Speaker 1: What is up, fellow Sikos. I am Dan Valley coming
at you with my certified fantabulous, incredibly awesome continuing to
power through this week's long sickness that I think Karmacle
makes you think he did something in a previous life
or this life that has caused me to have a
December not to remember. Mister Grant Hughes, it's a mailbag episode.
We're talking fallout from the or impressions of the NBA
Cup new All Star game format. A lot of trade questions.
Jimmy Butler to the Phoenix Suns, what do we think
about that? Maybe Zach Lavine to the Denver Nuggets. But
the first question we must get to, mister Hughes, how
the heck are you doing?
Speaker 2: I'm hanging in. I'm not going to complain about being
sick anymore, because, uh, you could just listen back to
any of the last like three podcasts and you'll feel
that you'll find the same information. I'm excited to do
this mail bag. We have some really good questions here.
But how are you doing?
Speaker 1: I'm spectacular, I'm healthy than you and my wife. Apparently
there must be starting going around, so we we appreciate
everyone thinks this is easy or that this is the
only thing we do. I don't find you talking about
being sick complaining. I appreciate you powering through to continue
to provide content. I mean, we had a lot of
good questions though. There are a couple, like real, real
good figures. There's one of them that I still don't
even know where I'm leaning on it. It was so
thorough and in depth. It kind of broke my brain
when I read it, and I was like, oh damn.
Speaker 2: I'm excited to know what that one is. There are
a couple there. There's some real standouts here. I appreciate,
we appreciate all of them, but I'm excited to get
there's like five or six that I really like a lot.
Speaker 1: This is a good reason to join our discord because
they get priorities when it comes to us building out
mail bags. So link to that's in the podcast and
YouTube description. Why aren't you in there already? That's my question? Yeah,
with that though, let's jump into this mail bag. First up,
grant any closing thoughts on year two of the NBA Cup,
which was won by Janness Attent to Goombo in the Bucks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what time you think the parade is is that
it's gonna what's the weather like in Milwaukee? I mean,
so it's interesting. I was talking to someone yesterday about
it and I was just going through the like, well,
it's the reason it exists. Is this trying to drive
interest in a period of the calendar where nobody or
the league is concerned that fewer people pay attention, trying
to get the stigma of the teams and players don't
really care until after the All Star Break thing out
of the way. And I was making the case like, no,
it actually has I think driven interest and so like
you know, goal achieved, mission accomplished, And they were like,
is this the first year they were doing it? And
so I was like, oh, okay, so maybe maybe I'm
misreading the broader NBA fandom. So I so, having said that,
I do think it's like it's been pretty successful, don't
you think, Like I feel like I was. I wasn't
you know, we watch more games than most people except
you don't ever watch games at all. Thank your Sorry
to almost paint with too broader brush, but I think,
you know, certainly once we get into the knockout rounds,
like I was very interested, and part of that had
to do with I was confident that everybody was going
to really take it seriously and give, like, you know
that a little bit of extra competitive edge, and mostly
my expectations were met. So I guess just from that perspective,
I think it works. And then I'm not persuaded by
the downsides really like, oh, it's hard to have this
like weak stretch where most teams play once in like
you know, eight days or something like that, or the
travel is hard, Like I think those are all pretty
like secondary concerns to Yeah, they're trying to drive interest
into me. I think it's worked.
Speaker 1: What do you think I think it's been. I don't
know if it's worked, but I like it in the sense.
So one of the biggest criticisms I've seen is that
you can't force tradition and they need to make this
Cup interesting as a standalone, and I totally get that,
but like, you're going to create tradition by sticking with it.
And there was the report from the Athletic that they're
considering because Amazon Prime is now going to have the
NBA Cup moving forward starting next year, about moving it
till after the NFL season and I was like, well,
you created this thing to drive interest during the NFL season,
And I understand that Amazon has NFL games itself, but like,
why would you give up on that after two years?
And I do agree there might be some disconnect between.
It feels like the people who've enjoyed the NBA Cup
the most are the ones who enjoy watching regular season basketball. Actually,
so I hate it because I don't watch games. But
that your point about maybe it not reaching the broader audience,
the more casual fan, which again is not a denigration.
Maybe that's where it's missed the mark. But I think
that's something that you can own. I'm not saying it
will work, but I think that's something you can only build,
giving it time and space to marinate and become a tradition,
something that matters as this standalone event.
Speaker 2: I think, too like the way to really make it
stick or really make it appeal to the types of
fans that maybe are so like I think you're exactly
right that it makes a positive difference for people that
were already watching early December games and were annoyed by
how sort of perfunctory a lot of the efforts were
in those games. But if you weren't watching those anyway, Like,
I don't know that this is pulling you in, So
I think that's probably maybe that's something to be considered.
But I think the stuff you could do to really
make the broadest possible audience interested are things you don't
want to. Like, for example, have it actually affect playoff
seating somehow, or have it like really matter in terms
of like the actual championship race or the actual playoff race.
And I just don't. I don't see the league doing that.
I think that's just too far to go to drive
interest because like you.
Speaker 1: Don't contradictory too, because you want the NBA Cup to
mean something on its own, and yet now you're tying
it to the outcome or the pursuit of an NBA
like the an NBA Finals victory.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly so, And I think maybe you maybe what
happens is you just sort of we've hit the cap
on like how much importance you can like assigned to
it if you're not gonna make it, you know, somehow
linked to the other the actual playoff race and the
the you know, the actual postseason. But like you sort
of can't do both, right, It can't be this standalone
thing that drives interest, and it can't be a thing
that is tied to you know, who wins the title
at the same time, I don't I don't know. I
mean like it's it's I don't think it's ever gonna
be like a fraction as important or interesting as you know,
NBA basketball in May and June. So like maybe you'd
just be satisfied with the fact that among some sub
section of the audience, like it is actually like making
people interested and giving them reasons to watch, and that's
maybe enough. Like maybe there's there's really no world where
it ever ends up being this hugely important thing. I
don't know.
Speaker 1: Well, and the other thing too, I I don't know
if this would impact the watchability. I'm over the neutral
site games. The energy for those have just not been
like from the crowd. I think you're missing an opportunity too.
If you want to get fans engaged, give them an
opportunity to maybe attend an extra home game if their
team is the best, like you know, just go with
the team with the better point differential in that case
gets to host these games. I don't know how that
impacts travel. I guess the whole idea is, Okay, these
teams are now when you get to the semi finals,
they're in this same spot for an extended period of time.
But like you could, I think futs and fiddle with
the schedule a little bit there. And I'd also when
a lot of people propose this, and I think I'm
on board with it, just because the way you're doing
things with the groups and how you're creating the groups,
I think the group stage games just need to happen
all at the same time, rather than spacing them out.
Because this is our job and we don't talk about
it a lot on the podcast because like we're tackling
macro topics for the most part, I can't. I have
to be reminded constantly of the standings, who's in what point,
differential stuff going on, and I think maybe mashing those
games together would make that element of it easier to follow.
Speaker 2: What do you think, because I've heard a couple different
places suggestion that the groups should just be the divisions
and that way, like maybe you get some rivalries going
you make divisions matter somehow, which because they really don't anymore,
maybe that and that maybe cuts down on travel too,
which if teams are complaining about you address that part
of it. I don't know, Like it does leave you open.
Speaker 1: To like disparity in competition that for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's no getting around that. Part of it is
just there'll be a sot. I don't know what would
it the Southeast or something. There'd be you know, change
year to year. But like, I don't know, that's just
that's how it used to be, right, and that's how
it still is, and basically every other sport where it's
like you actually do need to worry about winning your
division games for purposes of playoff seating, like and that
things are going things are going fine in the NFL
as as far as I know, and division stuff still
matters there. So I don't think this idea that it
would be unfair to some teams as sooner persuasive.
Speaker 1: The and the final thing for me too is I
could probably do with a And I know the broadcast
partners like are told to do this, but I don't
need to hear for Mike Breen every five seconds about
if you don't think they care about this game, you
don't know NBA basketball or some version of it, AND's
you don't need to force this to it means something
to Jannis told the story about the two way player
who's like gonna get a house in Iowa because they
won the NBA, Like that stuff is cool and like
the money will really matter to certain players. And Howard Becka,
the ringer, put it this way, like it was it
was kind of fun to see Damian Lillard win something
sure type and like he said, it time to cheap.
But it is so I just feel like this thing
and that's probably a problem with a lot of new
just new shit that every industry tries, is that if
there's not this immediate like explosion or attachment to it,
you just move on. And that's also probably the way
that NBA coverage today is the way it is because
you think of these sites that maybe they've invested in
people that can do more nuanced stuff like x's and
as breakdowns, but because the traffic or the rage engagement
isn't there after however many months, it's well, we're just
gonna have to move on. And that's like kind of
life in the We were just talking about this before.
We have ont in the the grow grow grow industry,
and the NBA is trying to grow interest during this
select period of time. I'm open to changes, but I
do think the idea of moving it like towards the
end or after the NFL season is stupid. I think
that's why.
Speaker 2: Would I would be more inclined to have it literally
the game game one of the NBA season is a
cup game, and just the first couple weeks of the
season or that's when the Cup is and so you
get your your your other champion. Although, like I do
think it's very purposely situated where it is because people
are interested. You know, over the first couple of weeks,
they want to see the new players, see how the
teams look.
Speaker 1: So you're on these courts that are secretly awesome. By
the way. I know some people hit the explosions of
red are are bad, but like I love I love
that stuff. Like I I like it. It's different you
say all the.
Speaker 2: Time, just try shit. I think I think there's no like, Hey, okay,
so we know red doesn't work. We probably aren't gonna
see red courts next year, but we tried it, so
now we know for sure.
Speaker 1: Well they's tried it for two years, so I feel
like we might.
Speaker 2: See red quar as well. Nobody's listening to us I
guess on the red court front.
Speaker 1: Well, speaking of just trying shit, Grant, the NBA is
also changing its All Star game format, so we obviously
need to know, Grant, what do you think of the
new All Star game format? But first the question is
what is the new All Star game format? For anyone
who you know is not necessarily up to it? So
that format, I'll read through the ballpoints. Twenty four NBA
All Star selections will be divided evenly into three eight
player teams. The fourth team as part of this mini
tournament is the Rising Stars Champion. That's bizarre team GMS
I guess will be a signed on a year by
year basis. This year it's Barkley Shack, Kenny Smith, and
Kandas Parker. I don't know why it's set up this way,
but Charles Barkley, Shack and Kenny Smith to draft teams
from the twenty four player pool, and then Candis just
has to coach the Stars Champion, which maybe that just
says that she's a better coach because that's the team
that's going to be the disadvantage. Two teams will meet
in one semi final. That'll be the first game with
the two remaining teams meeting in another semi final that
will be Game two. Game three will then consist of
the winners from Game one and two in what is
a championship game, and the winner of each game will
be the first team that reaches or exceeds forty points.
What are your initial impressions of this setup?
Speaker 2: I think, first of all, anything's better than changing nothing,
because I think we just the All Star Game as
it was was just like we can't continue to do
this going forward. So that's point one. I do think,
like I think this is I don't know, I feel
like a shill, but like this is a good setup.
I think this is a really interesting idea. I do
think if the goal is to get players to care
more and try harder, which like it's a little concerning
that this is the second bullet point we've had to
talk about on the pod where it's like the goal
is to get players to try hard. That's maybe there's
a larger problem, which is the length of the season,
which we're never gonna fix. But so like this is
like a round robin like pickup slash pickup game setup,
And I think the first thing is you really want
to be in the first semi final game right because
are these happening like back to back to back, like
game one, game two, game three in a row, because
you're gonna want from from having gassed out and cramped
up in like rec league playoffs where you have to
play two games right in a row. You really don't
want to be in the second game and then play
in the final right away, So you're gonna want that timeline.
That aside, I really hope they make the losers stay
and watch because that recreates like the pickup atmosphere where
it's like their shame in getting knocked off the court
and now you have to watch the winners play. I
think that's a positive. I think the shorter games like
get to forty first, that's like you're gonna have higher effort.
Guys are gonna go harder. I think the inclusion of
the rising stars is my absolute favorite part because I
do think while they're gonna be obviously overmatched to like
a crazy degree, I think they're gonna go so hard
to try to prove themselves against guys you know the
cliche of like ohead your poster on my wall or whatever,
Like I played, I was used you in two K,
Like that's a real thing than year old.
Speaker 1: Jason Tatum dunking on forty year old Lebron James would
be really cool. It'd be to make the rising stars
challenge that I don't know if he's ready yet.
Speaker 2: Uh Like right, that's a that's a cool dynamic. I
think that gets dismissed as like, oh, they're gonna get smoked.
I think probably so. But I think they're gonna try
hard because they're gonna have like the prove it mentality
that the other three teams just won't because what we're
all stars were established whatever. I I mean, sure, I
think there's gonna be unforeseen things that make turn this
into a mess, but like I think, just as a
starting point, I kind of love all of it. I
think it's just like it's a great like pivot from
away from something that everybody agreed sucked.
Speaker 1: Right, And I think if you hashtag try shit. So
I'm on board with it. And I like the idea
Steph Know of Sporting News framed it this way, get
to the ending faster, and first to forty does that,
and it makes the entire game more compelling because I
guess I'm not comparing it to a scarcity of product,
but like when the only the final what eight to
ten minutes of each All Star Game is where teams
have really turned it up if they were still a
differential worth trying to compete for. Like now you've kind
of just sandwiched that into basically the entire thing, because
you're not like it's forty points, like with three pointers
in the equation, that's that's that's a quarter of basketball
for some teams on certain nights. I like that element.
I'm with you on I was looking to see, like,
is there a schedule where Okay, so the Rising Stars
happens on Friday, then do the first batch of semi finals?
Is that now All Star Saturday Night and then Sunday
night is just the final game? But you're right that
you want that first game, gotta get the first to
get the extra rest, regardless of what it is. And
it probably wouldn't make sense to put it on All
Star Saturday Night because then you just have this one
forty point game. Yeah, as the All Star attraction on Sunday.
Speaker 2: What do you think about the size of the teams?
Are the n even the number of them? Do you
think eight, because like you're gonna have three guys on
the bench and that just feels weird to me. Do
you think it would have made more sense to have
more teams and maybe even shorter games, you know, and
smaller rosters.
Speaker 1: Free Like why couldn't have been fourteen? The rising Stars
element is really cool? But wouldn't six teams of four? Just?
I mean, four teams of six just made more sense.
And it's one It's a quarter of basketball, yeah, you
know what I mean, Like we're first of forty, so
why not just have the one sub or maybe just
I guess, expand the player pool to seven, like to
what then make it? If you want four teams of seven,
so expand it to twenty eight players or just insert
like you can select from the Rising Stars winning team
like during the draft. I don't know. And by the way,
I hope they won't do this, but they'll televise the draft.
I want them to televise the draft, like like with
the players there, like that could be a part of
All Stars Saturday Friday Night like that the kickoff of
it is that might add the compelling element to but
that's probably asking too much.
Speaker 2: It would be cool if you didn't know who you
were gonna play with until like two minutes before the game,
So they just.
Speaker 1: Do it on Sunday.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I think that would that would be
kind of fun, although like they sort of did that, right,
have they ever? I know they've had like players pick
teams essentially for a while, but like, did they ever
do it where you were picking, like I'll take uh whoever,
like any walks over to your team like you would?
You know, Like I don't think they've ever done that,
And maybe that's just because they don't want like the
last pick guy to feel shitty about it. But who cares,
You're an all star, deal with it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I'm for this. I'm gonna be very interested
to see how it unfolds and the whole just playing
I guess two games in the in the city. It's
but it's like to eighty points, so it's really not
I just and I will be interested. I didn't give
this a thought till you said it. So you have
these eight player teams and it's just like, how often
are you subbing people right into a game that just
ends at forty?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Who's in charge of subs for Kenny Smith? Like
who's keeping him abreast, like who needs to get in?
You'll probably just have like the youngest All Star on
each team or the couple youngest just not play, I
would imagine. I don't know, We'll see, but.
Speaker 1: I'm curious to see, like how they decide the gms,
Like you're just is it always going to be inside
the NBA, which we know will be a part of
ESPN while being produced by WarnerMedia moving forward, or they
change it up, like I really don't want to see
Steve stephen a Smith coach a team that would be
I mean maybe some people would really appreciate that, but
there's a lot of different things that you can now
do for this. But I'm also wondering how many years
did they give the elam ending two? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Was it? I guess yeah, I have to confess I
haven't paid a whole lot of attention to the last
several All Star Games.
Speaker 1: So now that's our the fact that because we don't
have to go there, that's our break.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, exactly now. And look, I guess maybe the
last point to make is like I am interested in
the All Star Game this year, Like I don't know
when the last time I could sincerely say.
Speaker 1: That, right, I've always had it on the past like
half decade or so, it has been like background noise
for me, And this year I'll probably be like locked
in to it. We'll have an emergency podcast when eaves
Me wins MVP coming out of the Rising Stars game.
Speaker 2: You heard it here.
Speaker 1: First, let's dive into the first actual malbag question of
the day, though, Grants, do you like Jimmy Butler on
the Suns if they make it happen? That is from
Philip Lindablum.
Speaker 2: I like it better than Bradley Beal on the Suns
if I mean, that's the basically the only way it
would happen, right Like, that's just that he's got a
way of the no trade he's got to change his
opinion on because there was a real chance for Beal
to go to Miami, right like when he was traded
from the Wizards, I think, and he just basically I
would prefer Phoenix. So you've got some hurdles to get through, obviously,
But if it happens, yeah, I think Butler's just objectively
a better player than Bal. The only thing you'd point
to is three point shooting. For as far as like
an advantage that Beal has both similarly like come with
availability concerns. Butler obviously the farm more proven defender, playmaker, playoff, performer,
all that stuff. So like, I guess you're still dealing
with questions of like, is Jimmy Butler the type of
player the Suns need most? But I think you're like
just unequivocally yes.
Speaker 1: If you I understand he's older and the trade will
Phillip is right, Like he would have to be Beal
and it would basically be I think it's like ble
plus minimum salary X. So I mean Alec Burks excuse me,
so you'd have to send an extra player to Phoenix
in this. So if you said Alec Burks via the
minimum exception, I believe it works. So Butler and Burks
for Bradley Beal. But then I'm assuming Phoenix is going
to include its twenty twenty thirty one pick as part
of this, And I think if you put Beal well first,
I want to ask you this. If Beal was going
to waive his no trade clause and he forced his
way to Phoenix but Miami was at one point on
his short list, do you think that might do you
do you think that people most people have just kind
of written this off, And to me, it feels like
there's an opportunity for it to be more genuine, like
an actual legitimate trade scenario than people have kind of
acknowledged so far. Because yes, and there's also to make
it easier, you can involve third teams to try and
like kind of expand salaries, and there's no aggregation for
Phoenix's part, but like if you need.
Speaker 2: Detroit sitting over there with plenty of room and willing
to sell, so.
Speaker 1: Like, I actually think it's possible because I believe that
Beale could probably talk himself into Miami might be a
cooler place for him to live than Phoenix, and you
still have Bam and Tyler Hero there. Theoretically, maybe the
Miami's going as part of a teardown, So could you
sell yourself and you're in the east, so you might
wind up as the same seat as Phoenix will wind
up in the West anyway come playoff time, for all
you know, i'd be cures. I think I really think
there's more of a legitimate chance that it happens. So
I wanted kind of your thoughts on that before we
get into you know doesn't make sense for the Suns.
Speaker 2: Unlike just the general likelihood of it happening. Yeah, Like yeah,
I think it's fairly plausible. I mean, like they're just
if you're trading Butler, which I don't know. I still
I still am skeptical other than the Warriors as like a, yeah,
I guess I could see that, but like that, Keith
Smith laid it out like, man, it's fucking hard to
do this, like for for almost anybody, and it's not.
And that's including the teams that are sort of rumored
that Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, and the Warriors. Like Dallas has
to trade a huge chunk of its roster, Houston has
basically said we don't want to make a trade like this.
The Warriors, I think you could definitely get it done.
I just don't know if that's that's the most likely
of the four teams that are out there, So like, yeah,
I think it, I think it could happen. I think
Phoenix is desperate. I think if you're this, if you're
the Heat, I don't know that you really like want beal,
but you want something as opposed to having to like
lose Butler for nothing if he opts out or try
to go to sign and trade route or whatever. So yeah,
it's it's definitely, it's definitely plausible. I don't know, like
if is it more likely than not? No, probably not.
I'd say it's it's unlikely to happen, but it's not
like something I would dismiss as like impossible.
Speaker 1: I think for the Heat specifically, it's easier to justify
for Phoenix, But if you're the Heat, the justification would be, well,
what is Jimmy Butler's value? So if the Warriors aren't
gonna give us more because they have more picks and
young players in flexibility to play around with, what is
the team that's going to give you multiple first or
multiple prospects. Jimmy has said he's going to opt out,
which in theory I think teams are if he said
he was going to opt in. I don't know how
much that hurts his trade value either, but teams are
if the possibility of him leaving is out there, that
diminishes his value. And then also as Miami, and this
might be the bigger selling point is two of your
next three draft picks are gone and one of them
is lottery protected until Kingdom come, but we've never seen
the just like rebuild up during the pat Riley era really,
and so beal in theory if he's healthy, has the
cachet to say, hey, we're still trying to kind of
be competitive. Yeah, So that that's the justification from their perspective,
because otherwise I'd rather ship him to Golden State or
just like even would I guess it gets tough because
what are the teams aside from Golden State that would
give up let's say, more value and like with Jimmy
headed towards free because we can't even say, well, the
Pacers should take a flyer just as an example. They're
not going to be a team that does that. Forget
about their salary structure with Halle and Siakam, they're not
gonna do that. When Butler is saying he's going to
opt out, like, that's just not a risk they're gonna take.
Speaker 2: Right, If I guess the way you're framing it, if
if you're the heat, I mean, if you're yeah, if
you're the heat you're getting, you're getting Phoenix's twenty thirty one,
is that is that.
Speaker 1: Part of your like that that's basically the Yeah, I'm
looking down as the bones of the package. Just Beal
in twenty thirty one for the.
Speaker 2: Pick is like, okay, that's I mean, that might be
a huge valuable pick. Probably probably will be a hugely
valuable pick. Pat Riley's about to be eighty. I don't
know how much he cares about. But like, if I
keep coming back to like, I don't think Bal He's
getting a pick attached to him. Bill, I don't think
is a positive trade asset, like there is not viewed
that way by anybody. So if I'm Miami, I would
much rather have Wiggins coming a pick or two, or
even just those two guys than Beal and a distant first,
because it's just like Bill is someone that you might
need to pay to get off of, And I don't
know that he's necessarily good enough to be like to
drive winning more effectively in the short term than like
just Andrew Wiggins full stop. Like I know, I just
I don't know if that's the case, especially if you
consider like Andrew Wiggins and whatever, the differences between his salary,
which is like twenty seven and Beal's. So that's why
Phoenix feels unlikely certainly compared to Golden State but I
think if you can't, if Golden State's just like now,
we're not gonna do anything, then getting that first is
I mean, that's that's if the alternative is losing Butler
for nothing, then yeah, you probably do that. But it's
not like a It's a long way from a no brainer.
Speaker 1: It feels like a last resort for the heat is
what it was. Because but also it feels like a
plausible last resort that rereach, because what is the I'm
just trying to think of, like, what team if we
assume that Houston is intent on waiting out a consolidation move,
which I think is smart for them at this point,
what's the other team aside from Golden State that you know,
under the circumstances Jimmy's age contract situation is going to
come in and you know they're gonna have a better offer.
And I don't, Like I thought about Atlanta a little
bit might be interesting, but then you got to offer
the reward.
Speaker 2: You just have to come up with somebody. You can't
because it's not coming from Dallas or or or you
already said Houston, So like.
Speaker 1: Dallison needs to basically give up Kyrie Irving or their
entire team right.
Speaker 2: Just like an that's just not well and Keith laid
out like you almost I think it's doable, but like
you have to fill out like three more roster spots
with like three hundred thousand dollars to spend.
Speaker 1: And also a team like Memphis could make a lot
of sense. But it's also how many players are they
trading to get there, and those types of trades are
really difficult to pull off in the middle of the
season because they don't have when you look at their
like big time salary anchors. You're not moving any one Jamrant,
Desmond Baine even though he's having a rough go right now,
and Jared j You're not moving any one of those
guys for Jimmy Butler. Yeah, you wouldn't move Desmond Bane
for Jimmy Butler.
Speaker 2: Correct. Uh No, I don't think so. I think just
the age and the contractor for lack of security, you
just you might be renting Jimmy. I'm not renting Jimmy
Butler for Desmond Baane. Like, that's not that's not in
the cards for me, unless I mean, if you're like
this makes you the unequivocal favorite to win the title,
then I think you probably do almost anything, but like,
I don't know that that's the case.
Speaker 1: Now, So from Phoenix is per effective. Though, Do you
like Jimmy because that was the question. We apologize for
taking so long to get here, Philip, Do you like
Jimmy Butler's forget about the Beal of it all by saying, well,
he makes more sense than Beale. You aren't giving up
your last best trade ship in this deal. Does Jimmy
Butler make enough sense next to Kevin Durant, Devin Booker
and what's already in place? Then, knowing, by the way,
because you're giving up your first round pick here, maybe
you get lucky on the buy out market or figure
something else out with a Grace and Allen trade or
a Royce O'Neal trade. You've now decided, okay, like we're
not upgrading the center position in a meaningful way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's hard for me to talk about it without
just comparing him to Beial because I would say, well,
he's just a better playmaker. He's a smarter offensive player,
he's a much more versatile defender. So just like you're
adding all these pluses, he's a very different player type.
I think you could if you're concerned about Devin Booker's
on ball playmaking, he's too much like we need to
get him back to previous roles. Like Butler can be
totally fine as essentially an offensive hub. He's done that
for title teams more or finals teams more or less.
Speaker 1: Also, just the rim pressure for this team where they're
probably I'm not even gonna yeah, they're dead last in
rim frequency, just gonna put I didn't even need to
look at that before.
Speaker 2: I just told you he ticks a lot more boxes.
And like you know, Durant and Booker and Bill, this
is just reitering. What you're saying is like they kind
of like the same sorts of shots and and and
Butler's you know, Butler's no stranger to like the DeRozan
game of like mid rangey stuff where he just goes
in his bag, but like he's looking to draw fouls
a little more often. He's in the rim pressure. As
you said, I think he's he's different enough offensively that
it might really put Durant and Booker back into roles
that they're just better at. But Durant's been great, but
like Booker specifically, I feel like has not looked his
best this season, and I do you.
Speaker 1: Do you worry about like maybe not changing because Phoenix
has changed his shot profile overall, specifically looking at the
share of their attempts coming from three, Like thirty five
percent of their looks last year came from deep that
was nineteenth. That's a before forty two point six percent
this year, which is sixed. And so I think Booker
has actually been pretty instrumental. He's at it like eight
attempts per game almost. I think their shot profile now
because I think you can make the case, well, don't
we want to more materially like skew our shot profile differently,
if we're gonna give up this twenty thirty one pick,
and it's you might be just because Okay, you're losing
three point volume because Jimmy just doesn't take a ton
of them, but now you're gaining rim pressure like in
addition to it. So it's I don't think that it would.
I don't. I wouldn't find it as redundant as I've
seen some people point out. And I also think the
difference of forget even about the playmaking, just defensively, the
way that Kevin Durant has been playing this year defensively,
and then if you add Jimmy Butler into that, who
streamlines life for everybody, Devin Booker, Kevin Durant, whoever else
is going to be on the court with them, that
becomes a real massive deal, I would argue, maybe even
more so in the playoffs than the regular season. My
one concern though, would be do you think that Jimmy
Butler is good enough off the because I do think
Bradley Beal is probably easier to fit in as an
off ball weapon. And maybe I'm kind of under selling
like the movement we see from Jimmy under coach Bow,
but do you trust that with this roster specifically, they
would be able to generate enough like or it would
make that Jimmy Butler would be impactful enough when the
ball is not always going to be in his hands.
Speaker 2: I think so he would just do it differently. It
would you know, he'd get deep seals, or he probably
a better cutter than Beale, like I think I think
he just he would be He just has broader uses.
And it's not like you're not between Booker and Durant.
You're not exactly hurting for guys that are going to
stretch the defense, like flying off screens or whatever. So
like that, it just it's less of a duplicative skill
set than you have with Beale, and so like I think,
if anything, like Butler might be better operating in the
space created by those other two superstars at like finding
pockets to score off the ball closer to the basket
than Beal would.
Speaker 1: Like, especially the catch and go game. He's that's definitely
something he's gonna be better at.
Speaker 2: He's better, right, Like, he's just a better player in
almost every facet.
Speaker 1: So and you're up in your timeline. How old is
Beal now? Is he thirty three? He's thirty one, So
you're moving your timeline up quite a bit. But I
think the upgrade is substantial enough. I would just be
you're always gonna feel this way, but it just makes
you think even more about Phoenix's windowed what this team
is eventually going to look like?
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, I mean they're so as somebody was. I
think David Aldridge said there and like win yesterday mode,
and so like I don't care the Butler's thirty five,
Like you're just you just need you need the next
six months.
Speaker 1: Now, let's say though the alternative is that you can
acquire you keep Beal, you give up this pick, and
maybe you get off Nurkic's deal, but you're acquiring a
role player wing in another center. Which path do you
prefer to that? Is it give up deal and that pick,
get Jimmy Butler or give up that pick and let's
say let's use the Nrkic salary and get a center
and a cheap wing in return, or is it you know,
maybe let's even say it's separate deals because like you
could give up that first round pick whatever other salary.
That's gonna make it like separate trades because they can't
aggregate and you're going to get a rotation wing and
a rotation big. Do you prefer that route or the
let's continue to kind of it's not a consolidation trade necessarily,
but it also kind of is.
Speaker 2: I think I think it's fair to acknowledge that, like
Phoenix needs the things you're talking about, like it's got
more than one issue, and like and that broadly speaking,
its issue is not a lack of like scoring stars,
but I think just the net gain of Butler outweighs
anything else you could get with those assets. So like
you'd still have a lot of the same problems or
all of them that you do with the current roster
and Nurkic being a piece of it. Like, I just
would rather have those problems on the roster and Jimmy
Butler than try to address them and not have Jimmy Butler.
Speaker 1: I think I'm with you. I'd probably want to see
the names of just like, Okay, well, what big and
rotation wing are we sort of talking about, but without knowing,
like I don't know what bigsally a rotation wing you
can name that would make me not pick the Jimmy Butler.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it'd have to be pretty impressive, I think, Franklin.
Speaker 1: I'm even trying to think just let's say it's a
healthy Isaiah Stewart and then like, who's sort of a
cheap wing. Let's just say they could finagle it where
it's Dorian Phinney Smith and Isaiah Stewart. They could make
the math work in separate deals. But would you prefer
that or do you just prefer getting Jimmy Butler?
Speaker 2: I think it's I think it's Butler. And then another
factor is, like you what if Kevin Durant misses time,
like do Isaiah Stewart and Dorian.
Speaker 1: Phine misses time Drant they win like nine percent of
their games.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And if you have Jimmy Butler, I bet it's
at least ten percent. I think they like that. That
insulates you from a key thing that you know is
like very much in the cards, which is Durant missing
a first round series or whatever. Like if you have
Dorian Phinney Smith and Isaiah Stewart and no Durant, like
those two guys aren't winning you a playoff series on
their own, Jimmy Butler might still pull that off and
buy you, buy you time for Durant to get back.
Speaker 1: And you're also about the age stuff. Bradley Beal is
just as big as a check for health questions.
Speaker 2: If you could say, give you the next two years
of Butler or Bale, I think I probably still take Butler.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's not even a question, even like
he started off the season not so hot and he's
definitely been a lot better since I I would do
it if I'm Phoenix, I don't. I think it's more
plausible that because I think a lot of people in
like our circle just kind of be like, oh, at like, ah,
how funny like, but it's not happening. I really do
think it's probably just because Jimmy has some type of
leverage here, and I don't think his trademarket in theory's
gonna be as robust to where Miami can sit there
and say we don't want this Phoenix twenty three. If
Beal's willing to wave his no trade clause, I don't
think it's gonna be as easy for Miami to say, well,
we can do better than Phoenix's twenty thirty one pick
and a fringe star who's on a bad contract for
the next couple of years.
Speaker 2: Miami's not quite in this position, but it's like it's
close to would you like something or nothing, and they'll
just pick something.
Speaker 1: I think I will I will advocate. There are other
teams that I would like to see, like I would
like in Atlanta at this point with the way their
defense has been, like, let's just can you get him
without giving up Resa che j Allen Johnson and Dyson Daniels, like,
figure out a way to make that. You probably look
a lot smaller after that, but that team would be
fun as hell.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that'd be I mean, he makes Butler would make
he doesn't come with all the same like I don't know,
he doesn't space the floor, so how scalable is he?
Like he's just one of the rare players that will
just figure out how to make your team better.
Speaker 1: Even me asking that question before to you about whether
you're worried more about like under cells, just like how
smart and useful he is as a player, even though
he's not a higher volume three point shooter. But and
then the playoffs roll around and he just shoots fifty
percent from three too. Sure you take that into the
equation as well. You want to read our next question, grant.
Speaker 2: How many players should the Bulls trade? If they don't?
Speaker 1: Why that's a really so the players that should be
non negotiable to trade, And I think at this point,
I'm as long as you don't have to include anything.
I know they've been good, but I know you don't.
If you don't have to include anything to get them
off your books, Zachlavine and Vouch should just be gone,
got it? And if you're taking back bad money for
either one, then yes you want assets in return, but
Vouch in expiring salary and a second round pick. I
would do it. I know he's had a good year.
He serves no purpose for you long term. And by
the way, these are two of the primary reasons why
the Bulls are within a stone's throw of five hundred,
and you could envision them not trading anybody and trying
to actively get better after that. I think it gets
into now we're talking about like, yeah, okay, look at
moving Tory Craig. But I'm more talking about like the
actual main names. I think you should look at moving
everybody who's not modest Bozellis.
Speaker 2: It's just isn't it easier to frame this as as
like who should not be traded and it's basically bzillous
because I know you're gonna get here. But like, there
are reasons to trade Kobe White and Iodasumu too, right,
they're different, but like those reasons exist, Patrick Williams. The
reasons obvious, but like it's just a question of what reasons.
It's not are there reasons to trade everybody? It's just
like which type of reason is it? So like, give
me the Kobe White and Iow thumbnail reason. Like we've
talked about it plenty of times.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and with Kobe White, it's his trade value is
never going to be higher than it is right now
for you, because his deal is so good he has
more than a year left on it. I think you
could argue his highest trade point was over the offseason
when he had those two full seasons left on his contract.
And I understand that he's relatively young. He's not going
to extend off of this salary because one hundred and
forty percent off of thirteen million is going to come
in below market for him. I know free agency has changed,
but players of his age, of his ILK, I would
argue they're probably like, this isn't a Jordan Clarkson type,
Like this is someone who is more dynamic offensively and
certainly not as streaky, and I think he's easier to
fit in alongside other ball dominant players. That's the name
where I think you look at it and say, if
the Bulls move this player, they are committed to doing
this thing properly. And that's not to say they can
hold on to him and still do this properly, but
that's the evidence of Okay, the Bulls are serious about rebuilding,
reinventing themselves. Like that's the name who's a Harbinger. I
don't think anybody here should be the untouchable aside from
Buzzelli's who's just we talk about He's team first team,
all hashtag try shit and I appreciate that, so I
and I would love to see him they're talking about.
There was the report that like, hey, they'd be they'd
consider taking back like moving Lonzo Ball. If I'm a team,
I'd absolutely just take a flyer on Lonzo Ball. I'm
not shooting it too well, but like he said, some
good defensive moments. His passing meme back in Our Lives
is great. It's an expiring contract. Is that someone if
you're taking back a certain type of contract that you
could get like a nice pick for a good prospect
for I don't know, but yeah, I'm with you. The
question really is who shouldn't the Bulls trade And there's
really only one answer. I honestly, you could talk me
into they should probably keep not if they were choosing
between the two, just keep Io over Kobe, because I
think there's a chance that Io's never gonna cost a
ton of money to retake.
Speaker 2: He's the one that you might capital m might be
able to extend. Kobe White just there's no way, like,
he's going to be a free agent and yeah, whatever
you could, you could resign him, but I just like,
I don't think an extension is possible. So you're gonna
face free agency with both most likely, iow is like,
I mean, interestingly, he's the one that we keep just
trying to send someplace that needs a like a role
playing you know, defense, Like he fits so many places.
But I think his market value will just be lower
and you might be able to extend him if you
want to write, like that's that's that's the other part
of it.
Speaker 1: Here's the name we haven't mentioned. Should they be looking
to move Josh Giddy?
Speaker 2: Can they get a first round pick for him?
Speaker 1: I would assume not, but like teams would probably take
a flyer on him and rather than be on the
hook for his next contract.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think, Like, so, what's the we've This has
been the point of discussion since they made the trade
for Giddy, Like, what's the best case scenario. It's that
he performs really well and you are just in paying
him what you know, you're certainly not going to give
him the kind of extension that a bunch of his
draft mates got. But like that he earns an extension
you're comfortable giving, Like, I don't know, Like what is
the doll what is he worth right now? Like if
you're signing him to his next contract, I have no idea.
So I'd rather just get move him for a draft asset.
Speaker 1: Honestly, I don't think they would, just because why would
they take him back in the first place. But I
would argue that as of right now, this has almost
been the worst case scenario for them, whereas he has
some numbers, feels kind of like a triple double threat,
Like that's the type of permittent production he gives you
not shooting all that well from three this season, and
so he hasn't actualized his best case scenario, but it's
not the worst case to where has he effectively repressed
his value? And oh, by the way, he has some
like of these games where he's compiled a bunch of
numbers and yet you're worse statistically at both ends of
the floor with him on the court. And how do
you figure out what that guy is worth to you,
either as a trade asset or just as a on
his next contract? Like it's made it. This is the
dilemma that we said they should have avoided, but that
they've kind of just signed up for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean he's a fascinating player. Like I'm so
curious about what his market is because they're.
Speaker 1: Not getting around pick for him. I would be shocked.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think so either, But like you could
just depending on the team, you could look at his
youth and like box scortse and like justa like, man,
I don't know, like what if what if he becomes
a forty percent three point shooter at the two point
finishing is actually as big a problem as anything. But
then that bumps up against like does a smart team
look at him and just say, like the theory of
him in a really successful lineup just does not exist,
Like he just that type of his specific skill set
is just like we can't really build a winner like
because of the defense and because of the need for
the ball and like all this other stuff. I don't
know how you that. I'm just really interested to see,
like if anything, what if anything the Bulls get for him,
and then just who decides we're in the giddy business
going forward?
Speaker 1: And at what pay rate do you think, Like now
that they've traded shrewder Brooklyn, I don't know, I don't
know what they want to give up, certainly not a first,
but it's like, do we just take the flyer on
giddy to see because he's he's not going to drive
your tank to lie, but like, maybe you find this
player who can run your offense the way that you
want Ben Simmons to run your offense. But he's certainly
he's definitely a more dynamic shot maker.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think it's a pretty clear statement on
like sort of where he is that the teams that
make the most sense as far as acquiring him are
the ones with nothing to lose, Like, are the ones
that like they don't care about the downside. I mean
that that might speak louder than anything else we could
say about him.
Speaker 1: So I guess so really quickly, I'm gonna set the
over under just an all Bowls primary rotation players at
one and a half being traded at by the deadline.
Are you taking the over or the under?
Speaker 2: I would go over. I think you, just like I've
if they don't trade one of Levigne or Vucevic, I'd
be shocked, and then you just need one more to
get the over. So I think I think ideally they
trade both and then anything else beyond that is gravy.
But you got if they don't move either of them,
like what's happening? What are we? What are we doing?
Speaker 1: Well, that's what that's the why. Then the second part
of this question might be more fascinating than the first
part is for Maddie, if they don't make any moves,
then why is it just they're habitually obsessed with finishing
between nine and eleven? And he said, I don't under
like that's it.
Speaker 2: That would be it, That's what it's been, right, So
like that that might just continue to be the issue.
The thing for me is like they've had the bulls
have been defined by their failure to get value for assets,
like when they could have in the past, in the
recent past, like go Caruso durozen on and on. Even
Levine to some extent, Levine is playing great, like this
is about the most you could have extend Vucevic too,
Like you could not ask for more productive seasons from
these two guys and have been healthy. The Levine's missed
four games this year, just missed us fourth the other day.
Like if they don't move them now and then their
value goes down, which it will because this is pretty
much peak for both. They'll just be doing it again
and you just can't let you can't let that happen.
It's just like that, that would be the exact same
mistake over and over again.
Speaker 1: Here's a question, if you're Brooklyn, would you do Josh
Giddy and Patrick Williams for boy and Bogdanovitch and salary X?
So where it's Chicago is using Giddy to get off
the Patrick Williams contract, and then Brooklyn is maybe they
don't love that deal for Williams, but do they think
they could rehab his value? It's small enough to where
it's never going to count for even twenty percent of
the salary cap? Or is that just not enough to
take on because now you're like, well then we're just
going to pay Josh Giddy after this season?
Speaker 2: Or not? I mean, is what's you said? Bogdanovic? And
what else? Uh?
Speaker 1: But and salary X like is it is it? Zayie
er Williams. It's because the money is like fairly close
if you could also do like a Ben Simmons trade
if you're just like expanding it from Chicago's end, But
so between Giddy at eight point four and Patrick Williams
at eighteen, that's really twenty six point five million. And
so if you have that Bugdanovic slot that's nineteen. You
can aggregate Melton too right before the trade deadline that's
twelve point eight. Zire Williams is six point one. You're
not setting out Cam Thomas or Dayron Sharp.
Speaker 2: It's like, there's what wouldn't you because unless you think
you're gonna get a first from somebody for Bogdanovitch, which
I don't think you are, that couldn't get one for Shrewder.
So like the market set, why wouldn't you take a
crack at like maybe like I don't believe Patrick Williams
is going to be like a starting caliber player or
justify his contract, but he might and again it's nothing
to lose thing like then you have Gideon him for
the rest of this year that they will help you
not win. So like I don't I don't understand why
what are you holding on to Bogdanovic and that salary
filler four?
Speaker 1: I think it's just Patrick Williams has four more years
left on his deal after this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you're you're not gonna be winning anytime soon.
And like just the the I don't know what the
percentage chance is that he justifies his draft slot and
that contract, but it's not zero. So I can also
in case you should just take a shot at it.
Speaker 1: And let's say so by the end of next season
when they I've used when now they're draft picks. Okay,
now they're conveying again not to Brooklyn and they're going
to their own to Houston. Right, So it's well, there's
really only three years left on that deal and that
doesn't look so bad, right, And.
Speaker 2: It's like, I don't know, it's it's definitely like that
deal is worse because the Bulls gave it out, you
know what I mean, Like the stigma of it is
attached to the team that pays.
Speaker 1: They Essentially, would you, well, in a vacuum, would you
do that as the Bulls to get off the Williams
contract and then you're also kind of getting off the
hook for Josh Getty's next contract.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, it looks worse. I think the fact that
I so readily said yes from the Nets side means
I can't do it with quite so little hesitation on
the Bulls side, because I if I'm doing that, I'm
just man for the nets.
Speaker 1: Really, because the Patrick Williams deal, Yeah, there's it's not
a it's a he might live up to that contract
or come close to it. I know he gives you
value Defensively, He's always shot the ball fairly well from three. Yeah,
but like that, that's a long contract. It may not
be this albatross, but that's a long long contract. If
I'm the Bulls, now is the optics of were this?
This is what that trade would be the Bulls using
Alex Caruso to get off of a deal for Patrick Williams.
They didn't have to give him. Oh, it's kind of reality.
Speaker 2: If you look at it that way, almost anything they
do is going to be bad because it's just like
you could have just got a first for Alex Caruso.
Speaker 1: Like in our comments are mentions that have said, like,
Caruso's not shooting the ball while this year he's always injured,
only plays x amount of minutes per game. Okay, you
know what, he also helps drive winning and your defense,
and you know what, Josh Giddy does none of those
things the opposite. Also, Josh Ginnny's averaging, he's not playing
like thirty five minutes a game. He's averaged twenty five
minutes per game last year. He's with the twenty seven
point one this year. Yeah, I get that he's younger,
but what if you I just find it there was
I don't care what you think the peak of Crusoe
trade trade value was, Like it's debatable. I know for
fact the Bulls could have gotten a first round pick
for him or.
Speaker 2: Was it two at some point?
Speaker 1: Like and I'm sure that's but I know for a fact,
like they could have gotten a first round picker Elex Crew.
So don't sit here and tell me they couldn't have
gotten a first round picker Olx Crew.
Speaker 2: So that's that's wrong.
Speaker 1: Uh so did you you took the over on one
point five? I'm gonna take the over two because if
they don't, I don't know that we have that. We
made a joke about being addicted to the bottom of
the middle, but there is no defensible answer for not
trading as many players possible. This next question comes from Yoho.
Denver is currently fifth in the West and Sacramento is twelfth,
but as of December sixteenth, they both have thirteen wins.
Will this parody continue or will a new tier emerge
out of teams five through twelve shout out. I can't
remember who did it, but we had a when we
were doing the overreactions or the hot predictions, and we
had our subscribers submit their own someone said that thirteen
teams in the Western Conference we're gonna finish above five hundred,
and that's clearly not gonna happen. Or maybe it was twelve.
If it was twelve, we're not that far away from
it being just a fact.
Speaker 2: So this is so there's kind of like two ways
to take this, and I want to deal with the
first one up front, Like, so are we talking about
parody continuing in terms of the standings, Like will we
have these crazy slim margins between standings or is it
viewed as like through the championship equity lens where it's like, well,
they have the same number of wins, are similar, therefore
we should view Sacramento and Denver and on down the
list Houston, Dallas, whatever similarly. Because because actually I'm kind
of interested in talking about the second part of that.
But but I would answer first like I do think
we're just in for parity. I think I think we're
gonna have really like down to the wire. You might
finish fourth, you might finish ninth. Like in the last
week of the season. I think we could be in
for some like really close races in that sense. What
do you do you agree with that part of it?
Speaker 1: I do agree, because what is the team that's going
to pivot out of this power pready muck and maybe
san Antonio but probably not. And I think there might
be a case at some point where if the Kings
are just still dwindling outside, it's kind of time to
regroup at the trade deadline. But you wouldn't predict.
Speaker 2: We think the opposite's gonna happen with them, right, We've
said that we think they're gonna be.
Speaker 1: And King Shans do not agree with me. So this
is probably a terrible thing. I think the Kings are
a lot better than their record reflects, even in this
Western Conference, So I don't think they should go that route,
and I don't think they will. I think the parody continues.
I didn't even take it the way that you were
viewing it. So that's an interesting way to frame it
in terms of championship equity.
Speaker 2: Well, so I just I was gonna say we should
take this opportunity to like tier out the West in
terms of championship equity, because it does look like, oh
my god, it's wide open. I don't think that's really
the case. So like, let's just say, uh is Okaye.
Speaker 1: Is the thunder by themselves?
Speaker 2: That's what I was going to ask you. Are they
in a tier by themselves or and if they are not,
who do we include in that tier with them?
Speaker 1: Who is? I don't have the answer. Can I give
you a couple options?
Speaker 2: So, like my thought, the teams I would consider putting
in Okac's tier are Dallas, Memphis, Denver, and Minnesota.
Speaker 1: Oh, Dallas is a good one. I think Dallas belongs
in there.
Speaker 2: I think I agree if I had if they had
any one I would say, I would say Dallas is
the one I would lean towards if I had to
pick one. But I don't feel great about it. So
I feel like the next tier is Dallas, Memphis, Denver,
Minnesota in terms of like they're not on the Thunders tier.
They could all be in the finals and I wouldn't
like bad And I just like, and I've excluded Houston
from that group just because of the youth and inexperience,
and they don't have the like number one option scoring
star that I feel like you need to be there.
Speaker 1: A half court offense still almost bottom five. They're not
shooting a lot from three or making a ton of
their threes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I would you good.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering. I'm honestly wondering if Dallas belongs in the
same tier as Oklahoma City because Oklahoma City clearly has
not to use the NBA Cup as an example, but
like the offense can get sticky, like they need more
shooting or another creator there.
Speaker 2: It happened in against Houston in the last two games
or two, right, it happened against Houston. It happened again
against Milwaukee. That's two good defenses are I mean Houston certainly,
but Milwaukee played good defense in that game.
Speaker 1: Dallas beat them last year, and so I think Dallas
probably belongs in the same tiers. Okay, I would have
if we were ranking within the tier, but like Dallas is,
I don't even think they've peaked yet, and they just
they're they're really good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree, So if I move anyone up, it's Dallas.
So from the tier below that group, you have Houston,
Golden State, Sacramento, and Phoenix. Does any of them belong
in the Memphis, Denver, Minnesota tier or is that a
good You don't think so. I think we're reming no trades.
If Butler we can readdress, but I.
Speaker 1: Think most of those teams might be one player away.
But yeah, I don't think any of them belong in
the second tier.
Speaker 2: Houston you probably feel the worst about just because that
defense is so elite like and if but we're saying
no trades. So, but I don't know how you get
past the offensive stuff with them unless you change the roster.
So the last two I have before we just don't
care anymore are the Clippers and Lakers. I think you
can make a case the Clippers belong in the Houston
Sack Phoenix, Golden State tier. The Lakers I don't think
you could. But that's kind of where I've mark I've
got four real tiers of like playoff type teams. Then
that's kind of how I break them down.
Speaker 1: The Clippers are tough because, especially if we're assuming no trades,
can we do we assume that if they have Kawhi,
it's just such a different ballgame for them, And there
I think one of their main problems aside from the
like James Harden just carries this in his prime workload
at the moment and like he's just not built to
his rim shot quality hasn't been worse in like over
half a decade than it is right now. But if
Kawhi comes back, it changes things for them. So I
would almost want to nudge them up into that tier
that has Houston. And I'm also compelled I want to
nudge Houston up as well, just because of how inconsistent
like we have the because what's the difference. Is it
just the experience and maybe the depth for you between
Houston and Memphis, where they have a lot of similar
offensive issues aside from well they have like a clear
cut number one number two on offense, but their first
chance offense, neither of these teams are setting the world
on fire.
Speaker 2: I think I think Memphis comes closer to having. I
think Memphis, certainly on offense, has more opportunities to like
create matchup problems to me in a playoff series, And
I think jaw is just a better driver of offense
against really great defense than anyone Houston has at the moment.
So I mean again, that's close. Like if I were
moving a team up to the Memphis Denver Minnesota tier,
it would be Houston. I guess I just trust Memphis more.
I think Memphis is. I don't know. I was about
to say, like, well Edie is back and like he
actually has been hugely positively impactful and if they have
him for the full season. No, I can't go that far. Though.
Speaker 1: There's a separator there because Memphis is I just looked
it up. They're fourteenth in first chance offense and Houston's
twenty fifth. There's a year.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Memphis is fifth in offense overall, right, like.
Speaker 1: They're the only team in the top five of both
off I know they're deep, but holy shit, yeah, oh
they're really good there, so I would So that was
just to illustrate like there is gonna be standings parody.
Speaker 2: I don't know what would have to but I do
think there are pretty there's pretty clear stratification in terms
of like who we think is going to like make
the finals right in the West. I think there are
some real cutoff points.
Speaker 1: I think we agree that it's okay seven Dallas, even
if you want to put Dallas in the second tier.
Who was the third most menacing contender in the Western Conference.
Speaker 2: I mean, so I have to choose from Memphis, Denver, Minnesota.
Those are my candidates. If nobody makes a trade, I
might Minnesota, right, I don't know, man, Like, so the
case for Denver is they have Jokic. That's where it
starts and ends. Uh. Minnesota feels like the defense is
it's fixed now? Uh? And can you just find enough
ways to like mess with the rotations to score? But
then Memphis is just right there. The Memphis is top five,
and both we just said offense and defense, Like, why
is it a Memphis?
Speaker 1: Who's I guess Minnesota and Memphis have just similar concerns
for different reasons of do you trust their playoff offense?
And Denver it's I kind of trust their playoff offense.
I mean we're getting the good version of Jamal Murray
at the moment. Uh huh, man, I think this I
want towards the team that has Jokic, right, But there's
too much combustibility in Denver. I don't I know the
Jokic minutes have been they were so grant as of
games entering on December eighteenth, when we're recording this, which
is a is it a Wednesday? Wednesday? The Nuggets are
out scoring teams by more points per possession with Yokic
on the court this year than they were last season. Yeah,
twelve point eight versus twelve point six. That is insane,
just when you consider like how and even Denver has
looked like Jamal Murray not been great for the first
part of your Maybe it's because he's come on, you
understand it more and you could say, well, Casep's not
doing that well in Orlando, like you shed like a
top five rotation player, top six rotation player if you
want to. And the Nuggets are better with Jokich on
before this year across more time per game than they
were last season. That is That's bonkers me. But this
is not a Nicolai Oakice podcast. We've had enough of those.
Speaker 2: All right, Let's move to the next question. That was
a good question. I enjoyed that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good question, Thank you, Joho. Our next
question comes from and it's yours.
Speaker 2: All right, This is from Hayden and sons. How would
you prefer to build a team for the next ten years?
And I'll go a little deeper on this because I
think this is another one of my favorite questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is the one that I've thought so much
about and come to zero conclusions.
Speaker 2: I'm glad I got for.
Speaker 1: The YouTube wotchers because it's it's very in depth.
Speaker 2: This okay, so I'll just should I just read the
whole question? I feel like, yeah, okay. So, via a
magic genie, you are now the general manager of Team X.
Your objective is to win a championship within ten years.
It's a long time horizon. You are given the choice
between having two thirty plus year old all NBA level
players at the start, but you have a mediocre roster
around them and the picks cupboard is virtually barren. Or
you start with the team with no cornerstones on the roster,
but you have two first round picks in each of
the next four drafts and are guaranteed a top five
pick for the next three years. So you got eight
firsts in the next four drafts. You're getting three guys
in the top five of the next three classes. Pretty good.
Which team do you feel most confident you can win
a championship within the next within that ten year timeframe.
I want to start by looking at precedent, and so
I looked at the last like I don't know, maybe
ten twelve champions and try to see which of the
two buckets they fit into, and unfortunately, the vast majority
of them are like kind of in the middle. You
could cite the twenty two Warriors as your over thirty's team.
Speaker 1: Yeah, probably what was the last team? It was probably
the Spurs and those Warriors where all their top players
were over thirty.
Speaker 2: Right, you've got to go way back to the Spurs.
If you go before the twenty two Warriors, the no
cornerstones but picks and guaranteed three x top fives. It's
basically last year's Celtics. Like that's as close as you
get from like you got the Tatum and Browns, those
really two You're built through the draft essentially, is what
like the other alternative is you might say the thunder
are like a current model for that, even though they
didn't have multiple top fives, they just, you know, anyway,
everybody else is like kind of in between. So you
look at the twenty three Nuggets, neither there's no to
they don't have any nobody was over thirty that was
like an All NBA player on that team. Twenty one
Bucks kind of neither traded for Drew Holliday. Giannis wasn't
a top five pick. Brook Lopez was over thirty, like,
not an all NBA guy. Twenty Lakers, maybe that's close.
Anthony Davis was not thirty. So you had one old
all NBA guy and one guy in.
Speaker 1: The skeletal structure of someone who's thirty.
Speaker 2: Or right right, you know, I'll put him up there
with the Warriors. Nineteen Raptors traded for Kawhi, who was
like twenty seven I think, or twenty eight, So like
the eighteen Warriors, seventeen Warriors, that's I mean, Steph All,
the all the guys that they drafted were not thirty
yet on those teams, the sixteen Calves don't really fit
in either bucket. The fifteen Warriors are closer because you
have your Steph, Draymond, and Clay, but none of them
were top five picks, so like I bet they were
all homegrown. Here's the main takeaway is if you are
built around multiple over thirties players, even if they're all
NBA level, it's not happening, like you aren't winning a time.
Speaker 1: Doesn't this kind of describe and maybe doesn't this basically
describe Phoenix Suns.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, that's a great example, Like you those are
the teams that are desperate, Like, those are the teams
that have like one shot at it, and that Suns
team has been together for a year plus. You're not
taking any of their championship equity over a ten year window. Right,
it's maybe this year, maybe next, and then there's it's done.
So the in betweens are where you want to be.
Is like, you want multiple stars. They can be homegrown
or not, but they got to be mid to late twenties.
And that's just that is the championship blueprint. I think,
what what did you what rabbit holes did you go down?
Trying to answer this, I My whole.
Speaker 1: Thing is, so you're looking at the draft and like,
even when you're talking about picks that are this high,
the idea of having two bankable all NBA players, what
are the odds that you get too bankable all NBA
players within that timeframe from that what was it the
three year draft window? Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: What are honestly what are the odds like the let's
be let's look at the Thunder. They have one. They
didn't draft Tim We could say Chet holgrind and Jail
Williams are headed down that path.
Speaker 2: Memphis, they haven't made one yet, John.
Speaker 1: Jaron Dax today, Yeah maybe they would. I mean Chet
holmgreand one he hasn't played enough.
Speaker 2: But Houston is like basically on that path because Jalen
Green read Shepherd, Jabari Smith, there's your top five picks
in consecut consecutive ISH drafts. I'm in Thompson. What was
he a fifth? Was he? I forget what?
Speaker 1: Yeah? He was a top five pick two he was four.
Speaker 2: I guess the question the question, really you could boil
this down to would you rather have Houston's next ten
years to win a championship or Phoenix's. It's like no brainer.
I think I think it's I think it's Houston.
Speaker 1: I think it's Houston's. It's when you but you also
do I do think are we not waiting enough because
because we're saying we'll take Houston and I guess that
makes sense because you're looking at the hit rate on
their top five picks and they're not perfect, Like we
don't know what Reaed Shepherd is. There's clear flaws with Jabari,
there's clear flaws with Amn Thomas. So that probably is
the best analog.
Speaker 2: The counter is like, I think over a ten year window,
your odds of winning any chance in winning one championship
are super low. So like, do you the case for
the two thirty plus all NBA guys is can you
get one and then just you know, the you have
two good years, you win a title the next eight
or garbage you're rebuilding things fall apart, Like is that
smarter than the basically just buying lottery tickets, which is
what you're doing with the young Young pathway. I still
think the clear through line is every one of these
teams that I mentioned, I guess, other than Toronto and
maybe the sixteen Calves because Lebron came back, have a
home grown superstar that they drafted. So I think that's
that's the only thing you know you must have is
at least one guy that becomes a superstar that you drafted,
regardless of where you got him. But other than that,
it's just like there's neither pathway. Is is like, looks great, Yeah, because.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, we can't even assume both of
the thirty. What if we're just taking the Celtics with
a mediocre roster and as Jason Tatum and Jalen Brown
aged thirty plus, because you can't assume, like, how did
you get those players? Yeah, because there's part of me,
and this is what I haven't said yet, is that
you're shrinking the window with option that that was option
A of having the two thirty plus ll NBA players.
But like, if you can guarantee two years of a
fifteen percent chance of winning the championship, are we ever
can you guar like you can't guarantee that Houston is
ever going to have consecutive seasons with that high of
a title equity. Yet they're they're good, they're promising, But
you know why they're good in promising because the expectations
haven't come into the play right and they have all
these paths available and it's not just the picks, but
it's still all these players we've basically discussed, with the
exception of Jalen Green, they could still kind of be
anything or anyone. And I sometimes feel like we over
romanticize that mystique, which is also why we over romanticize
rebuilds and teardowns in general. It was very easy to
laud what the Utah Jazz did right when they traded
Donovantchel Rigobert that it was too lawd and we I
thought we did a good job of lauding everybody, but
it was easier to laud the jazz that it was
to celebrate what Cleveland and Minnesota gave up and did
during that stretch.
Speaker 2: And I think too, to your point the option B,
where you're just hoarding all these top five picks or
what who knows how many more you're getting. We're guaranteed
three top five guys. You're overestimating the odds of you
being able to keep all those guys, because what are
we already talking about with the rockets, It's like, how
do you You can't You can't pay everybody. The thunder
are gonna knock on that door very very soon. So
it's like, if you go with the I'll take all
the picks clean slate, basically, you're assuming that you're gonna
win some of those, probably pretty early on, I think,
because you just you'll get to a point where you're
gonna have to lose some of these guys you drafted
really high because you can't afford them. I still think
that's the way to go because that maximizes your chances
of getting Steph Yanni Yo kich or what getting the
the cornerstone guy that you build around as opposed to
what the sons have. The sons are we keep using them,
but it's like, I don't know who else you point
to as the example of the team built around.
Speaker 1: I mean, this would be a cautionary tale. But the
sense the defunct version or it kind of still is
that he just one of them hasn't played yet the Clippers.
Speaker 2: Great, Yeah, great point, Paul George Kawhi, because and there's
another Jamie Carden. Right, there's a price and risk, right
if you go the route of the two older guys,
like they're more likely to miss time because the older
you get, the more likely you already get hurt. There
are special cases, I guess, but like that's a risk
you got a factor into. I go to answer the question,
I go the young route just because I know I
need to get like the guy who's who I have
control over and is a super duper star at age
twenty seven.
Speaker 1: I think I'm with you. I would agree. I do
think it's interesting if you do it through the lens
of oh, how what was the gap between the Warriors titles.
So they Wonted twenty eighteen, the wont A gat in
twenty twenty two, So four years. Yeah, So if you're
saying that they're the best sort of analogue for option
A like that won a title recently.
Speaker 2: They did it both ways kind of right, But it's.
Speaker 1: Would you rather have kind of Houston or let's say
the Golden State that team, and you know it's the
four year window, but like after that it's kind of
fading because that we're just kind of assuming that this
is a one or two year window. But if you
open it up to a team where Golden State might fit,
this might not be perfect. But it's not perfect because
maybe they were some of them might have been a
little bit younger at one point. But also like you
didn't have another All NBA player with Steph during that
time frame after Durant left. So like, if you frame
it that way of would you rather have four years
of like kind of that Warriors team or maybe a
slightly better version of it, Like you're getting four years
of a window out of that versus the ten year
window of a team that you're kind of starting from scratch.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I'll take the one that has Steph,
I guess if you've you got to well you didn't, Yeah, right,
I didn't. Well that's yeah, that's it. I mean, that's
a fascinating I mean that is kind of the question
every NBA team asks itself, like when they sit down
and say, like, what are we doing right? Like, now,
how do we want to do this?
Speaker 1: Let's really gain this. If I'm a GM, I value
job stability and rebuilding from the ground up is a
great way to preserve your your your job security because look,
this is gonna take a while. But and if you
go the other route with two thirty plus a LMBA stars,
you're just perpetually on the hot seat. So that's another
reason to go the youthful route.
Speaker 2: Yeah, man, it's it's that.
Speaker 1: I was just no discord comments mentioned wherever. Let us
know what you would pick. That was a great That
was a really good question, Hayden and sons, I know
that one. We have one from Matt chand though Grant,
what do you guys think of Jalen Johnson's ceiling as
a player having a breakout season with the Hawks and
might even get into All Star consideration.
Speaker 2: I think so. First of all, he's twenty happy birthday.
He turned twenty three today. Things reference get a little
older old. Yeah, I think he can be an All
Star and possibly, like we're talking ceiling, I think he has.
I don't know how likely i'd say it is, but
like an All NBA ceiling, you know, if he gets
marginally better in the next three to four years, I
think he could get up there where we're talking about
him in that in that vein certainly an all star ceiling.
I think, like I know, every time we talk about him,
we like to go with like, actually, the breakout was
last year, and I think that's definitely true in a
in a like big picture sense, but he has improved
this season. All of his per one hundred points rebounds
assists are higher, his usages up, his true shootings down
a touch, which I'll take with the higher usage good
not great defender. I would say, like if I were
looking for growth, that might be right there. And then
doesn't self generate threes, So those would be the two
spots where like, if you're talking superstar, gotta gotta be
a ninety percent of his threes are assisted, so just
like you know, that's not part of it yet to your.
Speaker 1: Point, about his usage though he is taking like more
of his shots or going unassisted overall than ever in
his career. And I think what's impressed me the most
about this season. I think there's been some defensive improvement
for him, but I think that he's been and this
is not necessarily someone I viewed him as previously who
can create things from a dead stop. They've tripled and
by the way, the results have not been good. I
want to make that clear, but they've tripled his pick
and roll volume. It's like, that's kind of how you
find out if this guy can do X by putting
him in those situations. They've actually the other thing that's
encouraging is they've really he's played a bunch six hundred
and twenty. That's maybe that's not a bunch. He's six
hundred and twenty possessions without Trey Young. The Hawks have
lost those minutes, but it's not by like some astronomical degree.
And when you don't have a lot of those lineups,
I mean all of those lineups don't have an actual
primary or traditional floor general. That's a really big deal,
and so the offense is terrible during those stretches. You
would like to see that come up. I never found
myself wondering if he could do that as a player,
And I think that they've used him in enough different
ways now to where it's okay, the results aren't always
efficient or necessarily pretty, but this is a much more
well rounded player, and right now it's come at the
cost of efficiency. Can you ever bridge those gaps to
where he's doing a lot more? But now the efficiency
continues to go up, and I think, but again, the
big thing for me is just the passing is way
better than even It was better last year than I
thought it was going to be, and it was way
better this year than I thought it could ever be.
Speaker 2: He's a good passer, right, like we you know, not great,
not like run your offense through them all the time,
but like that and the athleticism and the growth he's
made kind of in across the board ways, it's like
it's not out of the realm of possibility that he
becomes just you know, like just the ideal hyper athletic,
big wing slash combo forward that is your best player
on a playoff team like that, That's like that's not
far off hypothetically.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think, Look, there's still some low hanging fruit
that I think he can clean up where he might
be someone who can like some of this might be
spacing in certain lineups, but he can pass more out
of his drives too, And for what he does best,
that's almost catnip because when he's going downhill is probably
when he's at his best. Still when you're in transition
or just driving, maybe coming off a ball screen or
getting the ball on the move, and I think there's
room for him to pass even more in those instances.
It's sort of like, could you view him as maybe
a like a better spacing Draymond Green on offense, I
mean better a lot of things than better at creating
his own shot.
Speaker 2: He could get it. Yeah, he's gonna get his own
and look to get his own shot. I just think like, yeah,
I don't know what the comp is like every time
you have a it's hard like who is a comp
for him that's like a notch or two better at
Like it's not Jalen Brown. Jalen Brown's a little different.
He's not like I think Jalen Johnson does more like
big man things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's more of a Yeah, he's more of like
a combo big to me than he would be a
combo forward.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's he's yeah, more four than three. I guess
even in so far we'll talk about that at some point,
and in so far as there is a distinction between
those spots anymore. Yeah, I don't, I don't know where you.
Speaker 1: Oh my god?
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 1: Is it Al Horford?
Speaker 2: That's like the part in the centers though Horford's like
great against a big guy defender like Sam's not right
because Sam's more like swoopy, whereas Johnson's very explosive.
Speaker 1: Oh I don't, I don't love this name. But is
there like Miles Bridges vibes to it?
Speaker 2: I mean athleticism. I think I think Johnson is just
like his passing and like his i Q is way higher,
I feel like in terms of how he sees the
floor offensively than than Bridges. But yeah, it's he's a
tough I mean it's almost a good thing. Like he
does have a lot of the like refined like hard
to teach. Does he understand what's happening out there? Can
he read the floor? And then he has just you
know what letter grade are we giving his athleticism. It's
at least a flat a like that's a that's a
tough combo to deal with as a defense. What do
you think is the swing skill for him if he's
going to be the All Star All NBA type.
Speaker 1: Is it just the does it have to be kind
of the pull up or self created jumper? Is it
just you get threes up in higher volume, but like
if he's gonna hit them, they'll be set maybe in transition,
but he has threes a higher clip and with higher volume.
Speaker 2: I'd say you could go two ways. One is when
he's running high pick and rolls, he's a threat, like
you can't go under, Like he's gonna pull up and
shoot that three I think would be a huge swing
skill for him. Or he becomes just like an ace
foul drawer, where like he gets downhill and he's got
all this craft. I don't know that he's got that yet,
and guys that athletic often don't need to develop it
until later. But like the two ways to either just
the efficiency thing like and how you force defenses to
do stuff they don't want to. Can you draw can
he get to the line nine times a game? Or
can he pull up over high pick and rolls and
shoot threes? So you can't go under. I would cite
those two.
Speaker 1: Probably, you know what, probably doesn't get sighted enough with him.
I was noticing when I was digging a little bit
into this, this is really just like his second season
of playing actual minutes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the other thing, Like there might be a
lot runway that we're not really appreciating here.
Speaker 1: So I would agree with probably all NBA. It's tough
for me to get to, but I won't rule it
out again. After the passing leaves that he's made year
over year.
Speaker 2: We're talking ceiling. I think all NBA is we're gonna
We're gonna discuss him in all NBA stuff at some point.
This from Matt Chan I like this one too. Should
the Nuggets try a new Nicole Jokic strategy? And I
gotta find the longer question because he's asking, do you
have the longer questions?
Speaker 1: It's from Austin. I actually messed that up, Austin. Yeah,
sorry with the insane plus minus difference when Yokic is
off the floor, Should the Nuggets try the strategy of
any time he's out, the offense is run like the
end of game, run the clock down every possession, use
the full twenty four seconds and then use a timeout,
giving Yokic to the biggest break possible, ultimately not playing
fast enough to swing the game too much.
Speaker 2: I mean, I gotta try something. You gotta figure out
how to do so. I think, like I do love
like immediate timeout, like one possession timeout after he leaves
the game. Just burn one, use your challenge right after that,
just burn it on a ridiculous oh you know, hopefully
not a place so ridiculous that it gets overturned right away.
But get him another commercial break. I think you could
try all kinds of stuff, but like full court pressure
so the other offense gets into their offense at like
you know, fourteen on the clock or whatever, you make
them burn some time and have a longer possession there
What else? What else you got?
Speaker 1: I don't know that, that's I guess I haven't really
considered it that. But don't you sort of need wouldn't
you sort of need players who can at least somewhat
play that style and in the non Yolkic units, I mean,
especially the makeup of the current Nuggets. So you're kind
of just saying, like, this is not a strategy you
employ if Russell Westbrook is going to play any non
yolkic minutes.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, what's the difference. All you're trying to do
is make is maybe.
Speaker 1: Trying to tell Russell Westbrook to like go at half
speed to blow it down.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think if you do that and you uh
get you plant fans that spill drinks courtside all the time,
so there's delays to clean them up. I think that's
probably the way you go. Yeah, I don't know, Like
it is definitely you could game it a little bit.
In all seriousness, you definitely could like use a timeout
that you wouldn't otherwise use to just make his two
minutes off the floor actually be you know, ten or
eight or something. But in terms of style of play, like,
I don't know, if you slow it down, all the
numbers say that the later end of the shot clock
you go, the less likely you are to have an
efficient shot. So like, are you giving back too much
efficiency if you're you know, deliberately running it down? And
I would argue in a lot of cases that like
your defense, then if you're missing a ton of shots,
regardless of how late it is in the shot clock,
it's going to be harder to get back and you're
giving that offense like the other offense will be given
opportunities to push the pace. I guess that's where you
get into intentionally fouling. But now you're banking on the
fact that we're gonna win in the kolok minutes by
enough that you're invariably gonna lose those minutes, and say,
like by by how many? So if we're allowing to
Kolokic to let's just say nikoloach is allowed to rest
in two like floor time, like for two minute bursts,
like in terms of actual gameplay time, how even if
you employ like the most sloggiest strategy, how many points
are you losing each of those stretches.
Speaker 1: By at least? Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's.
Speaker 1: That's a lot to overcome.
Speaker 2: I mean, I was thinking that, like macro terms, should
your should the strategy be to increase variance as much
as possible when he's off the floor, So like I
don't know, only shoot threes for example, or should it?
Because then it's like, I don't know, maybe that gives
you the chance that every third night you're gonna win
those minutes, which like as it is now, you lose
them every night, or and then you when you lose
those minutes, you really lose those minutes, like you lose
them worse or should it be we are basically like
only gonna try to get to the basket and generate
free throws, so the time goes slower. We're you know,
the free throws are super high expected value, but like
you're never gonna like blow a team out by just
getting to the line, you know, over and over. So
I don't know, you could go either way. I still
think you should just have the cheat and just have
like the shot clock malfunction, so you have five stoppages
while he's out.
Speaker 1: Now would you trust this is the other way? Well,
this is not. This is another thing to consider. What
about playing all four the other four starters without Yokic
more and having Yokic try to lift up what would
be some of your worst units otherwise, which we haven't so, like,
Jokic has played seventeen possessions this year without the other
four starters on the floor, so it's not something that
Denver necessarily goes to. But like Denver has lineups, like
the one of the most used lineup that has those
four without Yokich is a plus eighteen points. Per one
hundred possessions and so that might be a way too
are you then compromising too much of the Yoki minutes though?
Which is stupid? I'd like because I could very much
see So what's that line up? It would be Jokic, Watson, Westbrook,
Strather and then like who's we're subbing in? What? Like
hunter Tyson? I don't want to see Shares doing that
is a Trey Alexander? Who am I forgetting nause? I
mean well, I mean their nuggets are gonna play DeAndre
Jordan before they play nase by looking at hunter Tyson there, Yeah,
that's a that's a heavy lift on Jokic's part, But
that might be something I'd be willing to go to.
Like which which approach would you prefer?
Speaker 2: That's really interesting because like that gets back to are
you Are you gaining enough in those minutes to offset
what you might give back in the other subset of minutes? Right?
Speaker 1: Like if you're not, that's just gonna make Nicole Yakach's case.
Speaker 2: He's gonna hate Yeah, right, he's gonna hate life on
the courts, Like where are all these we're all my guys?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I think maybe you can make it so that like
if Yokic is not on the floor, Murray and Gordon
are period or something, you know, like you could sort
of split the difference. And so like I don't know
what they looking now.
Speaker 1: So those four have played it's as thirteen possessions without
Jokic on the court, and they that even at rat A.
Speaker 2: So it's just an improvement. Although like I mean, it
matters for the regular season record for sure, because there
are just games that they lose because they lose the
Yokic minutes to a to a more significant degree than
they win. They lose the non Yokic minutes to a
worse extent than they win the Jokic minutes. But like,
isn't it isn't it like as a playoff issue, isn't
just knowing that you're having Jokic and the other starters
and like maybe one or two subs in like you're
always great and he's gonna play more in the playoffs.
So like, are how about this? Are we overblowing the
significance of this problem from the Nuggets perspective? Like is
this no?
Speaker 1: Because look at what happened during the playoffs to them
in that Minnesota series. You could argue that they blew
the lead in the final game, but like they got
into the deficit in the first place in that series,
and it was just when their only outlet felt like
it has to be Nikola Jokic or the Nikoli Joki
Jamal Murray two man game. Like, that's a real issue
I think from a minute's management perspective in rotation. Okay, Like,
I guess maybe we could be overblowing it, But do
you think they have enough optionality within their best units
now to where you can view it that way? And
I guess it's a different top lineup than it would
have been last year just because kcp's not involved in
the equation. So do you trust Brown more defensively in
the playoffs? Maybe? Do you trust them more as a cutter?
You certainly don't trust the more as a three point shooter.
Maybe you trust them more the handle the ball.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's fascinating, it is because you would think it's
tempting to say, like, well, you're just like moving the
numbers to either side of the equal sign and ultimately
the Nuggets just are are what they are, like regardless
of how you deal with the Jokic on versus a
off minutes. But I don't I think we know that's
not true. I think we know that like certain combinations
just work better, Like there are cases where you know
the sum is more than the whole, is more than
the sum of the parts, like if you can just
push the right buttons and get the right combos out there.
So I do think it's certainly worth just like I
don't know, I guess what I have. I strongly suspect
Mike Malone and the Nuggets have thought about this a lot,
and I just tried to figure out, like how to
split this up. Maybe they haven't, but like you would
think they'd be experimenting like crazy to see, like how
can we just sort of bring both of these extremes
closer to the middle.
Speaker 1: They've probably been more experimental this season, but predominantly I
guess like they've kind of skewed towards almost like the
other extreme, where it's almost these hockey style lineups.
Speaker 2: Dock rivers, clippers, like five in five out right, and so.
Speaker 1: It's there probably needs to have they ever struck, do
you think like the right balance of Okay, maybe we'll
just make sure that three stars are on the court
when Nicole Jokic isn't at all times have they ever
committed to that? Enough is something that I think could
be up for debate, And I just because I really
do think, like so the strategy I outline probably works
or has a has a better chance of working if
your backup center has a pulse, because like you could
view Gordon, I guess as the five in that scenario,
but like when you're going to all four of those,
well you're putting what Sharich as you're five? Is like
it's DeAndre Jordan or.
Speaker 2: Zeke already out right at that point.
Speaker 1: And I'm looking this season, so with Jokic off the
court and at least three so we said three starters
right of Gordon, Murray, Porter and Brown on the court,
the Nuggets have actually have they lost the No, they
have a plus sixteen point seven net rating. It's only
been eighty eight minutes. But maybe is that a better
balance they need to strike Is that you're skew a
lot of starters towards without and I guess you dig
into most of their lineups, well when do they not
have at least three like starters on the court without Jokic.
But it does it does happen. I guess when you're
looking at the share, their wine ups are all over
the place this season. That's why it's making it so tough,
is it?
Speaker 2: Is it just like here's here's the Maybe they should
keep this in mind, like when talking about well, well,
I think we do have a Nuggets trade question at
some point. Here a lot of Nuggets stuff so far today.
Like what if you just had like a Lou Williams type,
like from you know, high end Lou Williams, where it's
just like he just runs your second unit and you
might lose those minutes, but it'll be close, and he
will get to the foul line a ton and slow
the game down that way, Like just like a guy
who clearly is not a starter, Like the idea of
Bones Highland, like what Bones Highland was maybe supposed to
have been for them. I feel like could solve a
lot of this where the margins are close, you probably
lose those minutes, but you're gonna score a little bit
and you have like you know, more time, time goes
slower because you're generating foul shots or whatever, and like
he's just kind of an offense under himself, like that
type of player might actually like Westbrook's not that guy,
but like someone like that, like your Jordan cle your
quint essential like bench chucker. I think actually makes more
sense on Denver than almost any other team.
Speaker 1: I am looking. And so this is just addingcdotally speaking,
I was wrong. Way more of their most used lineups
without Yo Kic only have two or fewer starters than
I thought they would have this year, And so maybe
that's the I don't even know if it's the low
hanging fruit, but it's you need to finagal it that
way to where there's three starters on the court at
all times when Yo Kich is it.
Speaker 2: We've given I think literally every possible option for them
to go after, so they should just once a week
try each one.
Speaker 1: Oh question, just for grants, I'm gonna have to read
this one too, comes from be Rich ATX. What former
Warrior that has to be retired would fix this year's
offensive challenges? Is there a comparable player somewhere in the
league that the Dubs could trade for?
Speaker 2: So the second part is really hard because we've we
just know that there aren't a lot of If you.
Speaker 1: Like the insinuation with the photo here that Kevin Durant
is retired.
Speaker 2: Well, Kevin Durant would help the Warriors. I think there's
some historical present I don't know. I mean it might
go okay, go it go okay for a while, and
then it wouldn't go okay.
Speaker 1: I just don't know if he's a big enough upgrade
over the Jonathan Comingo minutes.
Speaker 2: Probably not, Probably not, And he's so old. Yeah upside baby,
So it's like, what you what you're looking for is
we've discussed, is someone that can do some shock creation
carry a heavy offensive load, ideally within the war system
the Warriors want to play. So we're just like really
thin slicing to a crazy degree that that can also
close with Steph Like that'd be your ideal trade candidate.
So as you're going back through previous glory years of
the Warriors, which don't exist like prior to twenty thirteen,
really you go through, Okay, so who Monte Ellis, Jason Richardson,
like Anton Jamison, guys that had all scored twenty plus
were offense first guys, very different players. Obviously, none of
them were like efficient and or self sufficient as scorers
enough to like really fit that. So if I can't
use like Wilt Chamberlain or Rick Berry as my as.
Speaker 1: My as my Will Chamberlin, and then the comp could
just be Jokic. There you go.
Speaker 2: A couple like so the guys I was like just
imagining who would be helpful. I don't know if this
is cheating, but peak Andrew Boget, like Bucks Andrew Bogut,
who was like a ninetieth percentile assist percentage guy. As
an offensive player like you, he kind of was. You
would look at him as like Sabonis except an all
defense like DPOY candidate before he got hurt like that
is like Boget man, Like look at his offensive footage
before he got hurt. He was unbelievable. So maybe he's
your facilitator and shot creator in a very different way,
like Chris Mullen. I mean, not a super high self
generated guy, but averaged twenty five a game, like several
years in a row. He's kind of the Clay analog.
I guess maybe Tim Hardaway, Baron Davis. Like those guys
like Baron Davis, I like a little more, just because
he's bigger and like physically could defend, even though he
never really did. I think my ultimate pick though, oh,
a couple other ones. Gilbert Arenas, remember that he was
on the Warriors. There's your shot creator kind of was
like hardened before Harden, Jordan Poole, he's not retired. He
filled that role pretty well. I think it's Mitch Richmond, though,
who's like a pretty deep cut and really his best
years were not on the Warriors, but like he was
traded when he was twenty five to the Kings, makes
six straight All Star Games, five straight All NBA twenty
plus every year, like just self sufficient enough and big
enough to really be a two next to Steph. It's
probably him. I don't know who Mitch Richmond is in
today's NBA. So, like, I think Zach Levine comes closest
to like the type of player that we're talking about,
where scalable shooting can get his own, is a good
enough passer to generate a few things for others. But
like that's just I mean really like Shrewder actually is
to you. You talked very you know, in great depth
about this, Like he is like the type of guy
that you needed to add to this offense. I just
don't know if he's if his overall level of quality
is enough to give them what they need, and I
don't I know, I know you're well aware, like he
may not be like the end goal type of acquisition
for to solve this problem. But yeah, it's it's it's
easy to say, like, oh, this guy would be good,
but I don't know who the present like analog to
a lot of the name really any of the names
I mentioned who's actually available though would make sense.
Speaker 1: Actually available, but I was gonna be people seem to
be pushing towards this route. I don't know what. He
definitely wouldn't be the Richmond Bucket, maybe more so Gilbert Arenas.
Speaker 2: But de Aaron Fox, Oh my god, I mean like that, Yeah,
I'll take dearon Fox. Deeron Fox, I guess maybe is
your I mean, he's just probably better than Baron Davis
ever was. But uh yeah, I like I I mean,
he wears Curry's shoes. Do we have an in there?
He's the only other Curry brand athlete and this guy is.
Speaker 1: Not available, But like I would view darn Fox as
more untouchable than him, even though I know that like
some Kings fans are massa kiss and have already gone
down that rabbit hole. Yeah, I don't think he fits
into any under any umbrell of a player you just describe.
But I've mentioned him before LaMelo Ball.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just I mean talk about creating shots like that's
I mean, LaMelo has a little I was Gilbert Reinas
was not the facilitator LaMelo is, but in the sort
of like playing like he doesn't give a shit what
happens all the time. Like that's very Gilbert Reinas. Uh yeah,
I think. I mean you're you're talking about point guards though,
really right, like you though both of those guys you've
mentioned are straight up point guards. Is he a real
point guard? I guess he is.
Speaker 1: He can only guard I mean, what is a real
point guard? Well, yeah, I talk about the question that's
coming up about positions. But yeah, I'm looking at you know, yeah,
you don't get Denis Shruterer if you think you're gonna
get LaMelo Ball. But this team needs to drive offense
independent of Steph Curry's like, yeah, that's where my mind
is gonna graviticate You're not wrong.
Speaker 2: LaMelo Ball would help. I would I would agree with that.
Speaker 1: What about Fred van Vliet that count We're still dealing
with the point guard vein there I get so.
Speaker 2: One of the things that I think I and everybody
was concerned about is is the the idea of shrewder
with Steph because it's like, man, you're small in the
back court. Neither of those guys is great guarding up
van Fleet. Just Vamily It's a better defender probably than
either of those guys, just because he's so aggressive. But
like you're so small with van Fleet.
Speaker 1: But he's been targeted more this year, which is probably
one he's small and getting older, but also Houston just
probably has no good up. But it's like I would
like to get a target rate.
Speaker 2: I guess you put Jalen Green too, but he's been
better defensively.
Speaker 1: That's a good question though, So what did you settle
on as the names as like a guy that they
that is, if you mentioned Andrew Bogett, is that like
did you mention Vos then if you were looking for
the I don't think he's not especially defensively, but.
Speaker 2: Bog It defensively or as a passer. I was just,
you know, like every three months or so, I just
sit down and think to myself, like nobody really knows
how good Andrew Boget used to be and I just
wanted to broadcast that feeling r.
Speaker 1: W three doesn't fit that mold. Defensively, he might certainly
versatile enough, but that's not that's not fixing the Doves offense.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, honestly, of the actual available options, shrewder
is really about as well as they could have done
at the moment. I think.
Speaker 1: Our next question you want to take this one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is from inertiate. I would love to hear
you and Grant define what you mean when you call
a player a wing and why it is better than
guard slash forward in describing a position. I think I
want to read the whole thing here, he says. I've
heard guys like the Anthony Meltain and Jabari Smith both
described as wings this season, so it seems like the
terms being used for any basketball player between six to
one and seven feet not an unfair criticism. How would
you define a wing?
Speaker 1: I tend to think when I think of a wing,
I think it was someone capable of playing at least
two of the positions between the two and the four,
and I prefer when I'm talking combo wings. A lot
of the time I'm talking about the two three. Jason
Tatum is a combo wing. Jalen Brown is a combo wing.
I think if you're talking about like true wings, like
maybe I view that more as a two in the
three because you're technically scaling up. I don't necessarily look
at it as size. But when I do say guard
or forward, I immediately think more of players who can
only play one position. Julius Randall's a forward. You can't
play them at the five, you can't play them at
the three, and so forward to me almost means four
at this point. Guard I'm probably a little bit more
fungible with, because you could be the line are blurred
more than ever between on ball guard and off ball guard.
Wing to me is like a descriptor of versatility. Is
how I kind of look at it.
Speaker 2: I would echo a lot of that. I think, I
go a wing. A wing is almost defined by like
what it's not. It's not a point guard and it's
not a center, so it's like we know we're in
that middle ground between there. I wouldn't describe, just to
use the examples, I don't know that I would describe
the Anthony Meltain or Jubari Smith as wings. I think
Smith I think a lot.
Speaker 1: Of people look at their defensive roles. Sure that could
be fair. Yeah, I look at their offensive roles, because
you're not calling luga Doanci's a wing?
Speaker 2: No, he's like, what do you call that guy?
Speaker 1: I think God, I was gonna say work. That's interesting
is that size portion? Because to me, the Anthony Mountain
is a wing. He's an undersized wing. When I say
like true wing or power wing, I'm thinking of someone
this is like this is such a narrow scope, but
it's between sixty six and six nine, Like that's who
I understand that's But when I say wing, that's the
size I'm traditionally thinking of where it's like when you
get to the six ' four below area, Okay, Gary Payton,
the second is garden basically. Or Marcus Smart is a
great example here, what does he six three sixty four?
He's probably considered a wing when push comes to shove.
But I do have some sort of like size criteria
that I try to stick to, and if I don't,
I try to mention, well, they're basically an undersized wing.
I can't believe someone called Jabbari a wing. I didn't.
I have not seen that at all. That's almost like
remember when the Mavericks acquired Grant Williams as their wing stopper.
That's how I think.
Speaker 2: In addition, I do think the the height thing is
is needs to be a little more narrowly tailored. So
six six to six ' nine is a good shorthand.
Although you would call Kevin Durant a wing. So there's
acceptance to every.
Speaker 1: Rule problems listed at six to seven, right.
Speaker 2: He's shrinking every year. I also think it's like it's
a perimeter player, Like we can settle on that, and
it's probably not the guy running the most pick and
rolls or bringing the ball over half court most of
the time necessarily Now if you have add right, it
can be because if you have elite ones like Kawhi
Leonard or or Jason Tatum or Durant to using the
other Jalen Williams, like these guys are all wings. But
like I think of the wing as not the primary
play initiator, not a big mostly is on the perimeter
is out there to shoot threes and slash probably, but
like it is not a banger, you know, like it
Like I would distinguish it too from like the combo
forward spot somehow somehow, in my mind, combo forward feels
different than wing because it excludes guys that are the
two threes, you know one.
Speaker 1: There are good examples like Jalen Johnson's not a makeshift too,
so he's a combo footward to three. He might be
a comma big because you'd be more inclined to use
him at the five. Yeah, that might be a good example.
Speaker 2: So like what about someone like Scotty Barnes. Scotty Barnes
I'd say is a forward and not a wing. Maybe
that's because of the you know what I mean. Like,
but again, here's the here's the bottom line. Positions are
whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, ultimately there, I do think that the defensive role
probably matters more to the like the wing clarification than
if you're a guard, just because Luca I consider a
guard because of his offensive role, like his defensive role,
would probably say he's a forward, right, and so it's yeah,
it's it's like, it's so if you're the prime like
so Jason Tatum as an example, if he wasn't if
he was being stashed defensively, and sometimes he is, but
it's so that he can be disruptive if he was
being stashed defensively the role he's playing now on Boston,
they still might blur the lines of it, like you
might be more inclined to call him a guard because
he's initiating so much of their offense, but because his
defensive role isn't one of just like, well, I'm defending
like at the point of the tackle the time, or
like Luca, you're gonna move them around like the bigger
forward to not ask him to do a ton all
the time. But even he like defends, so it's there's
no one else for it.
Speaker 2: As I think about it is a lot of it
has to do with ball, Like there's a certain level
of bulk you have where you can't be a wing anymore.
Speaker 1: Devin Booker can Can he be a wing?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Devin Booker is a wing Okay, although he would
moonlight as a guard, I would say because of the
playmaking stuff. So he's like, could he be a wing? Ooh,
that's a that's closer to just being a guard. Don't
you think I do too.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna start naming sons about just you.
Speaker 2: Know who I kept thinking of as like Gary Trent
or like k CP guys that feel like that's a two.
That's a two, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's like I view KCP is closer to
a wing than Gary Trent Junior, but the size matters
a great What is Gary Trent and KCP are like
six five?
Speaker 2: Yeah, six four six five, I think so, I think
if you're under six three you like like Donovan Mitchell,
to me, is not a wing for till like I think,
I think there is. There is some kind of height cutoff,
although again it depends on like how you're factoring in
who they guard, what they actually do on offense, like
that kind of thing. I don't like the the Morris
Twins are combo forwards or were uh and then became
four fives, But for a minute there they were like
small forwards, but never were they wings if that you know? So, actually,
like the timeframe you're talking about also factors into what
you call somebody.
Speaker 1: I will say the reason why it might and maybe
it's not always better, But why I find it a
better description than guard forward is because when I think
of those, when I think of wing, I think of
up to three positions, and when I think of guard
or forward, I'm generally thinking one to one and like
even when you said, because Anthony Simons is he's not
a league guard, but he could play both guard spots.
But like, that's what I'm thinking when I when I
feel when I hear guard.
Speaker 2: And he's definitely not a wing. Is Shaden Sharp a
wing or is he a guard? That's tbd okay, good coffee.
You don't know what he does on offense, but like,
h I think he's more of a guard, right, that's
my inclination too, because it goes to like I would
not want him on a three or a four defensively,
so that like.
Speaker 1: What is Toomani Kamara Ooh, he's a forward, I would say,
but he's always defending at the point of attack.
Speaker 2: I know. That's Here's the thing. None of this makes
any sense.
Speaker 1: What about Denny Avdya, Let's just keep naming blazers. He's
kind of like the Scotti Barnes one where probably a
wing because of what he does defensively.
Speaker 2: I would say he's a wing when he's making thirty
seven percent of his threes, and he's a forward when he's.
Speaker 1: Not tomb forward when he's not yet. Yeah, that's a
really tough question. I enjoyed it. Though next question comes
from corn Hub. When is the league going to recognize
the untapped potential of the Ivory Towers lineup?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: So, Christaps Porzingis and Luke Cornette, who grant they have
played twenty eight possessions on the season together. Boston's net
rating during those possessions of plus thirty one point three.
That is good. They were in the one hundredth percentile
of offensive efficiency one thirty nine point three and the
eighty fifth percentile of defensive efficiency. What's interesting is that
there's been a bunch of these different combinations with them
on it. None of the units have shot or I
should say very few of the units are shot threes
particularly well. But they've also just basically not allowed. They're
allowing when Cornette and Porzingis around the court, opponents are
shooting twenty eight point six percent at the rim.
Speaker 2: That seems good but not for the not for the opponents, No,
I mean for Boston.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't. You can go some value to knowing
that you can roll this out. I have zero desire
to see it in minutes or like a playoff series
that matters.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, I would agree with that.
Speaker 1: H do you ideally build out the rest of that
unit is it just has got to be Tatum Brown
and Derek White and that's just what it needs to
look like, or youre skewing. Oh we need maybe more
of the shootings, so Peyton Pritchard needs to be sprinkled
in there.
Speaker 2: I think I probably go, I mean, what about Sam Hauser.
We're gonna need We're gonna need some some spacing.
Speaker 1: Just and Drew Peterson a rasure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, then then you're going then you're just gonna whitewash,
which the Celtics could do because of Drew Peterson. I'm
gonna go with Porzingis as my loan big generally speaking,
and probably just get Tatum Brown, White and Holiday out there.
Speaker 1: I do you wonder what would be the impetus behind
playing that way? Like unless you have like Al Horford's healthy,
like you have all your wings, Like what is the impetus?
Just you want to be big and you think that
you're gonna grab I suppose all the defensive rebounds with
corn and then you just.
Speaker 2: Then you just play Cata over Cornett. Right, if you're
gonna if you're gonna try to be as big as possible, Cada.
Speaker 1: I'd say there's value, and that the Celtics could do
it with a straight face if they really want to.
That's kind of the Celtics in a microcosm though, Yeah, right,
they could do it if they want to roll out that.
You're gonna say, no, don't do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I do.
Speaker 1: Maybe the all big lineup, but even that, dal are
they guards or forwards?
Speaker 2: Grant, I think one of at least one of them
is a wing.
Speaker 1: I would say, uh, our next question, we're nearing the
end here. You want to make this one?
Speaker 2: Sure? Uh, this is from Kyle Woodley. What's the worst
team in the current standings that you think ends up
winning a playoff game? Well, let's take that first. It's
got to be Philly, right, I mean the lowest. Yeah,
if it's actually worse, like if we say I went
Pistons just because I can imagine them, I mean.
Speaker 1: I he's like trade bait right now.
Speaker 2: No, don't say that it's got to be Philly. If
you're talking about like current standings, who's the lowest that
could win a playoff game?
Speaker 1: Them? Are the Kings to be?
Speaker 2: Yeah? But I was just it's got to be an
East team because like the Kings are just actually good.
But yeah, the standings thing, I don't know, San Antonio,
it's I think Philly is the answer. Here, here's the
real question. What's the worst caffeinated beverage you've consumed?
Speaker 1: Coffee? I hate coffee. I also tried this, like caffeinated
protein vodka ones. I think it was what I was like.
Speaker 2: God, yeah, those words don't go together, sir.
Speaker 1: And if if you're looking for actual energy drink reviews,
I tend to hate the Have you ever heard of
the brand rain r E A R E I g N.
It's like a pre workout energy thing and it's just
so like syrupy somehow without enough taste or flavor to it.
For me, when I'm going for the energy drink, I
don't really even I gravitate actually one sitting next to
me right now. I haven't opened it. The ghost this
is not This is not an.
Speaker 2: Ad boy you wish it was, though. Could you imagine
getting free energy drinks?
Speaker 1: My heart would eventually stop? And I'm okay with that
because I'm you're consuming so much of them. But the
Ghosts they make really good, like their energy drinks, especially
like the sour Patch flavors like sour sour warheads, Apple
sour warheads, watermelon, the red berry. They're all spot on.
So I love that's the best one since someone has
the best one. But the worst, if I had to say,
the worst one honestly is coffee. That's why I don't
drink coffee. I've tried a few times in numerous variations,
and I don't like it. I think if I drink coffee,
I just have to drink like straight black coffee, and
that's what I would need.
Speaker 2: That's what I do. I think my theory on coffee
is just like it objectively doesn't taste good, but it
has an addictive chemical in it, and you it's all
about the context too, Like you drink it, you know,
nothing's better when it's cold out and you your first
morning cup, and it's just like you grow to like
the taste because you grow to like the feeling that
it gives you more than anything. I think that's like,
that's how addictive things work, generally speaking. Like I'm surprised.
I guess if you were into the energy drinks from
the jump and that's where your caffeine comes from, I
could see not getting into coffee. Ever, I don't know
all the like every energy drink that I've ever had,
like they all just taste sweet to me, and so
that's fine, Like I don't I haven't sampled as broadly
as you have to, like find is does kombucha have
caffeine in it? Because if so, that garbage is the
worst taste of any kind of beverage.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I've ember trying kombucha. I will say,
if you're good to have an energy drink, like, don't
gravitate towards the ones that are just loaded with sugar
on top of everything else that are in there. Like
that's the I understand, not everything in moderation, but also
none of this is okay. I'm not gonna have a
regular monster. I'm gonna go for a month like that
has like what thirty six grams of sugar or whatever
it is. It's just like, honestly, do you know what
tastes awful I've done? I think they're called Actually don't
know if the name is. I won't even say the name.
But I had them when I was younger. It was
shots of red bull and vodka were disgusting. I did
like a bunch of them. Anyway, I had a youth.
I had a youth, but I find red bulls disgusting.
There's likely especially the like the regular ones. Look no, no,
thank you.
Speaker 2: I mean I couldn't tell you the last time I
had a red bull, But I have no problem with
how a red bull tastes.
Speaker 1: Have you ever had? Our sponsor goes you should. They
gotta be everywhere right now, I recommend trying the red
or the sour apple. Want to get not get you hooked,
but I think you'll enjoy it.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'll take that under advisement. Uh A last question
this is for you. Do vampire squids turn into batfish?
Speaker 1: They do not. You want to know why, because vampire
squids can exist said depths of up to three thousand
feet below.
Speaker 2: And I didn't understand this question on several levels. But
is the vampire squid a real thing?
Speaker 1: Yeah? So I sent a solicitation out on blue Sky.
So if you want to follow us on blue Sky,
which just has fewer ads and it's a better user
experience than Twitter for us to each their own. I'm
not here to judge. I was like, let's see we
get some questions from there. Because our discoord users who
demanded a mail bag, multiple ones. They did not impress
with the number of questions that people sent in, but
the questions were awesome to those who sent questions in.
But I said, ask us questions about caffeine, basketball, caffeine consumption.
Speaker 2: Vampire Squid got it.
Speaker 1: So this is life in general.
Speaker 2: They're just delivering what was requested here.
Speaker 1: I got it. Yeah, I mean Kyle Woodley checked all
the boxes except for question about life. I think of
one submitter, was it Kyle or it might be another
one coming up said they had life figured out, so
they didn't need to ask a question. Which hat tip
to whoever. I was like, figure it out. I'll read
this one to you. Another Vampire Squid one David Bayer Grant.
Let's start with the bat skipball one. Which two teams,
one East, one West. Do you think we'll have the
best record from January first to the end of the
regular season.
Speaker 2: So I don't know how to answer this without being
boring and saying the Celtics and Thunder. I guess that's
like a slight to the Calves because the Calves have
been slightly better than Boston in the East so far.
But like, if you're trying to actually get this question right, like,
why are you picking anyone besides those two teams?
Speaker 1: Wouldn't you potentially pick? So the Celtics and Calves I
think are a good example of there's not a lot
at stake for the last quarter of the season for
them because they're so far ahead of the rest of
the East, and so maybe it makes sense to say
a team like that needs to care about seating and
doesn't have its you know, spot necessarily cemented. And let's
use the Bucks as an example. I mean, they're fifth now,
but like, don't they want to be third? I guess
they're only one loss off of third, which is wild
to say I would I think it's easy to just
say the Celtics and the Thunder and that might just
end up being the right answers. But if you're caring
more and the Thunder might have to care too. But
like in the East specifically, I could see it being
someone not the Caps of the Celtics because those teams
don't have as much at stake, So.
Speaker 2: I have dark dark horses the wrong term. But like
excluding those boring chalk answers, couldn't the Knicks be one?
If you get a I know, we talked about this
quite a bit.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna stop you right there. Tell me why not
do you know what the Knicks is defense? I waited
for games, the number of games played. Do you know
what the Knicks rank defensively against top twenty offenses? Not
top ten, top twenty.
Speaker 2: I should know this because you posted this somewhere and
I saw it and I forgot. So you tell me.
Speaker 1: Here are all the teams that are worse than the
Knicks against top twenty offenses. The Utah Jazz, the Indiana Pacers.
That's the end of the list. The Knicks ranked twenty eighth.
Speaker 2: And aren't they still well, Okay, you've thin sliced it though,
so aren't they getting smoked from that Celtics game? Still
in that case?
Speaker 1: Or that nilk it down? And I bet you they're
still bottom five?
Speaker 2: Okay? I think I would say if you're gonna say
the Knicks, which you've really made me reconsider saying. But
if one were to say the Knicks, couldn't you couldn't
you argue the offense will continue to be great, but
kel Bridges should play better. They'll get another big worth Is,
but like we'll play better over sustained stretch and then
another big guy helps the defense be better. I don't
know there's upside there.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're not bad. I just I guess Tim's
will play the guys too. But that also does that
increase the risk of someone dying.
Speaker 2: No, because it conditions the athlete to survive. That's right,
all the adversity. What about the MAVs in the West,
Like we we agree that they haven't been their best
selves and they're still really awesome, so like they could
they could still you know, have another level to go.
Speaker 1: I think that's the pick if it's not okay, see,
because I think that Denver and Minnesota would be. Honestly,
the answer might just be Memphis because it just figures
because it doesn't matter who's available, right apparently, But Dallas
is just they're so good, And it does feel like Denver, Minnesota,
Golden State and Phoenix and even Sacramento are sort of
faded to be up and down all year.
Speaker 2: Right, And it's not the same. It's not asking who's
gonna be most improved or whatever. It's like who's gonna
have the highest raw number of wins? So it's like
you just have to choose from a team that's demonstrated
the ability to win a lot already.
Speaker 1: So if we can't go Chalk, I'm going to say
the Bucks and God, the Western Conference is tough. Fuck it,
I'm gonna say the Grizzlies. I don't I got the
team one of the teams that that just they have
ninety guys that can play. So I'm gonna go Memphis
and Milwaukee.
Speaker 2: As my if we can't coach Chalk, I'm gonna go
Nicks despite you and MAVs because I feel like the
MAVs just might actually end up being the number one seed.
So it feels pretty easy to say though.
Speaker 1: The second part, how much cafe is required to kill
one vampire squid? Vampire squids are unkillable except for when
between eight to ten years old. That is their life span,
and then they die, but they cannot be killed before then.
They're basically teflon.
Speaker 2: Is that a picture of a real vampire squid?
Speaker 1: I'm pretty that has to be AI generated. I don't
know anymore, though, I'm John I'm put off by that
shout out vampire squids. Okay, I think this is our
second last question. Matty l asked Grant. How does box
score plus minus work.
Speaker 2: How many teams? How many points did your team outscore
the opposition or get out scored by when you were
on the court.
Speaker 1: Is that the they gave though, was saying an example
for the Bulls is the win over the Nets, reasoning
where Josh Getty got a triple double but only got
a plus seven, whereas all the other starters had higher
even Julian Phillips, who didn't have a great stat line
but was plus nine. What else does it involve? Thank you?
And it's just it involves its lineup context. Mostly like
I do think for single game it can be a
barometer for how valuable a player was. Like Drew Smith
filed out against the Pistons the other night. The Heat
were down three at the time, and I think he
was a plus eighteen when he fouled out. It's it's like, okay,
they they this is how much you won the minutes
by with that guy on the court. And so if
all the starters aside from Josh Giddy had high and
please correct me if up, this is a terrible way
to explain it. Grant, if all the starters other than
Josh Giddy had a higher plus minus, it just means
that he was in lineups that did not fare as
well versus what they were like outside the starting lineup maybe,
and that impacted the plus minus.
Speaker 2: And to the triple double point, it's like giddy could have.
You could be on the on the floor for twenty minutes,
produce zero box score stats whatsoever, and your plus minus
is whatever your team outscored or was outscored by in
those twenty minutes doesn't doesn't matter what you do. It's
almost like, this is why it's kind of finicky to
use game to games, like, it's sort of what whatever
happened to happen when you were on the court, whether
you influenced it or not, is your plus minus.
Speaker 1: Our final question comes from Calvin Booth. Should the Nuggets
trade for Zach Lavine?
Speaker 2: Well, Calvins, I didn't even get.
Speaker 1: Like a fake chuckle out of you with that one.
Speaker 2: I had. It took me a second to process it.
Let's go over some of the basics Levine's twenty nine
We are assuming, are we not, that Michael Porter Junior
is the outgoing main salary in a hypothetical Levine trade, Right,
we sort of.
Speaker 1: Have to yeah, oh yeah, you know, because you can't
trade Murray or Gordon, and you're not going to trade Yokich.
Speaker 2: So here's so then it's sort of a one to one.
Mpg's twenty six, he's three years younger, two years left
on his deal, seventy nine million dollars total. Levine's got
two for ninety five After this one, Levine more volume
and accuracy from deep MPJ does not self generate threes.
Ninety two point one percent of his threes have been
assisted for his career, just under ninety one percent this year.
Levine does sixty percent assisted on threes fifty six point
eight percent this year. Levin is not a genius passer,
but his career assist rate is three times that of
Michael Porter juniors. Porter Junior's bigger, better defender. Maybe you
like him as a someone that's going to score closer
to the basket. That's about it. I think the comparison
recommends Levin uh pretty strongly if you don't care about
the money, which obviously the Nuggets sort of have to.
But well, if if you're also trying to address the
non Jokic minutes, I think Levin is much more helpful
in those than MPG is.
Speaker 1: I think the other part of this, though, too, is
what else would need to be attached to get zach Lavine.
So like Michael Porter and your has to be the
meat and potatoes or the outgoing salary. If you just
include Zeke Naji's deal, the trade works, I believe, But
are you also like if you're the bulls are Porter
and Zeke Nagy, is that enough for you to give
up Zack Levin to say, well, we got off that deal.
We broke them up into cheaper players. Zeke Naji is
another three years left on his contract after this one.
Denver's not giving I mean, they could give you a
pick swap, but I'm not if I'm Denver, even though
I think zach Lavine is probably the better fit or
does more for the non Jokic minutes, does he optimize
the Jokch minutes? When you have Jamal Murray on the court,
is because now your wing depth is just you have
Paid Watson and Christian Brown. Yeah that helps, but like
you're really part of the Nuggets and they're still pretty big.
When you have Aaron Gordon and nicolea jokicch and p Ah,
Like it's so tough and so you're not. But this
is where I was initially going, you're not giving if
you're the nuggets. I think Zach Levine has been great,
But because you have murder like you're not giving your
twenty thirty one first round pickup in this are you?
Speaker 2: Probably not? And I don't know that you should have to. Uh.
I just I think from the bulls side of this,
I think you probably. I don't know how much you
care about this, but the pr is probably pretty good
if you're getting MPG back in a Levigne deal, even
if you're not getting a first or a swap or whatever.
Speaker 1: Because he's younger, there's a positional need for them too
different Like.
Speaker 2: Right, it's just not Zach Levine, and he's sort of
comparable in terms of, like he's a great shooter, you know,
offense first guy. You could talk yourself into more upside
with MPG. I don't know if I would be persuaded
by that, but you could. I think, like from Denver
side of it, if it if the question is should
they should they? I just view this as should would
you rather have MPJ or Zach Lavine? I'd rather have
zach Lavine. It's more complicated than that because of the
things you're saying of like, well, what do you think
you could get this done for realistically? And it can't
just be MPG from the bull side. I mean, that's
not really what the question is asking. I feel like
the question is asking essentially, like if the Nuggets can
get Levine for a reasonable package, should they do it?
And I guess my short answer is yeah, I just
think he addresses beyond the shortening your like forward depth.
I think he he just does more of the things
you need that we've talked plenty about for Denver on
this pod.
Speaker 1: I guess it's just I struggle to see I might
not do it because it's just like you have Jamal
Murray Zach Lavine. Then, like what is that if those
who are gonna play together at some point, what does
the defense look like?
Speaker 2: There?
Speaker 1: You're asking Aaron Gordon and Christian Brown to cover a
lot up. Maybe Nicole Jokic probably has not been as
good defensively this year as he was last year. He
probably gets better by having to do less. But it's
just don't don't you does that skew too far towards
we're trying to optimize the minutes when our best player
isn't on the floor, because it kind of comes back
to are we giving up? Like, why would you burn
a first round pick on getting a backup center type
deal when you have Nikolio Kich or Jowelle Meat or
somebody else on ole jewel Bean never doesn't really play
so bad example, But you know what I'm saying, when
you already have your tenth pole center, you wouldn't go
out and give up a ton of stuff just to
get a backup. And with this, it's okay, he doesn't
necessarily have to be a backup, but I just but
it's also Michael Worker's not the best defender, and he's
up and down, but the size certainly helps, and there's
rebounding there from him. I just wonder, I guess you're
not giving up a first round pick if that's what
we're assuming. I just still wonder if now you're leaning
too far into what we're trying to maximize the minutes
that Nikolio Kitch is off the floor, which by the way,
are probably never gonna be great.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I was. I was gonna say, I think
that's a good That's that's how you would argue against it,
is you would say we're caring too much about the
non Jokic minutes. And if if in fact, Levine makes
your best five man lineup worse than the one that
has MPJ in it, then you probably shouldn't do it.
Or if like the trade off is negative, like the
starters get that much worse and the reserves without Jokic
aren't better enough to or you know, you know what
I mean, Like, I think the first priorities should still
be which five guys are the best for us to
have on the floor to try to win the last
five minutes of a playoff game. And if the answer
is MPG is better in that role than Levine is,
then maybe you don't do it. But I think I
think Levin is a better player. You lose size, that's
not ideal. I still think with Gordon and with Jokic
up front, like you're big enough and you can use
Peyton Watson if you need to. I just I don't know. Well,
that's a great point, though, because because you're focusing on
the wrong thing. If it's like, well, this makes the
non Jokic minutes better, full stop, do it right, because
you should care about Jokic on more than off.
Speaker 1: And I mean, but to your point, though, Zacklvin has
hit thirty two on assisted three point completely unassisted three
pointers this year, Michael Porter Juniors hit five.
Speaker 2: No, it's not part of mpg's game. He doesn't do
that right, And.
Speaker 1: Zack Colvin is also the only other players that are
shooting over forty percent on pull up threes while taking
at least I think for a game are Jalen Brunson,
Tyler Hero, and Anthony Edwards. And it's like, there's just
and what do we talk about. Here's where I'm going
back and forth with is so you get Zacklovine and
maybe you bump up your three point volume a little
bit as a team, which is still too low, but
you're also losing one of your higher volume three point shooters.
So how are like, are you even is it enough
of an upgrade? Like even if we're looking at the
like it from that perspective to where, okay, the self
creation is an upgrade, but you're not necessarily upgrading your
shot profile a ton. And then the other thing I'm
struggling is I guess the bulls do this, Like if
you're getting Zeke Naji and Michael Porter Junior for zach Lavine.
Is that like that's just considered enough that Zeke Naji deal.
He can't get the on the floor before DeAndre Jordan.
Speaker 2: Who's who's the better player that they could get in
a in a Levine trade?
Speaker 1: As is there a team that will turn around in
trade like could the Thunder get a hold of Michael
but the salaries too tough to match there? But a
team that needs a functional shooter, would they come and
give you something for Mpja? And now we're kind of
looking at the zach Lavine trade tree, so it does
feel like an easier decision from their part. I just
and if you're the Nuggets, by the way, part of
the appeal is just getting off of the Zeke Naji
contract at this point. But now what you've also done, though,
is you made it tough and not that you should
think to these terms. You've made it tougher to complete
future trades because now it's okay, Well, Dario charz is
five million dollars is like our only mid end sound.
He's gonna pick up that player option next year, and
I guess you shouldn't think in those terms. Then Jamal
Murray and Aaron Gordon will be trade eligible at some point.
That would be my other question for this. I think
I think it's defensible both ways. I don't know if
it's a I honestly don't know if I would do
if it's just MPJ and Zeke Najy. I almost feel
like maybe Dever's obligated to do it, but I just
don't know if it does enough. And then if they
do it, Grant does this, like, what are the odds
that Jamal Murray then isn't traded over the offseason?
Speaker 2: I have no idea, I don't.
Speaker 1: I just feel like I broke here, Are you okay?
Speaker 2: I just try. I hadn't considered how this would affect
the likelihood of Murray being traded. I don't know that
he is tradeable for value, so I don't know that
he is gonna be traded regardless. I guess you would.
So are you like inching towards will you have Levine?
Now he's duplicative with Murray? Is the next move to
try to trade Murray to get another bigger forward back?
So you're sort of like just you're changing out a
second key roster spot.
Speaker 1: Well, it's also that, but Christian Brown and Peyton Watson
like they're coming up on their extensions and and so
this team was kind of always headed towards the financial crossroads. Anyway,
Apparently Denver discussed an extension, per the Athletic. This was
all reported by Tony Jones shout out front of the
pot Tony Jones and Sam Amock of the Athletic. Uh So,
I just I don't know. Lavin has two years left
after this one in like a boatload of money, almost
one hundred million bucks for the final two years of
that contract. I'm just wondering. So you're gonna float because
your core of I know Lavine and Murray can be
better defensively than people make them out to be. But
when you're three are Jokic, Murray, and Levine, You've leaned
all the way into offense and you are already seventh
on offense this year, right or they higher than that.
I'm just wondering. I understand it, and I think it
would their sixth in offense. Denver is as we record
this right now, But you're also it's also like they're
thirteenth in defense. And how much when going from Michael
Porter Junior to Zach Lavin really impact your defense?
Speaker 2: It might not make a difference either way, right, I
think the assumption is you'd get a little worse because
you're smaller, and I guess Porter Junior is probably a
better defensive player, like can actually protect the rim a
little bit. I think like one illustration would be like
salaries being equal, you wouldn't trade Gordon for Levine because
then your defense is just destroyed. But like, I don't
know that the yeah, I don't know. I keep coming
back to. I just think Levine's better. The Nuggets are
obligated to get better, and so like I don't know,
Like do we stop it there? Obviously we didn't. We've
gone fifteen minutes on this, But you know, like.
Speaker 1: I think I'm exaggerating, Well, do you think it's It
makes more sense through the lens of strictly the playoffs,
where it's just you need someone to generate stuff from
scratch and right now, jo Kich and Murray are your
only options there, and Murray is often a roller coaster.
Or during those let's say Nicoleyocho didn't play forty minutes
in the playoffs. During those eight minutes he's not on
the floor, you have a better chance of surviving rather
than let's try to be as good as possible defensively
around Jamal Murray even without Jamal Murray, or we'll just
lean into maybe Levine and Murray are both playing minutes
without yoga on the court, and that's what we really
think will help preserve the offense and the differential better
than if we lean into the defense of it all.
Speaker 2: And I wonder too, like just a from a replaceability standpoint, now,
MPJ is like in his early careers like here historically
good great, maybe just volume three point shooter with good size.
Like at the same time, I think it might tell
me if you disagree with this, I think it might
be easier to find a guy who's like passable defensively
that can take and make a bunch of threes than
it is to find someone who can be the high
volume three point shooter on the move also initiate some
offense like Levigne is. I feel like I've never been
a huge fan of Leavin. I want to make that clear.
I just think his player type might be harder to
find than MPJ. Like, go find someone that's gonna catch
and shoot a bunch of threes, right, Like that's those
guys are kind of out there, and they're not always
super highly paid.
Speaker 1: And his anomaly in that perspective is the size, Like
you're not gonna find someone who's six ' ten as
easily that's doing that. But if he's not generating a
ton of his own looks a better playmaker this year.
But Lavigne, to your point, he's definitely the better playmaker
when it comes to initiating things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know. I think, Yeah, I think I
do it if I'm if I'm Denver, I don't. I'm
concerned about it, like I'm not sure that it's gonna
make me better.
Speaker 1: And there are going to a drawing the line as
Denver at Michael. They have no seconds to trade, So
it's Michael Porter, Junior's Ike Nagy, like the bulls they
ask for Julian Strother, Peyton Watson, Christian Brown.
Speaker 2: You're just no, yeah, probably I yeah, just because like now.
Speaker 1: Michael more expendable if you get exactly be like that
could be something that you're already so.
Speaker 2: Thin, like in guys that you can trust if you
like Brown or Watson, certainly Brown, it's like, oh, I
don't know, man, Like that's because because Brown actually once
he's extended. There's another trade chip potentially that isn't just
like integral to your core, so he has like down
the line value. Yeah, I don't know if I go
much beyond the deal you're talking about. If they start
asking for more, I'm like pretty uncomfortable with it.
Speaker 1: I wonder if it make it. But they get Tory
Craig back as part of that deal from Chicago at that,
I'm not giving up Peyton Watson or Christian Brown to
do it, I don't think, just because that's you know,
I think that probably winds up impacting your defense more
than giving up NPJ. But then you're giving up NPJA
and one of those players. I'm very curious if that's
just the framework because if that's the package the Bulls
were waiting on. Though I don't know why Zach Lavine
wasn't moved already, I will say that, Yeah, I mean,
I don't know.
Speaker 2: I imagine if you're Denver and you crunch the numbers
and it's like we actually think this is like offensively
in our best lineups. Michael Porter Junior just is more valuable.
Then you don't do it, even if you're sure. Also
that Levine props up the non Jokic minutes, because the
more we talk about it, the more that's a problem.
But it's it's priority two. I think ultimately, like the
non Yokich minutes, even though the are so glaring, I
think you should care most about which four guys with
yok on the floor make us the best version of ourselves.
And if it's MPG, then it's MPJ and And I
don't know if that's true, but like if it's if
Lavigne makes you better because of the.
Speaker 1: Shot cutting on this team, like oh my god, oh yeah.
Speaker 2: So it's it's a tough question. I'm leaning towards I
do it partly just because I would do it.
Speaker 1: Too, But I'm not going beyond if I'm denver MPJ
and Nause. But then I'm gonna have questions for why
Chicago waited so long. If that's the return they right, Uh,
you have anything else to add or you ready to
take us out of here? Just that we did it.
Speaker 2: We answered all the questions. There are no more questions left.
I learned about vampire squids.
Speaker 1: So you're welcome. And you learned what we both learned
a little bit about our caffeine likes and dislikes.
Speaker 2: That's true. Yeah, thanks everybody that submitted questions. Once again,
as as we mentioned every time, Uh, if you if
you want to participate in stuff like this, well you
know we'll do mailbags periodically. But there's you know, we're
always so listening stuff.
Speaker 1: For one questions when we do them. If you're going
to ask for them.
Speaker 2: Discord uh or and or be rampant followers of mostly
Dan and also me on blue Sky or Twitter links
for the links for that in the YouTube and podcast
description on how to join our discord. Yeah, I think
I think we've all grown a lot. We've all learned
a lot. And uh, you can grow and learn by
remembering to rate, review, and subscribe. Picture you're commenting on
the YouTube videos, combs up all that good stuff, Tell
your friends, tell your enemies, shout out Frank Mila Kina. Apologies,
Jared Allen