse about him defensively than I do about Ingram
or Levine, Like I think he's probably at least as
good or probably better than either of those guys. So
it is tough, like's not He's not gonna make your defense.
I don't think he's gonna break it either.
Speaker 1: Though I also think you mentioned this at the top
would inflate his ranking. Is how many teams will want
him because the numbers so much like if you're going
for Lavigne or Ingram or Butler, it's more of a
wholesale move where you're either like, it's not like you're
trying to tip the scales ever so slightly in your
favor with a finishing touch. If you're going for Butler,
it's we need this guy if we want to contend
or take that next step, whereas Cam Johnson is viewed
more as a cherry on top and so more teams.
He's just more accessible, and then more teams are going
to be.
Speaker 2: Interested in him. Do you think that?
Speaker 3: Do you think he's more likely to be traded than
all three of the guys we just talked about for
that reason? We know which is weird? Right, Like, right,
why isn't this guy getting traded? Maybe it's just because
Brooklyn says, we'll just try again next year. That's the
other thing, right, Like they Brooklyn, it's probably gonna be
bad for two straight years. So they don't need to
rush into to well, we can't get a first form,
so we can just hold on to him.
Speaker 1: I think honestly they probably can't. They can definitely get
a first for him. But if you're not like now,
I think you move him if you get the equivalent
of what you think is two firsts or close to it,
even if you're taking back bad money. And if that's
not on the table. If you were going to get
one first round pick for Cam Johnson right now, you
can get one first round pick for Cam Johnson over
the summer next season.
Speaker 2: That's true.
Speaker 1: Now we're finally on to number four, which is Brendon Ingram.
I don't sorry, that was yours.
Speaker 3: I say so we've kind of covered it, like we've
talked about all the Ingram dimensions here. Question that to
me is can New Orleans get a first coming back?
I think matching money is probably doable, but like, do
you really trade him if you're getting matching money that
comes off in like seconds? I mean, I don't know,
Like you at least hold on to you can sign
and trade him if you don't like what you have now, I.
Speaker 1: Would say, if that's the offer, for sure, I just
don't what are you gaining gaining by squol using him
in free agency? You're still left with this player who
might be on a deal that's like, what is the
contract he signs that makes him a hotter trade commodity
and you know he's not a fit for what you're
trying to build or are you deciding hey like buys
Ion and like brand Ingram and Jante Murray and Trey
Murphy and Herb Jones of the future, not even know
if he makes sense in that type of a setup.
It's I think they missed the window to get like
a first round pick for Brandon Ingram. Have they made
this decision a year ago or more when they probably
should have, it'd be easier. But I think that's what's
also tough is we're trying to rank this what's really
inflating his value is his utility as an on ball player.
And it's also just like this guy doesn't have a
wide we have proof of concept, like what teams have
even been mentioned? The only team I've heard, like tangibly
like through the ether and then actually reading was the
Jazz might have been in on him, but he didn't
want to go to Utah what other team has been
just concrete linked as we want, apparently the Nuggets, which
just makes zero sense.
Speaker 3: But well, I mean, yeah, I don't get. I mean,
this is why we are where we are. Like we've
seen the problem with New Orleans holistically is like they
just can't get everybody out there together for long, long
stretches to see how good this team can be. And
when they have, like it looked you know, good and well,
I guess what last year for a little while.
Speaker 2: But like nobody feels great about him as a number one.
Speaker 3: There's all these complications with him as a number two
or number three, because like the things he does well
are just number one things. It's a little bit like DeRozan,
except de Rosen's just better at the like the self
generated two point jumpers type of thing. That's just like
I don't know what team is clamoring for that at
the at the you know number that's higher than his
thirty six million a year right now, which is what
you're probably gonna have to do.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: It's just I feel like his market is suppressed for
both like fair and unfair reasons. Like part of it
is just no, there's no teams with free agent money
to spend next summer, So like the Pelicans are kind
of like, okay, like who's gonna you know, if we
can just hold on to this for as long as
we want, maybe things turn around, maybe we can get
back to where you're worth a first But like, his
game really is just hard to find a great fit
for right for the price that it seems like it's
gonna take.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I just and what do you think he
gets in his next deal?
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 1: Do you think he's making as much money as he's
making this season, which he is at what is he thirty?
He's at thirty three? Right, so yeah, he's at thirty six,
thirty six? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Is he? Well it's like what are comps out? That's
the other thing.
Speaker 3: It's like I was thinking, like, okay, so what's Jeremy
Grant getting? And he's like up over what is he
thirty one? Is it more than that? I can't remember
to be.
Speaker 1: Up for thirty four next season?
Speaker 2: Whatever? He's that now?
Speaker 3: And like that's a hard deal to trade now, right
because Grant's older. But like theoretically Grant brought more defense,
more versatility, much more scalability, So like.
Speaker 2: Is that a good comp I don't know. I guess me.
Speaker 3: Is the over under thirty million a year on brandon
Ingram's next deal? What do you where do twenty nine
point five million dollars a year?
Speaker 2: You where do you go?
Speaker 1: I'm gonna just take the over because I feel like
even when there's not markets, there ends up being markets.
So I'm gonna take the over. But I don't feel
great about it, which because I do think he's a
really good player. But we're at a point now where
if you can't be a number one option a really
good team and you're not built or wired to scale
down or in different types of roles, I really do
think it impacts your market value. And just we're not
going to bring up the restrictions all the time, but
with how more complex the salary cap picture is for teams,
I think that also hurts his value too.
Speaker 3: Is it possible that we're not that far away from
him being undervalued because like, he's not a bad player,
it's just tricky and he's not cheap because he can
do a handful of things like most guys can't. I
just wonder if whoever signs him, say he hits free agency,
say there's no trade whoever signs him, because again the
Nets have like forty million, san Antonio can get there.
But like, there's not gonna be a bidding war. He's
not gonna be a mid level guy. But somebody is
gonna get him for I agree, probably less thirty or less,
and we might just end up talking about like, can
you believe that the Pelicans couldn't get value for him?
Look how good he is on Team X in twenty five,
twenty six, like that that's not out of the realm
of possibility to me.
Speaker 1: No, I'm totally with you there. His situation is just
so complex and I don't know if it's hurt him that,
Like I kind of thought a team would emerge, maybe
they had an injury, there's like we need brandon Ingram, Yeah,
and that team hasn't happened. I've started wondering if if
the Heat moved Jimmy Butler, and not that they like
the Pelicans should want Jimmy Butler, but as part of
a three or four team construction, where if you're moving
Jimmy Butler and you're the Heat, we know you're not
getting your picks back, and like you already have two
out first round picks. Would you want brandon Ingram back
as he'll probably be cheaper than Butler, he's younger, he
doesn't he's not a Butler fact simply, I want to
be clear. But they are going to need someone else
who could generate offense, and so would they be if
they know they're also not gonna get because at this rate,
with Jimmy's age, his contract situation, and just the way
that this is ending. Unless it's like maybe there are
one or two teams that will give up a ton
for Jimmy Butler. But I don't even know what Jimmy
Butler gets you on the trade, Marvey, right now, you
brandon Ingram because then if it doesn't work out, oh,
he's at least expiring. That's a situation I've kind of
thought more about. But it's so bizarre that a player
as good in a vacuum as brandon Ingram that that
I'm struggling so hard. It's it's almost like an extension
of Julius Randall a lot of the time, but brandon
Ingram brandan Ingram's fatal flaw feels so fixable. Or dude,
play off the ball better and take two more catches
you threes, right, dribble a little.
Speaker 3: Less, you shoot as much as you want, just make
sure it's from behind the line like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, I agree.
Speaker 3: In Miami is always an interesting one because it's it's
maybe an aged out assumption now, but you just you
it's easy to catch yourself thinking like, if.
Speaker 2: He could just get there, they'll figure out.
Speaker 3: How to get the best version of him, because we've
seen like you can get the best out of Dion Waiders,
you can get the US at a at A brandon.
Speaker 1: Ingrol number five. I think he's gonna I had no
clue where we were gonna put this guy, but Zion
is apparently available. I did find that, I don't know
if you read the Steinlines report that the only untouchable
players in New Orleans or Trey Murphy, Herb Jones, and
East mecI, which he's having a great season. I've just
found in money that he was looped in to there.
Zion's tricky because he's got three years and one hundred
and twenty six and a half million left on his deal.
There's those are non guaranteed, but like we still don't
necessarily know the exact criteria that you would be able
just to get wipe him off your books. And by
the way, if that was the case, why would New
Orleans trade him? I might just want that money off
the books. And the other thing too, is you're probably
trading him. I don't know, is this the nader of
his value just because it's another injury.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's it's fat.
Speaker 3: He's fascinating, like, because the answer to is it the
nader depends on whether you view his like wipe off
the book's clause as a.
Speaker 2: Positive or like it's how do you how do you
view that? Because it is like a you do get
a do.
Speaker 3: Over if you trade for him and and it goes
and it's like, oh, it's another hamstring on day one
of training camp. He's going to be out another six
months or whatever. Like you can just say like, we're good.
Although I forget what the guarantee date is. I think
it's it's July in July for twenty five, twenty six,
but I think you have similar non guarantees going forward.
Like that's such a weird thing to value in someone
you're gonna trade a lot for. Though it's like, wow,
if this goes bad, we can get out of it,
but you've still given up the assets you did to
get him.
Speaker 2: I don't know how to value him.
Speaker 3: He does, though, doesn't he feel like the guy that
if I don't know what the team is, but someone
goes three firsts expiring salary for Zion, where at least
in the back of your mind or in like the
last paragraph of your analysis, you'd have to concede, like
they might have just traded for a top ten player
if he's healthy. Like, I mean, I don't know what
the percentage chance that is. I think we're both kind
of like out on the Zion experience, but at least
I am. But that's that's a thing you can't say
about brandon Ingram or even or even Levine, and probably
not Jimmy Butler. Like that's that's what makes him so interesting,
is like a guy with his upside minimal as the
odds are he hits it, however minimal you think that is, Like.
Speaker 2: That's that's a I like, what's he worth? I have
no idea?
Speaker 3: So I think five is fair because the other guys
we've already talked about are like, we have a rough
idea of what they could get with him. It's just
I don't know, he's just like he yes or no.
Is he gonna get traded at before this deadline?
Speaker 1: I don't think he will by the way I'm looking
at the guarantee things now, So twenty percent of next
So this is all. It's season by season, twenty percent
of his deal next year, which is about thirty nine
and a half million dollars. It becomes guaranteed in twenty
percent if he passes all six way ins this season.
Forty percent becomes guaranteed if he plays in forty one games,
sixty percent if he's in fifty one, eighty percent if
he plays in sixty one. That ship looks like it sailed,
and you were right. July fifteenth is like the that's
the guarantee date for it. Uh So I guess the
way in must extend into the summer then at that point,
if that's the guaranteed day, I mean, if you're not.
Speaker 2: Out there running, I don't think he's hitting. He's making
that way in, But like the forty one games is
probably out too right realistically.
Speaker 1: Because it's him. Yeah, there's still the sixty one is
just no, that's because he already hasn't missed twenty games yet,
but it's he's going to miss twenty games. Like you,
you would have penciled him in for view of them
that like, right, if he was healthy at the minute. Well,
here's the thing with him, and I don't. I could
give you teams if you wanted to get into what
teams or would actually pay this. I actually might be
the most confident of anyone that's in front of him
that he gets the equivalent of more than one first
round pick, other than Jimmy Butler with Zach Lavine and
Brandon Ingram, I'm not even sure you're getting a first
round I would this is I'm like all in on
Zack Lavine. I've I've traditionally been higher on him. I'm
kind of a sucker for the guys that can catch
and shoot and create and aren't like the Jordan Clarkston types. Right,
But like I don't think most teams, like we were
just taught we said it before, some would you have
to give up an asset to get off of Zack
Lavine or whatever. I really do think that whether it's
you know, if it's a Charlotte, if it's just like
these teams, then to get a hold of this guy,
so well, we'll give up a first round pick and
then something else for him. I can guarantee you I
think there would be like a half a dozen teams
at least that would be prepared to roll the dice
on that.
Speaker 3: And and if you do trade for him, this might
be what tell what you think about that, Like there's
is a chance that I feel like he's the perfect
guy for like the nothing to lose franchise, Like yes,
we'll give up a first Like why isn't Utah just
like all over him, because like, yeah, we can spare
a pick or two even, Like I guess you gotta
match the money whatever, But like.
Speaker 1: They could do that. John Collins is sitting at home
and it's.
Speaker 2: Like, Okay, it goes bad.
Speaker 3: I do think you can turn around and trade him
to somebody that really values wiping the money off, you know,
for something, so like your outlay what you gave up,
I think you can put sort of a pretty good
cap on or you could just dump him yourself whatever,
Like he he should be on the top of.
Speaker 2: Every like middling to bad team that you know, like
the risk is like pretty low, right, Like you could
there's so many outs with him.
Speaker 1: If you were Brooklyn, would you give up one of
your extra first round picks if they were willing, like
the Ben Simmons plus if newar But I guess anyone
just wanted to get well, you're getting picked back in
that equation. But to Cam Thomas and Ben Simmons for
Zion Williams and like a first round pick for Zion Brooklyn,
they could probably protect some of those other picks that
they have. I might he's not gonna hurt your tank.
He's not playing this season, Well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you could definitely you could.
Speaker 3: You could manage his minutes, you could send him out,
you could do all this stuff to like make sure
he's not going to screw your tank up.
Speaker 2: If there's like a five.
Speaker 3: Percent chance that he can be an All NBA player, again,
that's probably I don't know what the percentage is, but
I think if you're one of the teams and you
think there's a five percent chance, you should do it
because there's so many like pathways out of this being
a disaster for you, like wave him, trade him again, whatever,
like just I think every bad team should be in
on him. But I think all the arguments I'm making
are just arguments for New Orleans to hold on to
him and hope things get better and he can trade
him for a lot more if you want to.
Speaker 1: I've seen this just in the ether so very quickly.
If you can get to the money, which you can.
It'd be complicated framework, but you get to the money
without including Andrew Wiggins. Would you want him on the Warriors?
What are you willing to give up Kaminga to pick
for Zion Williamson or No?
Speaker 2: I think I probably would.
Speaker 3: I just I mean, we'll talk about Kaminga at some point,
but like I mean, I think you have to think
about what you're gonna pay Kaminga. I think just the
pure upside plays as long odds as it might be,
I think you probably should just do that.
Speaker 1: The names are about to get substantially less spicier. Do
you want to take us to our number six guy?
Speaker 3: This is mister Colin Sexton of the Utah Jazz, like
the Forgotten, Like, I don't know. Evaluating sex has been
really hard just because he's been on a bad team,
But the efficiency numbers historically have been really good for him,
especially even coming off that you know, really good Cavs
season missed the full following year and we're all trying
to figure out.
Speaker 2: What he was gonna get paid.
Speaker 3: He's he fits a lot of places as long as
you don't need him to be I would say a starter, right.
I think he's probably your six man, your your volume scoring,
you know, offense first off slash offense only lead guard
against backups. I don't feel comfortable with him being anything
more than that, but that's where we are on the
big board at this point.
Speaker 1: He's got one year nineteen million left on his contract too,
and just as someone he can hit, catch and shoot threes,
he can get going downhill. I don't have a problem
with him as a starter, but he almost has to be.
He can't be or off guard because he's he's going
to be too small. So then you need like this
bigger lineup that just already has other playmakers. So like
the Magic would probably be a perfect example of a
team that could start Collin Sexton and just kill people,
especially when they're fully healthy. I mean that would be like,
that's one of the better destinations for him. But I
like the scalability of what he does on offense, and
if you if he's fine coming off the bench, you're
gonna bring him off the bench. I think that gets
even better. I'm more concerned about even if he's coming
off the bench. I don't think he can be the
driver of offense for other people.
Speaker 3: No, he's He's the description I feel like you hear
about him a lot is like he can dribble, so
he'll like he can get it over half court and
bring it up. But he's not gonna be the guy
that like net perfectly navigates the pick and roll or
like draws two and gets you know, really gets the
gears turning. He's just like a serviceable dribbler that in
a half court set is not someone that's creating like
buckets of offense for people.
Speaker 1: Do you have any other teams that you like for him?
Speaker 3: Well, as you're describing teams that can play weird lineups,
I guess like or like can put size and defense
at other positions to the sort of and ball handling.
I Dallas was honestly my first thought. But it's like
you wouldn't play him with Irving. I don't think he
would be a backup. I still I'm not I'm not
where you are where I feel great about him as
a starter, even in like ideal circumstances, Orlando being maybe
the exception to that.
Speaker 2: Like, I don't know, would you would?
Speaker 3: Would we have value in Houston just as like someone
to generate points and you can surround him with defenders
who can also handle and like Shingoon makes sense because
he can be a bit of more of an initiator.
Speaker 1: Yes, but the problem with Houston is just like so
they don't need to give up real players to get him.
You could give like a pick and you can get
there with Philler salary. But Reed Shepherd doesn't play a
ton for this team. But then we're gonna find minutes
for Colin Sexton.
Speaker 3: And then I guess and we refuse to believe it's
because Red Shepherd isn't great.
Speaker 2: It's other forces are at work.
Speaker 1: That's right now, Colin Sexton is the better player. That's
that's clear. Yeah, But even look, leave the rotation as
it is. Is it so even if you eat up
Read Shepherd's entire minutes and you say, okay, have fun
with and Whitmore's entire minutes, he now carved out like
fifteen minutes a game for Colin Sexton.
Speaker 2: Is that yeah? Probably?
Speaker 3: Well it's probably what about the seconds and nothing, I guess,
But yeah, well where else can we send.
Speaker 1: Him coming off the bench? There?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that works because he can also just be the
spacing shooter if you want him to be too, which
is what they seem to be after all the time.
Speaker 1: Can the Clippers get They're not going to want to
give him a first round pick for him, and you
really can't get him without giving up They have nothing
like unless if Utah is really high on Terrence Man,
Terrence Man and PJ Tucker sign me up.
Speaker 3: I don't know how you do this, but is he
like could he just be what Minnesota thought the Vincenzo
would be?
Speaker 2: Does he fake?
Speaker 1: How are they getting to the money they're not?
Speaker 2: I don't know how you do this, just trying to
think of fits.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's so, it's in. That's what we're at that
point in the big board, Whereas it's probably easier with
some wings. I just think that Colin Sexton's value in
a vacuum, as like a utility of a player, is
more valuable than a lot of names are gonna talk about.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Number seven on our big board. I struggled with this
one because I would put him higher, but I recognize that.
I feel the type of way about Anthony Simons at
number seven that other people do not three point percentage
is down. He is still shooting, like I think he's
shooting a good enough clip on wide open threes just
to a game winner against Denver as well, and just
he's still super young. He is a year left on
his deal at twenty seven point seven million, that's kind
of that's the perfect amount of money to where it's
neither backbreaking nor is it just throwaway money. And I
think if you put him on a team where you
don't need him to not even that you don't need
to have the ball in his hands as much, but
like just better spacing more threats around him so that
defenses aren't his keyed in on him, I think he
ends up shining. We've mentioned Orlando for him a ton
of times. I would still mention Orlando. Look, throw him
in Detroit. We're just gonna keep mentioning Orlando and Detroit.
But there are other teams that I think, Look, I
don't know that they'd want to give up the money,
but you look at a team that's like built to
insulate him, because look at Okac, I'm not advocating for this,
but they could get to this money. It's gonna cost
you Isaiah Joe or Aaron Wiggins. You could also give
up both. I don't know that I want to, but like,
this is someone that you can play heavier minutes because
he has the marquee skill, whereas with OKAC it feels
like we don't trust Aaron Wiggins or Isaiah Joe to
play these heavier minutes. And yes, he's a defensive liability
for sure, OKAYC doesn't much have to concern themselves with that.
They could be more worried about offensive consistency. That's not
if I'm him, I'm probably not doing that deal. I
want to make that clear. But you talk about someone
who I think is super scalable, and just looking at
his age and all the timelines he fits into to
me Andnfony Simon's is among the like if I had
my drouthers, if I was just catering to all my
biases here, I probably would have had him above brandon Ingram.
Speaker 3: I'm not gonna lie, Oh wow, I would have had
him above Sexton just because he's I just think he's
got a high I mean, we've seen him hit a
higher ceiling as an offensive player before. He just happens
to not be at it right now. He's unfortunately in
a case where Portland I think maybe there was no
deal there, but last year he would have been would
have gotten he would have been higher, Like he's just
not shooting the ball or scoring a volume.
Speaker 1: This year they're in a tricky spot too. They also
even when he's not making threes, they still need.
Speaker 3: Him because we won him the game again last night
as we're recording this, So I mean by we should
talk what the hell happened on that last possession defensively
for Denver.
Speaker 1: We do not need to talk about that. Well, you
we rusted westbrook on in an island. You get what
you got.
Speaker 3: Also, Jokis pointing at Murray to come double to get
the ball out of his hands, and Murray not understanding
what he meant, and then Jokic not even trying to
contest with the room.
Speaker 2: So we did talk about it. I I think like that.
So he's expiring next year.
Speaker 3: So you you have the if you trade for Simon's
here's okay, here's why I think maybe he belongs above Sexton.
You have the opportunity to hope he like rebounds and
and is his last year version for the balance of
this season, and then you also have next year if
you're just looking to flip him if he doesn't prove
himself worthy, you know what I mean, Like the extra
year of control matters. Even those salaries higher than Sexton's,
He's not like that much.
Speaker 2: How old is Colin Sexton is like.
Speaker 1: Twenty six, so he's here every Simon's actually might be older.
Speaker 3: No, he's Simons is twenty five, so it's it's close.
I still think that you.
Speaker 1: Have nineteen next year and Simon's is at twenty seven
point seven next year. Yeah, for Simon's over that, I
think that's I think I would into it. I only
put him in seven because I thought you wouldn't be
into it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean they're they're fairly comparable really, and it's
just the extra year of control at a number that's
like not so much.
Speaker 2: Higher than Sexton's annual rate that I'm like, maybe you
could flip him.
Speaker 1: I don't know, threes too, Simon's is going to hit
more of those than Colin Sexton.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah you can.
Speaker 3: Well that's the other really, I mean, Simons I think
can do more of the stuff we just said Sexton can't,
which is like, yeah, you could get away with him
running pick and rolls and like initiating the offense a
little more probably, But he really is just a two
that's kind of like like undersized, I guess, and neither
of them defends, so like, I don't know, I think
it's close enough to where.
Speaker 2: We don't need to qubble too much over it.
Speaker 1: Who's number eight, mister Hughes.
Speaker 2: Number eight? This is a fun this is an interesting one.
Speaker 3: This is bogdan Bogdanovic, who may or may not be available,
but has been in trade discussions for two plus years,
you know, on and off.
Speaker 1: He is.
Speaker 3: I mean, he's a I think he's a better player
than Simon's and Sexton, Like I feel pretty comfortable saying that.
Speaker 2: But he's older.
Speaker 3: He's thirty two, I want to say, also cheaper, So
I guess we're kind of just see song back and
forth there. Yeah, thirty two making seventeen this year goes
through twenty twenty seven, so you have another two and
thirty two, two and thirty two total left. I mean
he's someone that I don't I don't think you start
in most places, but he's just like one of the
best reserve guards in the league that you can close
with on the right nights. I think, so I think
he should have like massive appeal. The Hawks are actually
like pretty good though, and I don't I don't know
if and he's on a value contract. I don't know
what they're looking to get by trading him potentially.
Speaker 1: And he's not. I mean, he's been injured a ton
this season. He's a bigger injury risk. I know he
played in seventy nine games last year, but I would
say overall, he's a bigger injury risk than Sexton or Simons.
And he's not having the most efficient season. He's still
shooting fifty three and a half percent from two, but
he's below thirty five percent from three, and that's ticked
up like with over his past like six or seven performances,
like we've seen a little bit more of like the
threes falling. He's arguably more valuable to Atlanta than ever
because now Buffkin's out for the year and it's just like, well,
what are your reserve playmakers. You have Dyson Daniels and
you have Bogdanovic and then that's it. Yep, so I
wonder what type of Waffert would take to even get
him out of Atlanta. But he's a name that's bandied
about the trade room, trade rumor mill I would say
even more than DeAndre Hunter at this point, whose name
we did not include in this exercise. So I don't like.
I think you could make the case that in a
vacuum he's a better player than sex Dinner Sigmons and
I would agree with you, but between the injury risk
and aage, that's where And also I think you could
probably get those other guys while giving up one first
round pick. I'm wondering right now if Atlanta would accept
anything less than like a first round pick and something else.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know. Can I just say I really
want him in Denver? I don't think. I don't think
it's doable with any.
Speaker 3: Level of confidence, But I just feel like he answers
so many other questions would you do?
Speaker 1: I'm just again, we're not factoring in there's aprons and
figure out. But if Larry Nance Junior and it's Bogdanovic
for Michael Porter Junior, I don't know why is in
Atlanta doing that? And if they're not, does including any
first round swaps, like a twenty thirty swap or a
twenty thirty one, you can't give up would we agree
you can't give up your your twenty thirty one? Pick
one would have to be conditional based off prior obligations.
But would you even consider giving up your twenty thirty?
I wouldn't attaching it to MPJ for that. I couldn't
get there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think so.
Speaker 3: I was gonna say, like Atlanta might need to be
attaching a pick there, and what's Denver doing a deal
that's getting it? I mean, I guess they need draft equity.
I think I probably do that if I'm Atlanta.
Speaker 2: I don't know what.
Speaker 3: I don't know about the pick stuff, but yeah, I
just like Bogdanovic, assuming health and assuming you don't care
about like the back end here, He's just like he
would just help. He would help anybody. And I think
if you're a team that has second unit issues and
or that you could throw Orlando in there too. Is
just need someone to make plays and be a reliable
shooter like he just he's a He's a universal fit.
But the age and the injury stuff, I think obviously
is I don't think you have him too low, is
what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: I do wonder. So let's just say Denver's twenty thirty
one pick is in play, and I think the fact
that it's so loosely protected in all those other years
that you can look at it as okay, we're getting
that pick if you if you can get to Bogdanovitch's
money without giving up Michael Porter Junior, is there like,
is there any appeal there for Atlanta? Where its okay,
we're taking back flotsam and it's a bunch of flotsam,
so you're probably roping in some other teams to take
back these smaller salaries. But between Sarach and Zeke Nause,
you get to thirteen point six and Bogie's at what
he's at seventeen point three. I mean, that's a pretty
big gap to bridge. It's like another four million, Like
would you give up? So let's look at it from
both sides. If you're Atlanta and maybe that's the killer.
If you could just get Denver's twenty thirty one first
round pick, would you do it? I mean you also
are probably getting one of their youngsters. So let's say
Julian Strather and that twenty thirty one first round pick?
Are you doing that in a vacuum for knowing that
you're taking back? Oh, the Zeke Nause contract and Sarge
has another year left on his deal? Is that enough
or no?
Speaker 2: Man? I think I don't know. It's it's not a
fast no.
Speaker 3: I think if Kobe Buffkin had one showed much or
two stayed healthy this year, it might be a lot
easier for Atlanta to say, yeah, whatever, Like how how
big of a factor is Butoganovich in our future? Although
like twenty thirty one, again, it's so far off, Like
I don't know how each team would value a twenty
thirty one incoming.
Speaker 1: Landry Field feels like he's got some cachet out there, maybebstability.
Speaker 2: I think I might. I don't know what do you
are you saying? No?
Speaker 1: If you're Atlanta, No, I'm thinking about it. But I
tend to over romanticize, like those distant first round picks.
It's just that you this is basically unless you're giving
up someone other than Julian Strother, which I don't think
you're going to give up you know, Christian Brown in this,
and I doubt you're gonna want to give up on homes.
Even with the Achilles injury. It would have to be
a four for one because even the three for one
structure we lay.
Speaker 2: Out so it's out nobody's doing four for ones anymore.
Speaker 1: And you can you can game it, so it's like, okay,
if hunter Tyson is in there too, you could take back.
It could be four for two. You need a third team.
I don't think it's I don't think it's outside the
realm of possibility. I'd like you could do it, is
my point. Why are you willing to trade routs? You
could just make Russ instead of Strawther and that one
and then the money gets you there and you're fine.
I don't know if Lanta would do that, then.
Speaker 2: I think Rus is untouchable in Denver, but.
Speaker 1: Like I would do it if I'm Denver, though, like
you would give up the four, like you'd give up
Strawther and you're twenty thirty one to get off. By
the way, the Starge and Nause money yet.
Speaker 3: Well yeah, that's that's a legit consideration at this point
for them.
Speaker 1: Just interesting answers. He would be great in Never though
you are correct. Number nine, it's I think we're at
his my turn. I'm dorn Finney Smith, just kind of
the no notes player who's been in trading rumors since
he was acquired by Brooklyn. He has one year left
on his deal. It's a player option that's fifteen point
four million. He's gonna be fascinating to see. My guess
would be that he just declines it. And even if
he doesn't, if he's only getting mid level money, which
is one close to that at this point, it's more years.
He is buying large as your shot the hell out
of the ball, and he's still serviceable defensively. You talk
about someone who fits everywhere. His all of his premium
skills aren't high enough to say he definitely needs to start.
He's going to give you more value than a sext
in or Assignments or Abougdanovic. But like, he just fits everywhere,
and any team that needs a wing should just be
trying to get him to the point where I've sort
of wondered. My assumption was they're not going to get
a first round pick without taking back bad money. But
I'm just sort of wondering if you had an expiring
contract that you're not using and you're a contender and
you were willing to give up a first round like
it's a late first round pick. I think there might
be teams that do that. But what are your thoughts there.
Speaker 3: I think of first as if I had to say
yes or no, will they get a first form I
would say no, just because of the sum of the
factors you mentioned, Like I do think he's going to
opt out, and I do think there will be a
pretty robust like bidding war at the mid level for him,
and so like I guess maybe you have the advantage
of if things went well after you traded for him,
you might, you know, all things being equal, be able
to keep him at the mid level or something like that.
He is just like a stop gap, though, like a
really good one. I just don't know if you get
first if you're from the nets perspective, if you can
expect or we'll get like an actual first round pick
for someone that is going to a team that he's
going to be the their sixth or seventh best or
most important player, you know, Like I, it's hard because
like we agree, oh my god, he fits, he's valuable,
Like he's just the cap on like what he's going
to give your team, I think is fairly low, even
though it's like also pretty reliable and like you understand
what you're getting with him, and for the right team,
that's really valuable.
Speaker 2: So maybe if it's like they can't do this.
Speaker 3: But I'm just using the example of like oh, Boston
needs another wing, yeah, and they have a first to
give up, Like maybe that kind of first that's going
to be number thirty from a team that knows it's
going to be number thirty. That's the kind of first
you get. But again not saying that that is plausible
or going to happen, but just that would be the
only way I'd see Brooklyn getting a first for him.
Speaker 1: And I mean they could do this, I don't necessarily
looking at their roster, I don't know. This isn't what
I would say they need, but like Dallas could give
up this year's first round pick plus salary for Dorian
Phinney Smith. You do that, right, Dwight Powell salary X
for Dorian Phinney Smith, Right?
Speaker 2: I think so?
Speaker 3: I think so again, that's another first that's gonna be
twenty six, twenty seven, you know something like that.
Speaker 2: That So I shouldn't say it's a hard.
Speaker 3: No, but I think you're not getting a first from
a team that realistically that they expect that pick to
be in the lottery or like in the you know,
top fifteen or twenty or anything.
Speaker 1: Is he to this point the most confident play Like
the player that you're most confident is going to get
traded from this list.
Speaker 2: It's a good question, I think.
Speaker 1: Guess if we would think I think probably, yeah, Jimmy Butler, Zachlavine,
Cam Johnson, brand ingram Zion Williams and Collin Sexton, Anthony
Simons and Bo Doug Mandanovich. Just how many of those
players are there anyone that stand out? And you say
I think they're going to get traded this season?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean you would say Butler because of all
the smoke, But we've just discussed how difficult it will
be to move him anywhere, So Phinney Smith And from
the next perspective, why would you have any confidence that
you'll be able to bring him back right?
Speaker 2: Or why you probably don't even want him back.
Speaker 1: And you have a space you couldn't. I'm sure you
could pay him enough to come back, but.
Speaker 3: Why Yeah, I think I think that's a great point.
I think Phinney Smith might be our number one if
we're ranking like trade likelihood at this point.
Speaker 1: I honestly of the list we have so far, and
we should probably start delivering verdicts on these, I'm gonna
predict that Butler and Levine get traded, and I would
say everybody else does not.
Speaker 3: So far, Yeah, I think so, although, like I recently
sold on the idea of Butler being traded, just because
when you read through like what has to happen and
you start ruling teams out like Phoenix is just like
if Bradley Beal says no, it's no, like you just
that's it, right, So so like I do think the
Warriors are the one that makes the most sense, that
could do it most easily. And that's a relative term.
But the the sheer, the dearth of like actual possible
landing spots for Butler makes it so hard art to
be confident. Of the biggest names. I think it's him
and I'd say Levine, yes, because the Bulls just have
to do it, and I think a lot.
Speaker 1: Of they don't burn that franchise. I actually I said
this like, weren't the point because like the Bulls won
another game, do you think it's possible that they're like
making trades to actively get better this season, isn't it.
That's a remote You would say no, and I would
agree with you, but like now it's sort of, oh,
that's in play here.
Speaker 3: The real problem, too, is like circumstances being what they are,
difficulty of trading for, like peak value being what it is.
Speaker 2: If you're the.
Speaker 3: Bulls, you could, like with a straight face, say to
the fan base, we just, you know, we didn't think
it was the right time. Uh, you know, we the
market just wasn't there. We're not in control of that.
Like you could really like pass the buck again and
not be and almost get I don't think they would
get away with it. I think would be really upset,
but they've been upset before and that doesn't hasn't affected
the franchise's behavior. So I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit,
like they gotta trade him. Right.
Speaker 1: They have the eleventh worst record in the league, so
technically their pick is slated to go to San Antonio now,
and you could say, might as well just get it
over with and because it's protected top eight the next
two years, you know, you could also do just fucking
keep that pick all three years because you're rebuilding properly.
But right, that's a digression. I think I would say,
so far, at least two of the nine players we've mentioned,
we'll get traded. I'll set the number eight. I'd say two.
I want I'm gonna say three and be optimistic and
say Jimmy Butler gets moved as well. So I think
three of the guys we mentioned will get moved.
Speaker 3: That's about as high as i'd go at this point.
Number ten, Number ten, Number ten.
Speaker 2: Robert Williams the third.
Speaker 3: We have discussed him plenty, certainly preseason when teams needed centers.
Speaker 2: Several still do.
Speaker 3: I just it's just like he's got one year left
thirteen point three million. That's not breaking the bank for anybody.
Oh man, is that does that fit into the mid
level trade exception?
Speaker 2: I forget.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, next year it might.
Speaker 3: I'll have to double check that it might well, But
I was thinking for this year it's close by. You're right,
it does, Okay, it doesn't, Man that if it did,
we would have a very different discussion. I think the
market would be a lot broader. He it's just the health, right,
like and you. You know, I don't think you could
trade for him expecting him to be a starting center
that gives you more than like the obligatory starts and
gives you fifteen minutes a game. I don't think you
can expect more than that. But he does if he's
healthy and can do for action of what he did
when he was at his best, Like he could make
a difference for a lot of teams defensively.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm with you, and he's still more He's a
lot more dynamic on offense than a lot of these
other Bays who can play similar roles. I would say
the reason why I have him so high is you
know that there's an injury risk. You know he's going
to play a few minutes. But at the beginning of
the season I would have assumed that you're probably not
taking back great money and you'll get some seconds for
him now much the point whereas if you're not taking
back great money, like if you're sending if someone sending
an expiring money, maybe you're willing to accept a couple seconds.
Although at this point between him and Klingon, like if
you view that as your center rotation of the future,
why not I do think you could get not a
great first round pick for him, maybe depending on the
contract you're taking back. I think you could get a
first round pick for Robert Williams. Again, you're probably not
taking back the best money in that scenario, but that's
if you know. I understand why Portland doesn't want to
move him, but if you're stuck with DeAndre Eaton through
the end of his deal, then that's something that should
be up for consideration, especially again because of the injury risk.
Speaker 3: I really don't think they're getting a first for him.
I think if you couldn't get a first for Shrewder like,
it's just as I know. I know that's like a
funny thing to make fun of teams about like always
set the market. I just like Williams in terms of
like the volume of contribution you can expect from him,
it's pretty low. Maybe on the right team it has
such a high impact that it matters, But I don't know.
I think the first is tough, just even like a
bad one because I don't know if the guys on
this list other than Zion, I guess, like, who's who's
more likely to just give you zero after you trade
for him. I think you have to factor in the
downside with Williams.
Speaker 1: Do you think he gets moved?
Speaker 3: I I think so, because I don't know that Portland
would view him as a guy that they want back,
and like, I think, yeah, I think it's kind of
the something or nothing, which would you prefer if you're
Portland for him. So I think he gets moved. And
I think there's probably enough teams, assuming it's gonna cost
a second and whatever. Like I think I think he
probably I would say yes, but it's like you could
also imagine teams just saying that's just not a reliable
enough acquisition for us to give up anything.
Speaker 1: Number What are we on? Number eleven? Kyle Kuzma is
to get into Jeremy Grant of at all live and
we've seen Jeremy Grant yet. He's certainly more valuable on
the court than Robert Williams. You would think Kyle Kuzma
injured at the moment. Hasn't I think still injured, hasn't
had the most efficient season. There's definitely been maybe most
nights where he's just been chucking. I still think he's
someone who can scale down. I think that he's shown
that he can do good things on defense for long stretches,
and yes, I recognize that the Wizards not so much
this year, and I recognize the Wizards or dog shit
on that end of the floor. Anyway, His contract is
declining is the other thing. So you're getting him for
two more years at forty point eight million dollars and
the number just gets progressively less from this season to
the next to that final year. And I do think
that he is what I would call a combo forward.
I don't know that maybe defensively he could view him
as a wing at this point, but not so much offensively.
What are your thoughts, I think.
Speaker 3: Just to take the first one first, Like, positionally, I
think if you view him as a wing because you
think he can guard wings, that's that's like the speculative
point of Kyle Kuzman now because with Washington, his defense
has been like I don't know how you evaluate almost
anything in Washington.
Speaker 2: So like, I do think.
Speaker 3: It's fair to assume he could guard if he was
on a team where it like mattered. And I think
now what that says about a player overall where it's like, oh,
he's on a shit team, so he's just mailing it
in like I don't love that, but I could forgive
it a little bit. So I think defensively, certainly, i'd
feel okay with him on forwards maybe wings if it's
still there. Like, it's also possible.
Speaker 2: It's just not there anymore.
Speaker 3: He's twenty nine, Like, that's not an age where you
would assume, Look, he just came.
Speaker 1: I always forget more. Not that I forget how old
he is, but he was older coming into the league. Yeah,
so Kusma's going to be thirty.
Speaker 3: But I don't think I don't think he's like, oh, athletically,
it's just not there.
Speaker 1: I think that's just the age. Thirty one season.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's less likely that's the case.
Speaker 3: Then he's just like, I'm tuned out until you get
me off of this team. I feel like, yeah, I
want me there.
Speaker 1: He reportedly turned down that trade to Dallas because Kyle Kuzma,
despite not having star cachet or an actual no trade clause,
has veto power.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's he's an interesting guy.
Speaker 3: I mean, you could make the casey belongs higher if
you believe, because the contract's fine. If he if he
is like the best version of himself and that's still
in there, somewhere. It's just like I would be very
there's so much uncertainty because of like the last couple
of years, and like you just have to be really sure,
like why he's been he's been bad, and I don't
know how you know that.
Speaker 1: There also is I do view him as substantially more
scalable than Ingram, but there is the Ingram of it all.
At play of it feels like he would be a
fit on fewer teams that have the positional need he's
supposed to fill, because I guess would you feel more
confident giving up a first round pick for Kyle Kuzma
or Dorian Phinney Smith, which the player you would prefer
to give up a first round pick for.
Speaker 2: Oh Man?
Speaker 3: Neither, But I think probably probably Kuzma because maybe he's
this year's PJ. Washington where it's like he just comes
in and he runs hot from three and he does guard,
you know, and oh the defense is still there. I
think I think that's that's just the first name that
comes to mind, and you have that extra year that
declines that if things go really great, maybe you can
extend him off that Like that's that's another thing to
think about he's at an age where that might be
something you factor in too.
Speaker 1: I and this is I degraded him here because I
don't have the fit because we'll say that I think
he would help a lot a good amount of teams.
But I'm not just like, oh, Atlanta needs to go
out and get him, or Memphis should really take a
hard look at him. Those are teams. I think you
can make an argue for Memphis, perhaps more so than Atlanta,
but like there's no just obvious Oh okay, yeah, go
do that well here.
Speaker 3: And the reason for that is like if you're talking
to his agent ahead of a trade, and as compared
to Finney Smith, where you're not having the conversation of like, so,
what do you envision your role being DFS Like it's like, no,
we understand exactly what you're supposed to do with Kuzma,
It's like, we're gonna have to have a conversation about
what we expect from you and does that align with
what you want to do? Like that, that's that's a
different conversation to have.
Speaker 1: It would if they had any sort of equity to
give up to grease the wheels of a trade. Kyle
Kuzma want to make some sense instead of Julius Randall
in Minnesota.
Speaker 3: Sure, I mean just the you get the extra year,
you get the cheaper price point, and you get, like
I guess, the idea of scalability, which Randall has zero of.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I think he makes more.
Speaker 1: So don't have to be Kuzma and Davis for Randall.
But it's you can't attach another player if you're Minnesota
and you have I don't even know if they have
a swap at this point to give up. But they
can't give up a swap in twenty thirty or pick
in twenty thirty one because they already did. So. Next up,
this is yours who's numbers.
Speaker 3: This is Jeremy Grant, and this will feel overdue, probably
because in terms of player quality, even though the two
point percentage is way down, he's thirty one. I think
Grant is better than I'd just pick a number the
last five six guys we've talked about, just because of the.
Speaker 2: Theory of his scalability.
Speaker 3: This is a guy that has been a small ball
center like eons ago and has been a first option
on a bad Pistons team. There's different versions of him,
I think, and not a great defender anymore, but still
is someone that I think you would trust a lot
more than certainly the smaller guards. We've talked about all
this stuff, it just comes down to the salary for him,
Like he's paid like a plus starter, and I just
don't think that's really what he is anymore. I think, like, realistically,
the production he would give you on a good team
is not that far off from Dorin Phinney Smith, like
with more self creation. But like the price is just
it's hard to justify that for a lot of teams,
I think. And that's why I don't think he's too low.
I think people will say that because he's just he's
a good player, But the money just has to be
a factor, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean three years, one hundred and two point six
million he's owed, and there's a player option on that
last year, which anything could happen. But if he's opting
out at that point, I honestly think it's because he's
like renegotiating a longer deal at a lower number I saw.
I've seen a lot of Blazers, fans and even media
members over the past year plus think that Portland's gonna
get substantially more than a first round pick, or that
it's gonna be I guess, like an incredible first round
pick to get him. Uh No, I just don't if
you're giving up more than that to get him, I
don't like worry. What else are you including or what
else is port? Is it a combination deal where Robert
Williams the third is also headed out as part of it,
and then it's a mega deal. But I'm curious as
to just like what would they be willing to accept
for him, because I do think that cont we predicted this,
that contract wasn't going to age very well, and I
think that he's still good player now, but I think
those out years, especially when he's shooting what is he
at like forty percent from three excuse me from two,
those out years are looking more precarious than ever.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the free throw temper breaks down, like all all
the indicators of he's slowing down athletically are there.
Speaker 1: Here's a stat for you, Grant. One hundred and fifty
eight players are averaging at least five to two point
a tempts per game. Jeremy Grant's two point percentage out
of those one hundred and fifty eight players ranks one
hundred and fifty sixth not great.
Speaker 2: Not great from someone you need to be like an athletic.
Speaker 1: Fact, by the way, the only players below him are
Jailing to Well and Emmanuel Quickly, who have combined to
play in eleven games this season.
Speaker 3: So just again, if he were making the mid level
or something like it, and you were getting thirty eight
percent three point shooting, just enough defensive versatility to be
a role guy, like, yes, he's way up there. It's
just you know, who's who's the team that is a
Jeremy there. Maybe there are several teams that are a
Jeremy Grant away from, you know, moving up a tier,
but not at thirty three million a year average annual value.
Speaker 2: That's just not that. That isn't a thing.
Speaker 1: If you were like, what is there is there a
case me meybehere. If a team came calling where it's
a couple of contracts and they're expiring money, or maybe
there's a year left on one of them, but you're
getting what you're Let's say you're splitting Jeremy Grant into
two players. One of those players is an expir largesspiring contract,
the other one middle of the ladder maybe has another
year left on it, and then you're getting a bunch
of seconds. Should you be considering that offer or is
it at that point it's we might as well.
Speaker 2: Just keep them?
Speaker 3: No, I think I think that well. I think that
is what you're looking at. If you're Portland. I was
I was gonna ask you, like, what if it's just expired,
what if it's just dead money coming in? Would you
just do that for like a couple seconds? And all
you get is you don't get like the mid tier
prospect guy or whatever.
Speaker 2: You get.
Speaker 3: All that salary's gone and in its place are guys
that come off the books and what a shrewder got
essentially two seconds, you get a couple two or three seconds.
I think, like I would do it. I don't know
where it is.
Speaker 1: I think if they're if it's completely expiring, I would
do it. If it's not, like some the Lakers would
be a good case study. Let's say they're able to
pile together a bunch of they have a clippers second
this year, and I think they have some other seconds
they could give up. But it's like, okay, D'Angelo Russell
plus what you don't want Gavinson has another year left
on his deal, but that one that money doesn't work
like Jalen Houncheapino's expire, so he could work it game
it that way, but they can't give you purely expiring
So if you're accepting seconds, is your stipulation? What we
want purely expiring contracts because and by the way, that's
the other point of all this is that when you're
over thirty million. He's at thirty two this year, I think,
or maybe he's a he's at thirty and he's at
thirty two next year, but like that number is not
an afterthought to get to. He's at twenty nine to
eight this year. So I mean, so Gabe Vincent and
Angela Russell would work, But if you're not getting a
first round pick, I don't think the Blazers would do that.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I would say the Lakers should definitely do that, because
that's just you know, what else are you doing and
you want to keep the powder drive from a first
round pick perspective, But yeah, I think the Blazers again,
I mean.
Speaker 1: I can't record. There would have to be like another
minimum or something included, because I call fall Josh short.
But still like that's the don't I don't know what
team is coming in. Even in saying like like here
are these expiring close to expiring contract will give you
a bunch of to be clear, he fits anywhere. And
if the number was like twenty, we're probably having a
much different discussion.
Speaker 3: Don't you think he's a good example of how the
new CBA has changed things.
Speaker 2: We won't get too far.
Speaker 3: I know we don't want to talk about it, but like,
I really think when he signed, when the Blazers signed
him to this deal, we talked about how like that's
a lot, but I think that's probably tradable for like
neutral or some somewhat positive value, and I think that
would have been true if not for the new rules.
I think I think like we're he's like not someone
you cite that often as like see what's happening here?
You talk about like Phoenix, and you talk about the
heat with Butler and stuff as representative of the difficulties
that are present now that weren't before. I think in
the old CBA environment, this would be a different conversation.
I think the market would be broader. I think Portland
could expect to get more for him, but it's just
nobody wants anything that's like over a certain threshold that's
not like a clear value like a superstar or a
clear value deal.
Speaker 2: I think that's just changed.
Speaker 1: And I think it's more complex in the sense that
he's at a price point. And this always would have
been the case. It just would have been easier to
move him. Where now you're talking about do we need
to send out three players to make the money work,
right and like rather than two. So if it was
just two for one, I think that opens up a
bunch of different permutations. But because there are some teams
where it's and this factor is in a new salary rules.
But like the Lakers are a perfect example. We came
up with twenty eight million dollars in money, but Nope,
that's not gonna work because the new they can't. They
were like half a million under the second apron or
whatever it is.
Speaker 3: And because of that, the team that's giving up multiple
players has to be like, oh, do we have enough
left to fill out a roster because we're gonna be
hard capped.
Speaker 2: Somewhere for aggregating basically.
Speaker 1: Or you get into a point where, especially with Portland,
all right, roster spots are an issue. Who are they waiving?
So no, we need to rope in third and fourth teams. Now,
those teams need to be compensated for, Like Detroit is
probably gonna facilitate like three or four deals by the day.
Speaker 3: Detroit is the team I am most confident will be
involved in trades, Like there's just no way stuff gets
done without Detroit as the third team on like almost
any high level deal we're talking about.
Speaker 1: We are on too thirteen your guy Jonathan Kaminga, which
I think is an interesting inclusion, and we need to
have the discussion of I want to know what he's worth,
but we first need to ask the question he's mentioned
in these packages where if they're gonna go after Jimmy Butler,
if they're gonna go after a big name, are you
trading him independent of a blockbuster that because if you
say no, he might not belong on this list. Now
he's on this list because I feel pretty strongly that
they should be with him approaching restricted free agency. Specifically,
it'd be different if he's still had another year left
on his deal, but he doesn't. I strongly believe that
if there's a team that wants to roll the Dice
on Jonathan Minga. You're not necessarily getting any better, but
now you've gotten an asset and you don't have to
pay Jonathan kaminga twenty five plus million a year or
whatever it ends up being. I'm probably making that deal
if I'm Golden State.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think that the short answer, Yes, you are looking
hard at trading him if it's not in a Jimmy
Butler or whatever deal. And if you are looking at
Jimmy Butler, then you're also looking at trading him.
Speaker 2: I think it's just like.
Speaker 3: They were too far apart on extension negotiations, right. The
reporting was he wanted about thirty five a year or
starting at thirty five, the Warriors wanted thirty not close enough.
He has not shown anything this season to make the
Warriors side of that negotiation like go up right, like
like he hasn't done anything this year to indicate that
a leap has been taken or that oh no, okay,
yeah we're man. I wish we'd signed him. I wish
we just said yes at thirty five. Like the opposite
is true. I think I think he has not performed
well as a starter. All of the biggest issues with
his game persists this is his he's far enough into
his career now where it's like you don't just get
to cite his age and say upside is there and
specifically from the war like that's not to say three
years from now he might not be what he thinks
he can be, But the Warriors timeline doesn't care about
three years from now, and a couple with probably what
we should have led with, like you're you're gonna lose him.
I think like you're gonna lose him in free agency,
and if you do get him back, it might be
at a low number because the market wasn't what he
thought it would be and he's kind of upset and
is the same guy anyway. So I don't know that
that's a win if you get him back at twenty
five a year or twenty a year, because you're just
looking to trade him anyway to a market that just
told you exactly what he's worth through restrict free agency.
So I think you probably do just need to be
looking at moving him full stop right like all of there,
I don't understand the justification for keeping him unless it's
just we're okay with bringing him back at whatever restricted
free agency says he's worth and chancing that he's cool
with it and everything works out. Like from a I
don't know a team dynamic perspective.
Speaker 1: Is there any team that, again, independent of this blockbuster,
if you're dealing with Golden State, you're trading them. Jimmy
Butler says, yeah, we'll take Johnathan Kamingo. Why not as
part of like the salary matching coming in? Is there
any team that because he is still tantalizeding like the
on ball stuff on offense, independent of the playmaking, it's
still like I see it and you know, not Jonathan,
Like I'm not super high on him. But also at
the same time, it's like his efficiency on drives is down,
his officency on dunks has plunged this year, and I can't.
I look at a team and it's like, what is
the team they're presumably they could be good, they could
be bad. That's like that's his salary structure. That's maybe
you think they can help them. But I almost I
look at him as a one position player. And if
you consider him a wing or a combo forward or
maybe a combo big, if you really think that he
can upsize, sure, I just I struggled to find that. Again,
the talent, like the raw talent is undeniable, like the
physical tools are there and we've seen like in ways
you've been able to people said the same thing about
James Wiseman, like there have been extended stretches like what
Jonathan Cominga did to Clothe last year. I also am
struggling though, to find the team where it's yeah, don'pe
be teams that will give up whatever just to take home,
but like a team that value him and say, hey,
here's something.
Speaker 3: I think there's maybe like two kinds of teams that
that makes sense for him. It's the nothing what he
doesn't what I wouldn't feel good about, is him going
somewhere where he has to play a role on a
good team, because like we're looking at that and that's
just not the fit at the moment. I think on
the high end, like Miami, where it's like we're not
hard resetting, but we're gonna buy low and rehab somebody
and like figure out how to get the best out
of them mentioned them already as a team that does that,
or the nothing to lose teams like a Brooklyn where
it's just you want to explore the space you want
to get a full season of twenty eight percent usage
and all the shots you can get and all the
on ball reps just to see what happens, like worst slash,
best case, we're terrible, and the like we get another
high pick, or you develop into what you you know
your ceiling might be great, Like I think those are
those are the like there's two ends of the spectrum,
I think, but in both cases I do think like,
if you're getting him, you need to know he's not
he doesn't want to be Gerald Wallace like, which is like,
I know that's a wait, that's a twenty year old
reference basically at this point, but it's just like the
best athlete on the floor that plays incredibly hard and
you don't run plays for him, and he just bangs
around and dominates games in ways that are have nothing
to do with on ball iso creation stuff, Like he
doesn't want that, even if that might be what he's
best suited for. So you need to go in with
eyes open, like on that front. So if you believe
he can be a lead offensive piece or like a
major offensive piece of a team, and you're willing to
trust that and not need him to be like a
good driver of offense as a passer or a good defender.
Speaker 2: Go for it. That's you just need to know what
you're what you're getting. At this point, I'm.
Speaker 1: Only mentioning this team because they were mentioned I think
before the season started or right as the season started.
But I'm gonna frame it this way, and maybe this
applies to other teams. But you're getting a first round pick.
It's this team's own first round pick, but it's not
guaranteed to convey because whatever the protections are on it.
Philly might be a team where it's they're bad right now,
but if they're protecting their own pick, they're inoculated against
disaster and they're thinking, no, we're eventually gonna send Golden
State the twenty first pick in the draft, or maybe
even something worse. Is that a deal Golden State needs
to consider it this But you're getting expiring money and
a pick that is only really going to convey if
it's like, yeah, I think the lottery.
Speaker 3: I think maybe at this point and from that that
is a Philly type acquisition. Because if you're concerned about
a player that like or you're interested in talking about,
I shouldn't say Philly type, like more of a moriy
type acquisition. It's like, you know, if Jonathan Minga hits
like our championship equity goes up one point nine percent,
Like that's really that. That makes sense on that end
of it too. It just it doesn't feel bleak if
that's what the Warriors get for him at this point,
it's maybe realistic, but that feels that's kind of a bummer.
Speaker 1: I understand why they wouldn't do that. To be clear,
I'm not even advocating for it. I honestly don't know,
because it's okay if the alternative is paying him a
bunch of money free agency, I probably prefer the pick.
But now you're saying, now, could we squeeze him because
no team gave out an offer sheet and restrict to
free agency this year? What team is doing it next year?
Maybe Brooklyn would, But then you want or you don't
let him walk for nothing or match a deal you
don't want on your books, or as you mentioned at
the top, is he's just unhappy and then what does
that do for Now you have him on a deal
that's less than what you would have paid him last offseason,
but he's not any more tradable because he's not playing
well or doesn't fit in. I think you probably if
it's only a like a top, if you're only getting
like the sixteenth number sixteen pick. Let's just say, if
you're the words, you probably have to wait right like
it's just now, we'll keep cominga and play.
Speaker 3: I guess yeah, and we should have led with this,
but I can't my opinion like a disclaimer, we should
like just pre records, like my opinion cannot be trusted
on all warriors transactional pertaining to the pertaining to the
Golden State. Please do not act on or repeat to
your friends anything I say about the Warriors.
Speaker 1: I think the dunked on guys proposed it was Kevon
Looney and Jonathan kaminga for Miles Turner, and they wondered
if Indiana would have to send something else out in return.
So I'm wondering if I'm too low on Because I
heard that, I was like, I don't Miles Turners not
having a good year, But uh no.
Speaker 3: Okay, see again, please here, please refer to disclaimer. Why
isn't Indiana doing that? Like what Indiana should do that?
Speaker 1: Who's their center? Thomas Bryant. Okay, right, Okay, sure, I mean.
Speaker 3: Why not NBH multiple time NBA champion Kevon Looney.
Speaker 2: Like that's what you're saying to say.
Speaker 1: Someone's gonna hurt a defense that's twenty ninth against top
twenty offenses. I have faith that Jonathan can make I
could do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right, we gotta move on a get emotional.
Speaker 1: Number fourteen John Collins. Oh sorry, this was yours. Do
you want to say number fourteen?
Speaker 2: John Collins? Uh, value rehab a little bit. This has
been a roller.
Speaker 3: Coaster of a value situation for John Collins over the
last several years. The big news is, I think it
was Tony Jones who was talking about this. He can
play the four now because he's shooting it well enough,
and defensively he's shown some mobility, so it's not like
he's a five only and can't play the five either,
like as a defender. Really, so, I think his value
is a little higher than it has been. I'm not
saying he belongs any higher than this though, just because
he's still really an offense first, like not truly four,
not truly five. That makes a decent enough chunk of money,
but it's a short term deal. So he feels like
someone that's man. I wish he made like five million
less and then it'd be like, oh, he's getting traded
for sure.
Speaker 1: Twenty seven are close to almost twenty six or twenty five.
It's just point six this year. But he only always grant.
It feels like he just sawn that extension. He's a
player option for next year at twenty six point seven.
So there's a chance that you're looking at an expiring contract.
I would guess that you're not. But it's so short
term that it's no. I'm not giving up a first
round pick get him, but you actually could probably use
him as a mechanism to get a first round pick, right,
because there are there are worse contracts out there.
Speaker 3: What is he what's he get on the market if
he opts out? I don't know that that's a given.
Speaker 2: Is he, like so just.
Speaker 1: A mid level guy, which is fourteen point one? Right?
Or no?
Speaker 3: So he just turned twenty seven a couple months ago,
he's I mean, the forty four percent from three is
not a real thing. He's thirty six, first career, not
high volume.
Speaker 2: Is he like a is he.
Speaker 3: Like a better Bobby portis like is that. I mean,
I don't know that Bobby Portis's contract is the right
comp because the Bucks kind of like we got to
keep him type of thing, he might get more than
the mid level. I mean maybe I don't know if
I'm just thinking about it from the perspective of if
you're trading for him, are you doing it with an
eye toward like he's a piece we're going to keep
in the rotation via a new contract going forward, and
depending on that number, you might make a case that
he belongs higher.
Speaker 2: But like, I don't know.
Speaker 1: If you're Utah, the two kind of constructs I thought about,
are are you taking back two contracts plus seconds like
Kevin Herder Trey Lyles and seconds for John Collins or
I mean, he'd be really interesting on the Lakers. I
know he's not a center, but to play next to
a d Now do you give up? Daniel Russell's expiring?
So you talk and say, sure, so d'anzel Russell plus
salary X get whether it's Gabe Vincent, it could be
Jared Vanderbilt at this point, but then it's well, now
we're just really like we have no guards. It's well,
you have guards, but we don't have anyone who's gonna
handle the ball aside from Lebron and we'll run it
through a d. But like that's the type of framework.
Is those types of deals plus seconds? Or if you're Utah,
are you just holding you're bad enough? You have enough
extra draft equity?
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Now, as you're talking to you, just saying the Lakers,
if you're the Lakers, would you rather trade what it
costs for John Collins?
Speaker 2: Or trade would it costs for Jeremy Grant?
Speaker 1: And I'm assuming I'd rather trade would it costs for John?
Because you have to figure their first round pick they're
giving up is in twenty twenty nine or later. Yeah,
you're not giving that up for John Coss. So it's
John Collins for me. The contract is shorter, not as
good of a fit on defense, can't handle the ball
as much on offense, But he's more it's probably about
as plug and play. But you could you could try
you're not playing defense anyway, you could try playing him
at center when eight he's not on the court.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you at least have like a i don't know,
like a potentially fun offensive dynamic with him there. That's
like then we need he needs to be higher, I get,
but like, that's that's a pretty unique situation. I think
in a vacuum, you know, people might still care more
about Jeremy Grant even with that money. He's an interesting play,
although like checking checking with us next year when John
Collins value is like god knows where because it just
can't stay the same year to year.
Speaker 1: Another interesting player here a Vouch at number fifteen, which
feels high because there's no way I would want to
know what contract Chakag was taking back that they got
a first round pick for Vouch. He is having the
most efficient season of his career, pretty much a year
and twenty one point five million left on it. If
he's gonna shoot threes at a clip that is the
or hit his threes, I should say, at a clip
that is.
Speaker 2: This high forty eight percent?
Speaker 1: Right, you want him? But like even if he comes
down to forty, that's acceptable, right Grant? I mean, I
guess that's fine. He's also shooting sixty four and a
half percent on twoes, and so I think you have
to view this through a little like at least a
bunch of smoke and mirrors. Maybe, but Voch has more
value than he did this year this time last year.
Because his contract is shorter, he's playing better. I just
don't know where to put him because the Lakers are
another team. That's an example. I would trade Dan Angel
Russell in seconds for him, straight up. But that's like
expiring money in seconds. Feels like your cap on a
Vooch trade.
Speaker 3: I would agree with that. I think it's a rental.
There's no tuble.
Speaker 1: The Bulls won't make the trade, then they're gonna keep
him in try and win, correct.
Speaker 2: I mean, god damn it that it kind of makes sense.
I hate it.
Speaker 1: Would you are there any teams aside from the Lakers
that you would I thought about the Spurs.
Speaker 3: No, maybe, I mean any that's willing to play Zach
Collins next to Wimby should be thinking about Vooch.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah. I mean, like again, if the Pelicans were
doing anything, it would have made sense.
Speaker 3: There just anywhere you're talking about, because what he is
now is any place that used to car used to
target Kelly o Linok. I think minus the passing is like,
we'll take a guy that can space and shoot and
score fairly efficiently that we probably can't close with, and
you know, it's a.
Speaker 2: It's a weird subset of teams.
Speaker 3: I don't know that contenders have any use for him
in like a major role, certainly not as a closer.
So like, if that's the role you have him in,
then yeah, like it's pretty narrow.
Speaker 2: Who needs spacing?
Speaker 1: What about the dubs?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Just as a shooter, I think like Draymond has, by
the way, slipped defensively, but like having someone there next
to him to to, you know, pick up the clean
up the mess, I think would be useful.
Speaker 2: I mean, what about Orlando, he go back.
Speaker 1: And then at some point they'll start, They'll play Palo
and Franz Wagner and Vooch and Johnathan and I it
would be all centers.
Speaker 3: Just as a backup where you have to have Isaac
or like Goga out there with him. I don't know
that it's I'm just trying to think of places that don't.
Speaker 1: Will they take Mitchell Robinson and Precious to Chua and
then another small contra will put him on the Nicks
with calling Anthony Towns and see what happens to the defense.
Speaker 2: How fun would that be? Look think of the space dude.
Speaker 1: That's but it's another where I think he's been really good,
but I think there are a limited number of teams that,
even with his market being low, yeah, would necessarily trade,
Like would Charlotte just take a look at him as
like we're not really sure many minutes Mark Williams can
play when healthy, but they also have Nick Richards there,
so who knows.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't. I don't hate that. I'm trying to
think Miami. No, I'm just thinking like.
Speaker 1: Well, apparently wants a five to play next.
Speaker 3: Four makes sense as a defender, Like that's I still
Miami was not going to do that? Yeah, it I
think what'd you say? Like like basically just seconds?
Speaker 2: Like that's there. You're never getting first, you're never getting
a contract.
Speaker 1: Yield fans beyond next year is probably.
Speaker 2: I think that's the cap there.
Speaker 1: We're into the latter half, which is gonna go a
lot quicker than the first half. Who's number sixteen Grand Well,
I'm gonna spend twenty five minutes on this.
Speaker 3: I was gonna say for sure this is iodasummu fits anywhere?
What was he make seven this year? You have one
more year left. We've already talked like.
Speaker 2: Maybe you could extend him.
Speaker 3: Probably, I don't I don't know. It's hard to say, Well,
we'll see what the market looks like. You know, not
going to be a star on either end, probably not
going to start for you. But I do think he's
someone that you you could probably because the price is
so low, you could get an asset of like future value.
I think probably not first, probably talking seconds, And then
that's kind of an argument for not trading him.
Speaker 2: I guess.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're still very much of the mind that the
Bulls should consider trading virtually everybody except for Modess bozellis.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, there are so many teams I would
love him on, but I don't think you're going I
don't think his standalone value is a first round pick,
and that might be where the problem is. But you're
also he would Also problematic is that he makes so
little that you can't necessarily up his I guess if
you attach him to another player, you can't necessarily up
his value by saying we'll take back a bad contract
and then give us a first round pick that way,
And it's just who would you attach him to to
make that like? Because if you were the like the
Bucks aren't going to he would be great on the Bucks.
But they're not going to give up their only tradable
first round pick off into the distance for him, And
so I struggled to find Matt team. And if I'm
the Bulls, this is the one player where it's right.
If they offer two seconds and expiring money, I'll probably
just hold on to ioassume.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think so. I think get broken record.
Speaker 3: Last year was probably the time to do it because
he was shooting forty percent from three last year. You
had just a longer runway as the Bulls to hey,
you get him for two plus you know two years
going forward?
Speaker 1: Do you think it's again? It have to be a
smaller salary plus precious plus that fake it's not fake.
I mean it could convey, but that Washington first. Is
that a deal that Chicago would consider.
Speaker 3: I take a fake first, even if it's like a
dubious fake first, if I'm Chicago, that's that's better than
a real second.
Speaker 1: Dubious first, because it could might not be a first,
but it's a dubious first.
Speaker 2: It's like a one and a half.
Speaker 1: He would go there, although there are I could we
just name every single team in the league basically, I
mean Atlanta, he'd be super interesting on if you think
he could give you some backup point guard reps. There
By the way, his defensive scalability is the thing for
me where it's oh, look Io's guarding a four and
it's it's okay. So he'd fit a lot of places.
But the fact that if it's a bigger deal, maybe
that's the pathway too. It's Io dessum U plus. I mean,
Zachlvie makes so much money, but is it Iotazumu plus
Vouch plus we take back a really bad contract and
get a first That way, I don't know. Number seventeen
is what I find to be one of the more
underrated players on this list. Mister Clinton Propella. He's a
year left on his he's gonna be a free agent,
excuse me. And we know I saw the reporting I
think it was from Jake Fisher that Atlanta prefers to
move him, and they haven't given any real hint that
like they don't want to play him though, So that's
just a weird thing. He's been Opponents are shooting under
fifty five percent against him at the rim. He can
still rebound. He's limited offensively, but he's helping anchor what's
been a pretty good defense in Atlanta. If they want
to move him, you're not getting a first. But like,
if they want to move him, they're assuming they'll take
back seconds. I think there are a bunch of teams
then that should be looked like, even if he doesn't
fit what you want to do, if you just get
to expirings, if you're the Warriors, expirings in seconds, as
far as you have any left, like, that's a team
that should be looking at it. I just I still
find him to be very underrated. I'm not saying he'll
command a ton. He's number seventeen out of thirty, but
I'm just surprised that I'm looking at Atlantic like, I
know you have one ya, but it's all right, so
you want to play who at the five? Moving forward? Oh,
Yeka and who? We haven't seen on Yuka play thirty
plus minutes, but it seems like you almost need to
have sort of a co op. He's also small. Cy
Copella is not that small.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I think Capella has been better this
year just basically across the board. Like at this time
last year, I think it was like, oh my god,
what are they gonna have to pay to get off
of him. He's just like he's limited, right, Like he's not.
You want him to catch lobs and you want him
to to block defend the rim, and he's like doing
that right now. I just it's kind of the Vucevich thing. Well,
I don't know, maybe it's not, because couldn't you imagine
Capella being the starting center on like a on a
in like a I don't know, and like a Gafford slash.
Lively is different because he's so mobile, but like if
Daniel Gafford can play major minutes for a team that
makes the finals, like, couldn't Capella?
Speaker 2: Like how different are they really? I guess you know.
Speaker 1: It's like why I know that the spacing could walking
be like why are the Lakers if they really want
to slide Ad down in certain lineups? The Lakers D'Angelo
Russell that Hawks need a backup point guard. Again, I
don't know what's happening to your offense in LA figured
it out later, but that plus needs to be another
salary and second a second if like how I'm just
curious he's starting for Atlanta, Like what is it? And
you want to move him? So what are you accepting
for him, I.
Speaker 2: Well, I think you're accepting.
Speaker 3: You just need to know you're not getting a first,
you're not getting like a young asset. I think it
is it's money and seconds. And he makes twenty two
almost twenty three million this year, So it's it's the
Vucevich thing where it's like what, it's just a I
don't know. I think between Vucovich and Capella and I
guess Collins is a little different. It's like these guys
might just stay where they are and hit free agency,
which is like unheard of in the past, where all
these guys would always get traded on these expiring situations.
But I just think circumstances are different now because what like,
if you're the Hawks, you can you realistically expect to
get something back that is like, oh, we want that thing.
And then also we're not taking on long term money.
I don't know, they're not gonna want to take on
long term money. That's a good point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's tough.
Speaker 3: He's a good player, though, Like he's a mid mid
a mid tier starting center.
Speaker 1: Who's more likely to get traded John Collins, Nikola Vucevich
or Clint Capella.
Speaker 3: I think it might be Collins, which sounds weird because
the money is he's got the highest salary, but I
I can imagine him being.
Speaker 1: Us most determined to be bad. What's that Utah's of
those teams is most determined.
Speaker 2: To be bad?
Speaker 3: That is true too, Yeah, the Bulls and Hawks. The
Hawks that I don't know what the Hawks are trying
to do, but I am I'm interested in the Hawks
going right now? Yeah, I think I don't know what
do you think of those three?
Speaker 1: I think it's bouch just because with the Jazz it's
I know that they're probably less married to all of
their players than anyone else. But I also just like,
why are you trading John Collins? For You're not getting
a first, So if you're getting a first, that's different.
But you have all these other picks already. Why are
you trading? And you're also bad enough in Chicago's case,
if you want to get bad enough, you probably need
to move Booch at this point. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Are we also at the point of the big board
where it's like, presumably these guys are all more likely
than not to not be traded. Who's number eighteen one?
Malcolm Brogden the Washington Wizards point guard.
Speaker 1: He was injured to start the year, and a twenty
two and a half million. That's just a tough number
to move.
Speaker 2: Is that expiring?
Speaker 1: That is right, Yeah, it's expiring at twenty two point five.
So there are teams where theoret, I mean, he make
a lot of sense. Could we try to trade him
to the Clippers again? But how are you getting to
Are you rolling the dice on giving up man in PJ.
Tucker for Malcolm Brogden. I don't I think Washington does that,
to be honest with the Clippers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think Washington would do that.
Speaker 3: It's with him, it's I mean, he's been he hasn't
been great, but he's still a guy you can trust
to hit threes. Like the locker room presence is a
real thing, I guess, and maybe that matters for maybe
that broadens his appeal so to where it's not just
contenders to need a third guard type of thing. The health, though,
from a contender's perspective, like you just can't thirty nine
games last year, thirty six two years ago has basically
been I don't know what the average is, but there's
a lot of fifties and sixties and forties in his
games played totals, so that might hurt it from a
contender's perspective.
Speaker 2: You just can't trust him to stay healthy. I do
think he's like.
Speaker 3: The Robert Williams of point guards, a little bit like,
oh yeah, he will help if he's on the floor,
like we're confident of that. It's just the role can't
be that big. And but then you can't be confident
of the health. I think you have n't put positioned
about right here just because I think Washington might value
keeping him because.
Speaker 1: He's the adult in the room. Would interrupt. It's a
we don't make it look like you didn't have I
gave you input on this.
Speaker 3: Sorry I did have input. You know we have him
about right, But what do you think about that? What
about like we haven't had a lot of guys or
really any as I'm looking back at the list, where
you could say his bad team might just just be
okay with him hitting free agency because he's like the
new Garrett Temple where we just want him here for the.
Speaker 1: Washington though, you're saying you just want him here for
the rest of the year, for the rest.
Speaker 3: Of the year, because it's only getting uglier probably, or
it's gonna stay as ugly and you might just need
someone to keep things from, you know.
Speaker 2: Turning to Lord of the Flies.
Speaker 1: I just Washington relative to other rebuilding teams, they might
have a good prospect well with their future picks. Dash
isn't great that if you can get some seconds in there,
I'm gonna move him.
Speaker 2: I would, I think so.
Speaker 3: I'm just wondering if if that's just a factor I
think from that's not It hasn't been discussed for a
lot of these veterans so far.
Speaker 1: I still think Orlando just needs to go out and
get him.
Speaker 2: I like that.
Speaker 1: I like that that's your placeholder. We want them to
make a bigger trade. They won't do it. That's fine.
He would be interesting with the Clippers, though, if you
think he's healthy. I just don't man. Plus, Tucker feels
a little rich, and I don't see the Wizards being like, well, okay,
well here's some set. I just don't see them doing that.
Speaker 3: I think the Lakers too, if it's like you can
have Gabe Vincent and something that's salary is tough because
I don't know if you might like him more than Russell,
for example, just because you can trust him.
Speaker 1: Russell and Chaffino in a second for Brogden, you feel
better about the Lakers after that train.
Speaker 3: And Washington should do that, I think because you're you're
getting a pick and you're not taking on money and
and yeah, I don't know, there it is.
Speaker 2: We did it, brought them to the Lakers.
Speaker 1: What if it was well, no, because Russell plus Gavins,
it's thirty million dollars, So you do Vincent and no,
it'd be too much.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that thing, it has to be Russell.
Speaker 3: And then it's kind of like, I don't know, like
Brogden's not a good defender anymore so or not that
he ever was great.
Speaker 1: But are you trying to say that Dangel Russell is
a good defender?
Speaker 2: No, I know, I'm saying, like, what are the ginnings?
Speaker 3: Because offensively they're not that different in terms of bottom
line production.
Speaker 1: This is a controversial one. At nineteen. I think I
put Cam Thomas here. He's going to be a restricted
free agent, did not agree to an extension with the
Nets if you shouldn't know that injured as we record this, still,
dude can be a bucket. I think he's improved as
a three point Shooter a great deal. There has been
incremental as a passer, but because he's not a good
pastor to begin with, I don't know how much that means.
I don't know how when he's on a smaller contract,
so you're not taking back bad money. For if you're Brooklyn,
You're essentially you're not getting back. No one's giving you
a first for Cam Thomas. Maybe there's like a bigger
deal because his salary is so small, you attach him
to Cam Johnson or Dorian Phinney Smith and get Honestly,
now I'm thinking about it, if you wanted someone who
could dribble more in Dallas, like you could get to
the money if you're giving up the first round pick
for Dorian Phinney Smith and Cam Thomas. But if Spencer
didn't when he's playing so well, you probably don't see
the need for having Cam Thomas. But like that would
be the framework of getting a first for Cam Thomas.
I think he has value. I'm probably a little bit
higher on him than you are. I just he's so
tough because he makes so little headed for restricted free agency,
and I don't this with I think it's more likely
off Framelant this way that you get a first round
pick for Jonathan kaminga than you would for Cam Thomas.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 3: I think I think too, Like for Thomas, he hasn't
really made anything money. He's made a lot of buckets,
he hasn't made money yet, and so restricted free agency,
you should assume if you're his acquiring team, like you're
gonna have to just pay whatever the highest number. That
that's is how offer sheets work, obviously, But like he's
gonna take the biggest deal. It's not like he's I
would imagine, because he hasn't made like life changing NBA
money yet.
Speaker 2: So like that's that's a factor to consider.
Speaker 3: And yeah, like it just I don't it's weird like
if he if it's a team that views him as
a building block for some reason, it's like, well, that's
a lateral move, and so what are they giving up
to the nets? And if it's a winning team, like
Thomas just hasn't proved he can be a piece of
a winning like his the bucket getting player type is
a weird fit in a lot of places. It's just
like the market is, I don't know, not not exactly
like teaming for him, I don't think so that drives
the price down too.
Speaker 1: I don't have a great destination for him. I mean,
I I'll say, like the Clippers taking a flyer on
him would make sense, But I have no idea what
I might consider giving up Terrence Man for him. But
now it's well other money coming out of Brooklyn for that,
and is Brooklyn taking that night.
Speaker 3: I don't know, but you know who to be consistent
since I said Denver should just go. Denver needs like
a Lou Williams from two thousand and seven, like they have.
Speaker 1: Nothing, Like you want hunter Tyson plus Dari or Sharich.
Speaker 3: Yeah maybe, I don't know. Maybe you want hunter Tyson's
longer contract.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just like you.
Speaker 1: Although because Brooklyn's a type of front office that would
game it this way. If you were getting off of
Sharage or Zeke Naugy as part of this, would you
give up a swap as Denver then you're to get well,
I don't know.
Speaker 3: Maybe because because this is the guy that, like, maybe
you just don't lose this non Jokic minutes as bad
because he's out there creating shots by himself. Like I
don't know, I just this is the player type that
I think might be within Denver's budget to like address
the non Jokch minutes without screwing up the starting five.
Speaker 2: With the big trade. So like maybe you would throw
a swap out there.
Speaker 1: Would you? So it would have to be who else
is on the net.
Speaker 3: You keep them, you keep the matching rights and restricted
free agency, so you can you are in control of
if you keep him or not. That that's got to
have value to a team as inflexible as Denver is.
Speaker 1: Honestly, though, Denver could use Dayron Sharp too, and you
could do Zeke Nagy for day Ron Sharp and cam
Thomas if you gave up two swaps. Is that too much?
Speaker 2: I think Brooklyn does like too much.
Speaker 1: That's what we're talking about, not getting it done for
those two.
Speaker 2: Probably not. I that's fascinating.
Speaker 1: So if it would have to because that's like the
only structure. No, you know, shake Milton all right, So
you could do just because I Watford's too valuable. I
mean even if a key on Johnson, so it would
be it won't be Jay on Wilson, he's too good.
It'd be cam Thomas and then basically not Noah Clowney
or day Run Sharp among or trendon Watford's let's say
shake Milton just is like the kind of throwaway shake.
Speaker 2: Milton, I really want a Dayron Sharp in this deal.
I'm you won't do two swaps? Yeah they have.
Speaker 1: I don't think Denver would either, because they have homes.
I know he towards Achilles. I'm assuming there's a plan,
uh for like they want him. They're moving forward. So
it's Cam Thomas and a small salary for a swap
from like a twenty thirty swap, But you have to
take back Zeke Nagy's money. Do you take the flyer
on that? Just looking at Denver's future?
Speaker 3: I think I might if I really if I thought
like and I'm I don't know, I what do you
think about it?
Speaker 1: Do that? Because I think there's a stronger case to
be made that they should have to give up the
second swap because you're getting off Nagy's money. Yeah, if
it was Dayron Sharp and Cam Thomas and two swaps,
I do it in a heartbeat. It's two swaps for
cam Thomas. I don't, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, do you what about the general idea? And we
got to move on after this?
Speaker 3: But like the thought that just go get a microwave
score to run second units without Jokiz, Like, is is
he someone that could actually do that effectively enough to
be worth giving up a swap for?
Speaker 2: Yes, well, because you can't.
Speaker 3: You're not closing with him, like I don't think ever.
But he's just he has a very specific use for
that team.
Speaker 1: Don't say that Jamal Murray has been prone to missing time,
so you.
Speaker 2: Don't want you don't want to close with him, is
what I should say.
Speaker 1: I mean is that the goal of what Denver should
be doing is finding someone that they want to close
with it like they're starting five is I'm fine with
it and you have Peyton Wattson to pull that.
Speaker 3: No, I know, I'm just saying normally, if you're giving
up a first round asset, even if it's a swap,
you're like, you're not just going with we need a
guy to play seventeen minutes a game without our best
player on the floor.
Speaker 1: So when when Cam Thomas went down, the Brooklyn Nets
were eighth in half court offensive rating, and he made
their overall offense better by five point two points per
one hundred possessions and their half court offense better by
five point nine points per hundred possesions. So I'm gonna
say yes that I think he can give you. I
don't know. I don't think you're gonna win the non
yo kitch minutes, but I think he could help float
in off it. I think it would get easier to
game lineups without Jokic, to have some sort of an
identity that's not just like defensively skewed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and really like, now that I'm I'm talking about
it more, is it the worst thing to have, like
a just a pure go get your own to play
with Jokic. It's not like Jokic wants to be I
don't know.
Speaker 1: How many minutes is he spending with Yokic too?
Speaker 3: Yeah, not a lot, not a lot. Okay, Denver should
do it both swaps, do it?
Speaker 1: But and so, But if you're Brooklyn, do you do
the two swaps for Dayron Sharp and cam Thomas for
zik Nauji or is that not enough?
Speaker 2: I think I probably do it.
Speaker 1: I think I'd probably do it too. I'm like, I'm
gonna short the shit out of Denver's just based off
with some of the decisions that they've made so far.
But it's questionable let us know if we're just off
our rails and it's not like both sides would do it.
I find that interesting though. Next up, when we have
mister Hughes.
Speaker 3: This is mister Kelton Johnson kind of like someone still
that it's always weird to me that the SPS just,
you know, he doesn't feel like he's a highly valued
piece there, even though when he signed that contract, which
has two years and thirty five million left, we're like,
it's good money for Kelvin Johnson.
Speaker 2: I think that's gonna age. Well, doesn't seem like it.
Speaker 3: Averaging twelve game this year hasn't started anymore that that
ship selt last year basically under thirty percent from three
still just he's aged twenty five season like has had
flashes of being a good corner, three point shooter, good
enough athlete, plays physically like it's just I don't think
I think he's in the right spot, just because I
don't view him as someone Teams will say, well that
that's nothing close, like we're not giving up want we
want Kelvin Johnson will give up a first or we'll
give up Like it just doesn't feel like he's all
that likely to be traded because I think the Spurs
can handle a contract that's a little inflated, and I
don't see teams like knocking the door down for him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would just be curious because they have the
way that Julian Champanne's played. Devin Missel is back, and
if you are still invested in Jeremy Sohan, like how
committed are you to him being long term? I would
be curious to see what teams would give up for him.
But I think that he's you mentioned the word is
flashes like they've always been maybe some extended flickers and flashes,
but it's never sort of maintained. And I think the
big swing skill that's never developed fully for him is
you don't look at him and say, I know this
guy will knock down threes. Yeah, he's just not there.
He's at thirty seven percent I think, on wide open
threes this year, which is just not good enough.
Speaker 3: So and really we're talking about one year of that
twenty one to twenty two when he hit thirty nine
percent of his threes.
Speaker 2: That's just clearly the outlier at this point. And also
he averaged twenty two a game two years ago. He's
got to be if you onted the list of like
the most like no way he averaged twenty two A
game players. He's way up there on it.
Speaker 3: But it's just been that he's kind of had a
Jaron jacksony career where like one skill shows up and
then it goes away, and another one shows up the
following year and that goes away, and not really none
of them have showed up this year, which is why
he is where he.
Speaker 1: Is, number twenty on towards the end, we have mister
Jordan Clarkson. I don't know how to feel about him.
I'm not gonna lie. He's just he's not my favorite
archetype of player. I thought last year he showed way
more as a playmaker than we've kind of seen. Efficiency
has been all over the place this season. But if
you're looking for someone who, I mean, this is another
name that'll be mentioned for a Denver team or any
squad that's looking to just hey, can we float some
offense here. He's got one year fourteen point three million
dollars left on his contract that aligns almost perfectly, by
the way, with next year's mid level exception, which is
at fourteen point one million. I think you could probably
envision him being more efficient on a team where he's
not gonna see as much defensive attention. But just like
it is concerning that, all right, this dude is thirty two.
He's at forty seven point seven percent from two to
thirty one point six percent from three, which is actually
higher than last year. I just key to me is
the he's probably better. Maybe I'm not crediting his playmaking enough,
but this is like the quintessential off guard who's not
gonna give you enough on defense, and maybe he might
not be efficient enough on offense to do what you
want him to do.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think the sixth man, quietly, the sixth man
of the year contingent stuff is like three full seasons ago,
and so for a player like that, I just I
do think you're right that on a better team, I
think he just has more utility with more talent around him,
more players to draw defensive attention away from him, and
what he does well, which is get his own stuff.
It's just yeah, he's he's seconds second. Maybe, like I
feel like in terms of a return package at this point.
Speaker 1: Next up we have This was tough for me, Kevin
Herder if he didn't have the shoulder injury because he's
a year and eighteen million left in his contract. And
I apologize for hijacking your guy. I'll let you take
the next one. I would probably value him way more
than other people do. But he's dealing with like repeated
shoulder stuff right now, and so that's a concern. He
didn't start he started the year like Gangbusters, including on defense,
faded off, they changed his role, started getting efficihent again,
then gets hurt, So that has to be the concern here.
But to me, there's a case to be made that
he belongs higher than twenty two. Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, there's a case to be made just because the
level he's hit, if you assume it's injury, and if
you assume that injury is something he.
Speaker 2: Can get past, that's driven down production over the last
couple of years.
Speaker 3: Like it's not that I guess maybe like what his
first year with the Kings and really the last couple
with the Hawks where it was he's not he's a
great movement shooter, but also like you can run pick
and rolls with him and he's this is age twenty
six season, So like I do think you would be
justified as a team that thought it is injury.
Speaker 2: He can't get past it.
Speaker 3: He's valuable enough for like real like a couple seconds
or like a fake first or whatever. It just like
it's scary though, because he is like a guy that
is really offense offense mostly slash offense only, and he's
just not shooting it well. And so it could be
like a zero value guy. But the upside is there
if you can talk your way around like the reason
or if you can talk yourself into the decline being
the shoulder that that he's you know, give it another
year and he's back to being what he was.
Speaker 1: What I also struggle with too, is that he seems
like the money that Kings would want to attach something
to is part of a bigger deal. Do you think
if someone came calling at this point, let's just say
the Raptors have some expirings where it's like Bruce Brown
for Kevin Herder, Basically, are you considering doing that if
you're Sacramento, I mean, Bruce Brow might actually help them.
So even if it's a I mean Kelly Olynok and
Chris Bouchet, that like, is that is that type of
deal you're considering where it's oh, we're getting out from
under that final year of his contract, or do you
view it as no, we'd rather take the swing on
what he could do. Plus we want tradable salary moving
forward rather than can we sign Bruce Brown to a
deal where he still has trade value.
Speaker 3: I kind of think Sacramento is such an interesting case
because you and I think you probably lean this way
and I don't. I'm not saying you're wrong, Like they
need a big upgrade like a star so, but I
also think like the lineups that use most work and
if you could turn her if you could do a
two for one and you get two guys back, that
can be in your owation for Herder, whatever the longer
term money situation is, Like, that kind of makes sense
for what they need.
Speaker 2: So what was your bouchet and olynic or something like?
Speaker 3: I think you can make the argument that just makes
the Kings better because they just need especially a big
guys that they just they just need bodies that they
can put out there. That like Isaac Jones has played
real minutes for the Kings this year, and that's just
like that, the Joneses. So I think I think if
you could turn Herder into two rota into the rotation. Guys,
I think you probably should do that.
Speaker 1: I do feel like there are also just teams that
if your offense isn't good, it's like he will get
the three pointers up, and so taking a fire on
him would make sense. He's also still young enough to where,
let's just say, if New Orleans really wanted him, I
don't know why Sacramento is gonna come take CJ. McCollum
off your hands now that they want Zion or Ingram.
There was like that, like you could talk. The scope
of teams that could be interested in actually getting him
and using him, I think is probably wider than some
of the other players on this list.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's fair.
Speaker 1: You want to ta oh speak. We already mentioned this guy,
you want to take him? Since I stole Ken heard
her from you.
Speaker 3: This is the everybody's favorite north of the border cowboy.
Bruce Brown kind of like forgotten this year and has
been discussed a lot as a trade candidate. He will
be an unrestricted free agent after this season. The idea
of Bruce Brown still has a lot of fits everywhere.
I just, you know, I think maybe that Denver season
is doing a lot of the lifting and.
Speaker 2: It's harder to gauge his true value at this point.
Maybe I do think.
Speaker 3: Going into free agency for him it might be less
of a deterrent than it is for other players because
I think he's he would just be like a rental type, right.
I think that's that's how teams would view him, as
like your our eighth guy now, and we trust that
maybe you can get back to what you were in
your best years a couple of years ago.
Speaker 2: Like I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't think Toronto is getting like an asset that
it's like coveting for him, it's just kind of some
swapping out money.
Speaker 1: Maybe I thought, I don't know what he's gonna look
like after the knee surgery. We haven't seen him yet
this season, but like if you knew he was gonna
play and we had an idea of what he looked like,
he's still kind of this good connector on both ends.
I think the real value with him, which is why
he could maybe even be higher, is you might get
a first round pick, if only because his expiring money
is so big, Like there's a lot of different scenarios
that opens up if teams are looking to get off
of money.
Speaker 2: What's it? What's his salary this year? Is it like
twenty one?
Speaker 1: I think it's twenty two and a half. No, that
was Malcolm Brogden. He's at twenty three.
Speaker 3: Okay, twenty yeah, yeah, maybe maybe if you take back
bad money, that's yeah, that would be the way to
frame it. Ideally from Toronto's perspective is we'll take We'll
take like three, I don't know who's the guy that's
making that number or more for a couple more years,
like just straight up Jeremy Grant.
Speaker 2: Then we'll take We'll take picks or something.
Speaker 3: Portland's Portland's too bad to be uh, given up picks obviously,
but yeah, that's a good way to think about it.
Speaker 1: For the Raptors checking in at number twenty four, didn't
know what to do with him. Lonzo Ball, it's fun
to see him play bad basketball again. Can still be
a fun passer and he's done like he's had some
moments on defense, just taking a flyer on someone who
is I don't know how many minutes. He's like kind
of in the realm of a Jonathan Isaac or even
a Robert Williams, where it's he's just gonna be on
a minutes cap the rest of his career could be.
He's coming back from basically unprecedented surgery, but he's twenty
seven twenty one point four million. I don't I mean again,
we can get into the Bruce Brown discussion. If you
get a first round pick for taking back bad money.
I'd give up two seconds just to take a flyer
on Lonzo Ball, have his bird rights and see if
he can help my team. Like, that's someone who might
be able to help your team at both ends of
the floor.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I think I think the most likely and an ideal
scenario from the bull's perspective is we'll take your bad
money with if we can get a first for it.
Speaker 1: If you were Houston, you wouldn't be like, hey, here
are two of our like big men that are making
like a Jock Landau and Jeff Green, and we'll just
give you a second to Forlanda. You wouldn't even consider that.
I would.
Speaker 3: I would be confident if I was here that I
could sell him in free agency on like of the
minimum offers available to you.
Speaker 2: Here's why we.
Speaker 3: Make the most sense as opposed to giving up seconds. Probably, Yeah,
I think I think I could give up a second.
Or if you're Charlotte and you're like, we are committed
to LaMelo, let's get Lonzo in here, we would give
up something for that just to have have him be
the better than the Nasis. But the thenosis force in
our organization, we're not hit on now.
Speaker 1: They have enough guards. Let's just move on now. So
you even I would still I would take the flyer.
I'm on, so I'm there. Who we got next, mister Hughes.
Speaker 3: We have Larry Nance Junior, who I think is like,
oh yeah, he's on the Hawks.
Speaker 2: He's like, isn't he.
Speaker 3: The the budget answer to like a lot of teams,
Like we just need a guy we can play at
the five for ten minutes that can give us stuff
on both ends. I feel like he should have broader
appeal than he does, but I think he's kind of
being viewed more as like salary to throw in than
anything else at this point. I like, what do the
Hawks realistically hope they can get for him?
Speaker 1: A second? Two seconds would be the max, I would think.
Speaker 3: I think it's like one, and like, what's he's expiring right?
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's expiring at like eleven million it's eleven something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 3: I think I think you could get a second and
and that'd be about it.
Speaker 1: Probably I might consider giving up two seconds for him.
I'm not gonna lie. He's an injury risk, but you're
gonna have his bird rights. He's only so he's appearing
in eleven games this season, but he's shooting sixty percent
on three three point attempts per game. That's not bad.
I would give up two seconds for lander intertry. I
think you're selling them a little.
Speaker 2: Short here, all right, deal, where's he going?
Speaker 1: Warriors number twenty six we have. I don't know what
to do with him. Daniel Russell like, his value to
me still is more so rooted in the fact that
he's this expiring contract and you could do some creative
things with him, like if you're a team looking to
get off money, or even if you're just a seller.
Let's say, let's just even say the Heat and you're
trading Jimmy Butler to the Lakers, that there's just this
eighteen point seven million dollar expiring salary coming back in
who will also be able to play for you upon arrival.
That's where his value is. I don't think I would
be curious that the Lakers would just trade him though,
like if there was a team where it's kind of
like we even mentioned with the John Collins the fact
that because you don't have a ton of other playmakers
on the team, would you consider something like if you're
the Lakers to move him like that, or you're only
moving him as part of a larger deal.
Speaker 3: I think it's most likely he's part of a larger
deal because I just don't I don't know what the
sense would be in trading him singularly, Like what's coming
back in that.
Speaker 1: To trade in future? If I'm not thinking about, hey,
long term money, what is I know you don't own
your pick this season, but what is this season if
if you're getting a player you're gonna use to Like
if it's for John Collins, I'm giving up D'Angelo Russell
and I'll figure out what the offense looks like later.
And it's also it's not like D'angela Russell's a starter
for them anyway, that's true.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I think like if Colin's being the example,
that's someone that maybe you can trade for more for
the following season potentially, But yeah, like he just it's
an offense only player that's not playing offense well anymore.
So like, I don't, I don't know what you do
with him. He could be better on another team. I
think it's got to be. I want to I want
to make the Danzel Russell case for thirty seconds, which
is just to say, like he signed that last contract
knowing like you're here to be traded and to play
for two years on under those circus sacks not fun
would not want that.
Speaker 1: Who got at number twenty seven?
Speaker 3: This is CJ McCollum, who we're just talking about. Ability
is like I don't know, twenty spots too low maybe
or something in the neighborhood there. But it's just thirty
plus million this year, thirty plus next year. Is at
an age where it's like he ain't getting better and
the defense isn't there. So I just I don't know
if the if the Pelicans could have traded him for
anything of value, that would have happened by now right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, well, I don't know. They seemed like
divorced from real at times, so maybe, but if you're
getting back expiring money in a second, you're trading CJ.
Speaker 2: McCollum yeah, I think so.
Speaker 1: I think he's really good. It's the money that this
is why he's so low. Well, I shouldn't say really good.
He hasn't looked necessarily great this year, but I think
that he can. Like he is someone I think you
could acquire and he might play for you during the
postseason and that matters.
Speaker 3: Yeah, if he were making fifteen million, you'd have him
like you'd you'd definitely want him over the Clarksons and
Sextons and maybe even Simons of the world.
Speaker 2: But that's just it. It's a little bit of the
Jeremy Grant thing in here too.
Speaker 1: Coming in at number twenty eight, we have Cody Martin.
Of course it's Cody Martin. I just we're at the
point where it's he hasn't necessarily been rumored, but we
know he'd be moved. That's just someone who he's showed
a lot of difficult assignments this year. Defensively, he's showed
a lot of defensives Simons. Defensively, Grant, how does that?
How's that for some verbiage on.
Speaker 2: His shoulders, he shouldered.
Speaker 1: He's versatile and effective when he's healthy on defense. The
best way for me to phrase it. He could be
a connective passer. On offense, he can get going downhill
when he's hitting his threes, which this year he's been
up and down again from there. But I think if
you can see him up for wide open looks, he's
at least someone where you say, okay, like he could
probably shoot like thirty six or thirty seven percent on
those looks specifically, And what is he shooting on wide
open threes? This year? He's at thirty five point six percent,
So look, I was close, I would absolutely. I think
he can help a playoff rotation. I think teams that
need any sort of like kind of wing or perimeter
defender in particular should be looking at him. His salary
for next season's eight point seven million, and it's non guaranteed,
and it doesn't guarantee until June thirtieth. I think if
you're Charlotte, you could probably get two seconds for him
at this point, and I would just take it. I think, look,
we know how I feel about we know how most
of the people in our discord feel about Cody Martin.
But I'd probably have him higher up on this list.
Speaker 2: He has.
Speaker 3: He has a small but vocal following at the cult
level following. Also, like on the Twin theory, if you've
seen Caleb Martin be a really good player in a
postseason series, you should just assume that Cody could do
it if he got there.
Speaker 1: Now that works, right? Yeah, Number twenty nine grand who
is it?
Speaker 2: Jonasvalanciunis signed to be traded? Uh?
Speaker 3: That was the only thing anyone ever said when he
ended up in Washington. He's got two more years and
twenty million total left on his deal. Lakers make a
lot of sense if you're just you just need a
big body so Ad can play the four. Still is
someone you can just throw it into and he's gonna
be a physical post presence.
Speaker 2: He's gonna take up space.
Speaker 3: He's not a good defensive player really, but just I
think kind of just a safe like you know exactly
what you're getting with him, and that has some utility.
I think he still is just like he's you're not
getting firsts, you're not getting young players, You're it's just
well if you can take back it, certainly from Washington's perspective,
like we will take back your bad money with second
two seconds whatever. I think he's a if we're talking
about likelihood of being traded. He's way way way up there,
just because that's been the plan all along. I assumed
maybe I'm maybe maybe we've gone too far with that,
but I don't. I don't think Washington had anything but
plans to be like, you can be Alex Sar's like
security blanket for a minute, and then we're just gonna
trade you.
Speaker 1: I look, Lebron took less in part because the Lakers
wanted to get someone like Yonasvalacoutas, so now they might
be able to get him on the trade market.
Speaker 2: That's exactly how that.
Speaker 1: I did find it funny that you know that you've
made some pretty bad decisions at backup center that the
Nuggets when they were looking for offensive juice and it
was like all these perimeter players and mostly guards, and
the Yonasvalentutis is mentioned in that athletic report. Funny, our
final player coming in at number thirty on our big
board is the one the only mister Chris Bouchet, who
you know is eminently available. But Grant, just as someone
who's like kind of this undersized big and we'll get
threes up, isn't always gonna make them. And that kind
of includes making them this season. He's not shooting well
from three, so I won't even cite it, but I
think he's at He's at No. K percentage on wide
open threes. He's at thirty nine point five percent a
wide open threes. Take it on an expiring contract, someone
just to give up a second round pick for him.
I think he boosts. He could play either big man
spot in a pinch. Even though he's he's clearly like
more of a four. So he's kind of like what
if Larry nance Junior played without a conscience. It's like
basically what what he is?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: And I love him. I think he could be super useful,
even it's just a again, how do you make the
money work? But if you get Toronto to take off
Gabe gave Vincent's money, that'd be something I gotta be
looking at if I'm the Lakers, because he could play
next to a D That's something that could work. And
I think there are other teams that could, Like if
Denver had anyone, I mean they could get to the
money with Zeke Nagy and Dario Sharch But what are
you giving Toronto to get Chris Bouchet. I think he
fits on a bunch of teams. Actually, and I'm being
I'm being serious.
Speaker 2: Oh no, I don't.
Speaker 3: I think if he's gonna be a spacer that can
block a shot, still blocks threes. He make shoots and
blocks threes, those are Chris Bouchet's chief skills.
Speaker 1: Or he's locked three. So like he's always done. He
takes threes, he attempts threes, and he attempts to block
threes and they doesn't always pan out well, but you know,
you know it's gonna happen.
Speaker 3: He just understands the math of the modern NBA that
he just does. Those two things are gonna we're going
to suppress opponent threes and we're gonna we're gonna increase
our three point volume. I think it's appropriate that he
rounds out this list. I respect your I respect our
inclusion of him.
Speaker 1: We'll leave the big board up of our top thirty names.
There any just very quickly names you want to roll
through that that we considered.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's the list gets pretty long, Like you know,
I don't know for various reasons. You know, DeAndre Ayton
is someone it's just like, what is he doing in
Portland that like should be traded I think maybe the
most interesting one to me is Julius Randall we could
have thought about because if you view that the Wolves
trade with this with the Knicks as a financial move,
part of the appeal to that is Julius Randall is
someone that you're not married to that may come off
the books that you can move.
Speaker 1: Do you think he option?
Speaker 2: By the way, I don't know what to do with.
Speaker 3: Anybody's player options because of how little cap space there is.
Speaker 2: I think if.
Speaker 3: So, that really that's a question of what's his market value?
Can he get? Can he get three years? Or let's say,
can he get two years like a one plus one
at fifty million?
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe from the Wolves. No one with cap space
is giving him that money, though, right, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't I don't think so. I mean because Brooklyn, like,
what interest does Brooklyn have in him? Does he just
he might just pick it up? I think maybe maybe
what's gonna happen is guys, a lot of guys are
gonna pick up options and all this like the Butler
stuff is bluffing.
Speaker 1: Maybe yeah, that could be the route, or it's does
he decline it and the Wolves are bringing him back
at maybe twenty million a year, and it's like, are
either do one for thirty and roll the dice if
you're Julius Randall, or you could decline it and get
three for sixty from the Wolves.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 3: I don't know, man, It's this is what it's so
hard to guess, Like what team's appetites for that kind
of money is gonna be going forward. I think I
might take the security. I might take the three for sixty.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm maybe I'm jaded from last summer, but I'm
taking the security. If I'm Jess Randall.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I think I but it doesn't it seem equally likely
that guys like him just pick it up. I'm gonna
I'll go for unrestricted free agency next year, and then
I only need to sign two for thirty or whatever.
Speaker 2: To equal what I would have got, you know what
I mean?
Speaker 3: Like I can just imagine saying to yourself, Oh, it'll
be better down the road. It won't be it won't
be so congested, and like Penny pinching forever.
Speaker 1: With that though, mister Hughes, you ready to take us
out of here?
Speaker 2: Yep? Thanks everybody, Thank you. Dan. Remember if you haven't already.
Speaker 3: Please rate the view, subscribe thumbs up everything, Follow us
on YouTube, subscribe there, leave some comments on the YouTube videos.
Speaker 2: Join our discord leaks for that in the YouTube and
podcast description.
Speaker 3: Tell your friends about the podcast, tell your enemies about it,
and as always we shout out Frank Milakina and we
apologize to Jared Allen