Speaker 1: What is up, Fellow sikos, I am Dan Fa Valley,
joined by, as always my certain podcasts Time You was
co host mister Grant Hughes. The first podcast of twenty
twenty five. This is coming out on New Year's Day
because we don't really give a shit about what day
of the week it is. We just put out content
as we can fit it into our schedule. We are
talking about our biggest questions for every NBA contender, with
some of those contenders being put in quotation marks. Mister Hughes.
We're recording this right before the new year is rung in,
so I'm not gonna ask you how your twenty twenty
five is going. I could do the thing where I
say I'll see you next year and then you can
give me that smirk. But how are you doing as
we close out twenty twenty four? I'm doing really well.
Speaker 2: You reminded me that the i'll see you next year thing,
like ha ha is real big among second graders. I
learned that. I learned that from my son, who is
just like, got to say it the other day and
was like really satisfying.
Speaker 1: But is it coming back around? Because what's the are
you considered a millennial.
Speaker 2: I think I'm right on the borderline. I don't identify
as I don't. I prefer not to.
Speaker 1: So what's the generation before millennials? Gen X?
Speaker 2: I'm so stupid and bad about this. I think it's
Gen X.
Speaker 1: That's the one that is still getting a kick out
of the because my sister, what my older sister is
part of that generation, and I feel like those are
the people that I really like, see you next year,
and then you have to like put on the like
that face. But also I feel like when you go
to places, maybe in retail too, they'll like. But it's
always some of the older people say it is maybe
a joke or like they think they're I don't have
an actual issue with it, but it's nice to know
that it felt like it was fading out, like I
don't encounter it as much anymore, but it seems like
it's gonna come back around. So shout out to mac.
Speaker 2: Look yes, yeah, I think you know? And and gen
X really, I don't think a millennial has ever done
anything funny, right, it's gen X is the last comedic generation.
Who have I alienated with that? I've I don't know,
people talk about like, oh, millennials are this way, and
gen Z is this way, and gen X is this way.
I don't know where the cutoffs are, Like I don't
know any of that.
Speaker 1: Stuff, so I don't know what I know that. I'm
firmly a millennial, so that makes it easier. But millennials
are also we ruined the world. I guess our alvocado
toast was a thing. That's why no one could afford houses.
Speaker 2: They were supposed to save it. And look where we are. Okay,
So as we move into the future, I just want
to surprise you with I'm moving into the past and
being fully analog because I have handwritten notes today. Can
you see that on the look you always have hand
written notes. No, I'm trying something new. Used to I
used to do a lot more handwriting, not cursive, because
I can't do that anymore, I don't think, but written
by hand, and I just like absorb this is this
is my gen X talking. I just absorb information better
if I'm reading it like from a physical thing and
or writing it on a physical thing. Even now, like
typing is a different you know, we type a bajillion
words every year, but like something about handwriting, so I'm
gonna try. You'll hear shuffling papers as we're talking today,
so that's some nice asmr to the pod that.
Speaker 1: Low shit because he swears by that, and look, he
doesn't have his podcast out right now. So if you
need the low post replacement, here we.
Speaker 2: Are and do so clearly we're better and always work.
Speaker 1: Maybe I should try that, but I do feel like
when I'm typing things, so my notes, I have a
document a Google docs millennial over here, but like, I
do feel like I'm taking it in more rather than
like sometimes I'll just like map out a blueprint in
my head depending on the topic. So maybe the next
level is okay, now let me get a legal pad
like Grant has. I'm gonna write that's just so much
more time consuming.
Speaker 2: This could go to shit. We'll find out. So what
is the topic we're going to talk about today?
Speaker 1: Though? Well, we have our questions for every contender and criteria.
You're how did we approach this, Grant?
Speaker 2: This is it's very scientific. So one one thing is
we're taking the teams as they are. This isn't what
we're you were driving at with the criteria, but like
the question can't be can they Wire, Jimmy Butler or
what like that. Like we're not as we're talking about questions,
we're also sort of pointing out weaknesses. And the weakness
can't be does not have zach Lavine or it does
not have jim You know, that's not the spirit of this.
That's one thing, but mainly, like this is a weird year,
and we've talked about it in several different times, but
isolating the contender class is tricky and there's a lot
of teams that could be in it, and we've gone
probably farther than we need to in terms of the
length of this list, but the basics are and now
I can't remember what level we said they had to
get to, but essentially, if they made the finals, it
can't shock you, and we could even extend that to
like conference finals.
Speaker 1: That's how I approached. It wouldn't surprise you if this
team was in the conference finals, So like it could
be it could be a mild surprise, or you'd have
to say, like, oh, x Y and Z must have
gone right, or like X Y and Z didn't go wrong,
depending on which teams we're going to talk about, But
it can't be like, no way you can't.
Speaker 2: It's it's like the facial expression for those of you
watching would be like if Team X made the finals
and you were like, what like did a full double take?
Not a contender, but if it was like, huh, like
that's still contender class Like if it's just like a
slightly bemused exclamation, that's that's going to qualify. So I
don't know how many teams we have. I didn't count,
but there are a lot of for the kids and
not a lot of shocked faces. So that's kind of
where we are. And I forget anything about our scientific criteria.
Speaker 1: No, that was ultra scientific, and I think it's going
to make for an excellent discussion that is one inarguable.
First up, the reigning champion Boston Celtics. What is our
biggest question for them, mister Hughes.
Speaker 2: For me, for a lot of this, the biggest question
was trying to think of what question I ask about them,
because this is kind of our no notes team. They've
been They've moved into the no notes category several months
ago and have stayed there. So you're kind of hunting
for for like what you can't say, can Christ for
Zingia stay healthy? You can't say like that. That just that's
not the spirit of this, or I didn't anyway, maybe
you went that way. So a couple like small things.
It's like can they force some turnovers? Do they need to?
That's like a relative weakness. I don't know if they
need to do that to get out and run because
they have the number two half court offense. So like,
not a problem there. I'm just running down the things
I thought of before and dismissed.
Speaker 1: It right really quickly. I did the exact same thing
with them because it was just like there wasn't anything
that felt worth zeroing in on to make an in
depth discussion. That's just a bunch of like these stray concerns.
Speaker 2: So what I landed on was, is Drew Holliday slipping
a little bit, like as my question and and like
the thing with the player like him is we're thirty
two thirty two percent from three when we put these numbers.
When I put these numbers together, it's right around there. Oh,
you have him at thirty I have him at thirty two. Proprietarily,
I have him at thirty two point six percent when
I did these numbers, which is like four days ago.
So that could be wrong by now, But so that
wouldn't matter to me so much because he does all
these like the marginal editions are like off the charts
with him, Like oh, the defense, the smarts, the this,
that and the other, can do everything. Takes nothing off
the table. But there was that Memphis game where the
Grizzlies just left him alone and you know, won that
game because he shot seventeen threes. It's just an insane
number of threes and didn't make enough. And really was
the first instance, you know, in the last eighteen months
where you looked at the Celtics and were like, oh,
that's an exploitable weakness that somebody like picked at. I
don't know that that's like anything Boston's remotely concerned about
going forward, because he could just make those shots or
they'll figure out how to, you know, counter that defensive scheme.
And it's not like every team's trying that either. So
that's the best I got is is Drew Holliday going
to be a good enough shooter to not get ignored
in a way that maybe makes things harder for Boston
than we saw during last season's playoffs. But like we're
grasping at Straws here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that kind of I went a bit like more
general and said, are they more vulnerable this year? He's
I think at the start it felt like they were
less vulnerable. Drew holliday shooting is a part of that.
Even Jalen Brown's three point shooting. Christops is not shooting
that well from three this year. Then you do have
his health. They're allowing a higher percentage of shots to
go in at the rim, even though they don't allow
a ton of shots at the rim to go in
in general. And then don't they feel I don't know
if it's just because Sam Hauser had been battling a
back injury, but don't they feel thinner on the wings
all of a sudden, which doesn't necessarily make sense because
this is pretty much the same roster as last year.
Speaker 2: Yeah, a little bit, I think Pritchard, I don't know
if they're thinner at least now they got another guy
that sure seems like he's basically a starting caliber player,
but yeah, he's not a wing. So your point, yeah,
they've they've always kind of quietly been thin at the wing.
Right whenever we have to come up with a trade
target for them, it's always like guys like Oshae Brissett
who like wound up on the team.
Speaker 1: That's why they feel more vulnerable he's not there.
Speaker 2: Well, they just need it. Always feels like they need
that guy like one. If you had to put some
kind of positional need, that would be it. But like,
I don't know, they're gonna win sixty whatever games and
that just you know, have experience. Now, it's really hard
to have like a salient question for them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's just I can't everything we just mentioned. If
we had to measure our concern level for it, it's
like mine would be at like a one point five.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we got next, Dan, This is the Cleveland Cavaliers
has a better record than the Celtics so far, are
on pace for seventy two wins as we record this.
What question do you have about them?
Speaker 1: So I have two questions. One really quickly, when are
we going to take the calves super seriously? They have
a right now have a top five net rating of
all time. At some point it needs to we can't
start rehashing the twenty twenty three playoffs. But my actual
question does kind of align with that of what is
their primary weakness right now? And I think you can
point to different things of do they have another gear
on the glass? They're in the bottom of ten, and
both offensive and defensive rebounding, they're in the thirty fifth
percent offensive rebounding and thirty seven percent tile of defensive rebounding.
With both of their bigs on the court, that's been
basically ingrained into the makeup of this team. You also
have opponents are shooting forty percent from three against the
starting five, and I think, or excuse me, with the
core four on the court, and I think that's the
thing I'm kind of lasering in on, is like there
could be noise in there, but is there a size
issue on the perimeter to where no, they're not giving
up a ton of wide open threes. Opponents are shooting
like forty one point five percent on them, which is
the second highest mark in the league. But I look
at it and say, well, because if you're gonna play
a korro with Mitchell and Garland, you're not especially big
on the perimeter, and so is that gonna make it
easier for teams to get off those shots even if
they are quote unquote contested. And I think you go
back and watch the answer can sometimes feel like yes
there And then the other question I would have to
this again, was another team out of trouble settling on
well Isaaca Corro's three point shooting whole into the playoffs
because this is kind of year two of Oh, he's
hitting his threes in the regular season, how much does
that matter if he's not gonna hit him in the playoffs?
And that might make the actual question of who is
the best like this is the cliche question, but do
they have the best possible fifth member to attach their
core ford to optimize what's gonna happen in the playoffs?
Where is it Dean Wade, is it Max Shrew's, is
it Isaaca Korro? Should it be someone else? You can
even get into. Not all of our teams will be
as scattered, I promise, It's just this team has been
so good, like the George and the Yaneng minutes have
been really good this year, Like do you want an
upgrade at that spot?
Speaker 2: Though?
Speaker 1: Headed into the postseason? Well, caris LeVert continue to play
this well, especially on defense? And the answer that might
just be yes, because this is what year two or
three of him really rationing it up. I don't know
if you have any thing different to add on them.
Speaker 2: No, that's really so I didn't go the direction you did,
which is which is I think makes this interesting. I
think it's it's kind of fascinating to when you're viewing
the Cavs, like, obviously their best players are playing great,
but it's also the case that like all these guys
that you would slot into that fifth spot that are
like admittedly imperfect in some way, you know, like whatever
it is, or have been viewed that way, like Dean
Wade can do this, and Carri Silvert can do this,
and Ti Jerome does this, and Max Struce does this,
and Isaaca Korro does this, like none of them are
giving you all of what you want from that spot.
So I think the answer to your question is like, no,
they don't have the optimal fifth guy, but all these
suboptimal fifth guys and not you know, like Jerome doesn't
really fit that category, but it ties into these role
guys are playing incredibly well and shooting like beyond any expectation,
and so it's like we're not going to get an
answer to do they have the optimal guy, or at
least we haven't so far, because like all these guys
that are just like, well he'll do are playing incredibly
well and like to my eye, and this ties into
my question for them is like, just is this offense
and shooting specifically sustainable because you mentioned it like Lavert
and Ocoro and Jerome and just everybody is lights out.
It's it's been incredible, not just threes, right, which they
do lead. They're forty one and a half percent from three.
That's leading the league. The Wolves led the league last
year at thirty nine point six, So we're two percent
better than last year's league leader, which is like, doesn't
sound like a lot, but that's enormous. So like when
regression comes, which it just has to, what's that look like?
I think that I have no questions about the defense.
I just think the defense is going to be good.
Speaker 1: So you're not. You think the three point stuff is
more noise.
Speaker 2: Than my I think I hadn't even to be honest,
I hadn't thought about that, But like, I think if
I looked into it more closely, maybe I'd be persuaded.
But to me, like the if there's something that feels
harder to sustain, to me, it's it's the offense. Because
like even down to like, they don't shoot a lot
of mid rangers, but they have the highest conversion rate
in the league from short, mid range and mid range overall.
I think I don't know. Sorry, I'm gonna consult my
handwritten notes. Yeah, but Jerome is Jerome is leading that, like,
these guys aren't gonna be this good all year, most
of these like supplementary players. So like, does that just
mean they're not they're gonna win sixty five games or
you know, sixty seven instead of seventy plus that they're
on pace for And is that a problem? Probably not,
But that's where my eye went was just the shooting.
Is nobody shoots like this over a full season.
Speaker 1: They've and I had no natural way to work to say.
I wanted to show Evan Mobley is the photo for
him Washington YouTube, because he's shooting like fifty something percent
on three and a half three point attempts per game
in the month of December, which is that'll cool off,
But we've seenok Ti Jerome is already cooled off. Looking
at December. Max Struz is not shooting well. Sins returning
the lineup, They've won every game he's played there. I think,
what are they They've only lost one game, They only
lost one game in December. So do you think that's why?
Because this might actually be the question about because why
don't why doesn't it seem like they're being taking as
seriously as Boston or Okasee and maybe even in Dallas?
Is it? Do you think it's more so because of
the hot shooting up and down the like is that
if you had to pinpoint it, do you think that's it?
Or do you think people are just kind of overthinking
this at this point? Because, as I mentioned at the top,
I don't expect this to hold, but they right now
have like a top five net rating of all time.
Why can't we just accept that they're a legitimate threat
to win it all? It still feels like there's a
little hand ringing going on here.
Speaker 2: I think that's totally right, and I think it's really
interesting because like, what what you want to say in
answer to your question is like, well, because they haven't
done it yet, right, Like they haven't proved it like
which I don't know. I think it's kind of an
outdated thought, but I do still find myself kind of
buying into the whole idea of you don't just go
from like first round out to they want a playoff
series last year? Right, but it was it was a
rock barely against the Magic. Yeah yeah, right, it was
just a So they sort of have satisfied the criteria
of like, Okay, you got bounced, then you advanced around,
and so like incrementally, it's not crazy to be viewed
as a title threat. I think it's like the combination
of the Celtics have done it and are close to
is good statistically, and then it does seem unfair that
we view them differently than the Thunder because what have
the Thunder proved more in the postseason than than Cleveland?
Like not really, they just they were anointed preseason in
a way that Cleveland wasn't. But uh, I mean, I
don't know, it is a little unfair. I think it's
I think it's just that there's enough of the well,
we haven't proved it, Like I think Cleveland really is
subject to the let's see it before we believe it thing.
I don't know. I don't really know why that is.
Speaker 1: I viewed them the first three teams who are about
to get to the next one. I view these are
the teams that's no, these aren't We're stretching here, Like
these three teams to me are Capsock title contenders. Yeah right,
Speaking of which, could you talk to us about Dallas Mavericks,
mister Hughes.
Speaker 2: Well, just to give you a little I'm gonna turn
to my second page of handwritten notes because I had
two other teams that I thought of in this tier
before them. This is the correct tier, though I don't
think Dallas belongs up there with.
Speaker 1: With na tier them. This is alphabetical for anyone listening.
Speaker 2: But right, but I had so Boston and Cleveland were
in my top tier. There's another team that is up
there obviously, but Dallas is right in the Wow seems
like yeah, yeah, I just have a feeling. Jonathan Minga
had thirty points in back to back games, Dan, I
don't know if you know that. So this is like
less statistical. I think I just wonder if Dallas has
enough from their three and D players to like just
improve on what they got last year, which is like
would be winning the finals because they made the finals
last year. And I think so just looking at the percentages,
like basically other than Naji Marshall, like, so I'm talking
about PJ. Washington, Clay, Quentin Grimes. Those guys are all
between like thirty eight and forty two percent from three.
No problem, the three is satisfied. Marshall hasn't hit, but
he's really more there for the defense side of it,
And the problem is like defensively, basically everyone's kind of
grading out as average just looking at like defensive lebron
on ball index, Clay has actually graded out best defensively
of that group, which doesn't really yeah, which is like
I don't know that's a good metric, but a skeptical
of it. Nobody's great, Like nobody's great, nobody's terrible. Everybody's
kind of around the average, and Clay's been slightly better.
But like that's the those are the spots because you
know you're gonna get assuming he's healthy. We're not gonna say,
can Luca get healthy from this calf thing, because obviously
that's a question. Assume you will. It's just it's just
gonna be do they get enough made open threes from
their supplementary players and can those guys defend? And I
don't know the answer to that yet because it's hard
for me to believe Klay Thompson is going to be
your best, you know, perimeter defender. I think that's probably Washington,
maybe ExHAM. I don't know, is x I'm supposed to
come back this year. I feel like he's like fallen
off of my radar. But that's my question. I don't
I don't know. I hope you went something more statistically
in depth. I just those role guys have to be
Are they good enough that That's the only thing I'm
not sure about?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I so I have something that's kind of similar
to it was do they need to go out and
get someone who plays checks more of the like both
ends of the floor boxes on the wing, because I
think if you're looking Jayne Phinney Smith got traded to
the Lakers. This wasn't my first immedia thought, but it
was like, oh, that would have been perfect for the
Dallas Mavericks, where, yeah, maybe you want someone with a
little more ball skills. When you're looking at your top
end lineup, that fifth spot still feels like it still
feels like it's up for grabs and any answer that
you want to throw in there, it feels like you
leave sort of a void with where Klay Thompson I'm
gonna have questions about him defensively in the playoffs. Still,
maybe he just proves us wrong there, Quentin Grimes, is
he big enough Naji Marshall? Can he stick with the
coverages you want to hit enough of his threes and
maybe not get suspended. But I'm team nause versus when
you go down to that suspension if anybody cares hashtag
team Naji. So I think that's a fair question with them.
The other thing that's just a little I don't This
hasn't generated a lot of buzz, but this team is
on paper like they're really huge, and yet Luca and
Quentin Grimes are the only players who graded out as
above average rebounders for their position according to Cleaning the Glass.
So when we're talking about finding that two way guy
like a Dwarnan Phinney Smith isn't going to help you
on the glass, do they need to take a flyer on,
like a backup big who does more for them on
the glass than a Kliba or Daniel Gafford. And then look,
we've seen them up Derek Lively's minutes, like where it's
not this split share at the center like not as
equal as it was, but like, do you need someone
else who might be okay, if we know Derek Lively's
gonna top out at what, let's say he tops out
at thirty five minutes a game, Like, do you need
a more versatile option than a Gafford or even a
Kliba who like a more traditional big than a Kleva
Kliba who's more versatile than Gafford to kind of soak
up that time. So that was like, that's kind of
my other question with them is like, why why isn't
this team better at rebounding? And like that's been you know,
there's a lot at excuse me to be clear, they're
they're actually grabbing a larger share of defensive rebounding than
they were last year, but they're still twenty fifth just overall.
And like for the side they have on this team,
and I know that's always like a lot of the
time that's been a knock against Daniel Gafford. That's just
something I'm kind of monitoring, but I think it speaks
too if you want to focus on that how good
this team is that we're splitting hairs, Like they're winning
the non Luca minutes this year, So they're gonna be fine,
Like he's gonna be out. And by the way, the
other thing is when you look at the time players
are spending off ball this year, there's like maybe seven
players who have seen that off ball percentage go up
more than Luca. And between that and now there's this injury,
obviously he's just gonna be fresher than he's ever been
for the playoffs now and that should terrify the rest
of the league. And so this was another team, right,
I didn't necessarily struggle, but like we're not talking about
high level concerns here at the moment, right.
Speaker 2: No, I and I think, yeah, it's the the cornerstones,
the rough ideas are like they've all got we've got
proof of concept. We understand how Dallas can make a finals.
Like it's just a question of can they get enough
supplementary stuff from their role guys, whether it's a big,
whether it's you know, a rebounder, whether it's three point
shar get I.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's the wing area is probably the
more pressing need. But like this team just looking at
the size to be twenty fifth and in defensive rebounding
is just it's off putting. Who's next up.
Speaker 2: This is the Denver Nuggets, and I think it's your
turn to come up with a question for them.
Speaker 1: First, why my question for them is this team going
to operate at a high enough level defensively to actually
be a contender Because this is the first If you
left the Nuggets off, I would understand type deal. And
their defense has been all over the place this year.
They're twentieth in points allowed per possession, They're eighteenth in
half court defensive rating. They are getting blasted in transition
at points. I know Aaron Gordon has missed time this year.
They're slightly above average with him on the floor. I
think the buzzword or buzz words or buzz phrase has
been screen navigation with them because they don't have Kntavious
Caldwell Pope. I think you need to start getting into
more of Okay, well, what does that mean? Like Christian
Brown is not as good navigating screens as Contavious Colbo Pope.
What's the consequence of that or what's the trickle down effect?
And it does when you're watching them, it feels like
it's leading to just more quality looks in the half
court and opponents aren't necessarily nuking them from deep, but
they're taking more shots from deep this year than they
were last year. They are technically one of the better
teams at limiting wide open threes, but you've seen an
increase in the share of shots that account as wide
open threes. If you're a Denver Nugget's opponent, they're slightly
I think you're probably with the amount of threes Denver takes.
The fact that they only lose the three point battle
by a little bit more than six points a game
is probably a w but their rim defense this year
is noticeably worse, even though they don't allow a ton
of opportunities there they are. They are eighth. This was
I was actually shocked when I saw this. They rank
eighth in points a lot per possession against pick and
roll ball handlers. They're not a good team at like
out or defending spot ups. I just look at this
personnel and I just threw a lot of just stuff
out there. They're confusing the hell out of me. And
even when you dig into their tier of performances grant,
they are fifteenth in points lab per possession against top
ten offenses. They're fourteenth in points lab per possession against
offenses eleven through twenty and they're twenty fifth in points
laub per possion against bottom ten offenses, and so it
makes you wonder is there a play better button there?
And Jamal Murray's kind of talked about it where he's
just opening a middle like, Yeah, I've been really bad
on defense at points, and there's certain games where it
feels like it takes this team way too long to
turn it on and I don't think they have that
margin for error. And I'll wrap it up with this.
My actual thought on their defense is what losing Bruce Brown,
who they couldn't have kept, and then losing Contavius called
Wollpope did is it just exhausted your defensive stores too
much to the point where everyone has to take on
more responsibility. And so Christian Brown as an example, more
offensive responsibility on top of defensive responsibility. Naturally, it feels
like it's led to maybe not slippage on defense, but
when you're worried about his screen navigation, feels like he's
dying on more of them. Aaron Gordon feels like he
has to wear more hats. You look at even a
Peyton Watson excuse me, or Michael Porter Junior, anecdotally speaking,
doesn't feel like they're making as many plays around the
basket defensively anymore because they're the scope of their responsibility
has just increased, and it feels like that is what
is happening here with them. And as of right now,
before you respond to this, if I had to answer
my own question, the answer is no. To me, I
don't know if you feel any differently.
Speaker 2: It's tough. I definitely give them, so I wouldn't have
felt good about leaving them out of the contender class,
just almost irrationally, just because all they have YO kitchen,
They'll figure it out, Like that's not an argument, but
that's that's kind of how I felt. So I actually
fixated on the defense too. I kind of have two
for them, but the one I raised I have. I
think what you said really kind of crystallized it for
me because I was looking at how they're about four
per hundred worse defensively with Yokic on the floor, and
so I started looking into like, oh, no, are we
back to where the argument was before they before he
disproved it. Can you build a defense that is good
enough to win a championship with Yokic in it, and
for several years I think he answered that affirmatively, like
he can be good enough in a system if you
use them the right way. And so what you're talking
about squares with what I was looking at. It doesn't
feel like it's Jokic defensively, that like is really the problem.
It's that opponents are just making a lot of jumpers
when he's on the floor. And that ties to what
you're talking about, which like a bad screen navigation, its
clumsy clothes outs like just you know, it's it's not
just Jokic. I do think anecdotally Yokic has looked worse
on defense, but I wouldn't cite him as the like
principal problem with what's going on defensively. Curious what you're.
Speaker 1: Saying, Yeah, And doesn't it seem like they're using him
more conservatively? And maybe that's too They almost have to
do that because can you bring yok I would have
to see data on it. Maybe I'm just missing something,
But can he come out as aggressively when you know,
sometimes like you're just looking at the perimeter defenders and
they just don't feel as equipped to cover up behind
him anymore? And that's again Contagio's Cabo Pope wasn't doing that,
but he put you in a position to where it
was easier for the other guys. Two have then done that,
and I'm wondering if that's sort of like a trickle
down effect of losing him as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think they've just you know, they've peeled off
a key guy every year for the last couple and
so like that eventually just adds up if the younger,
if the Watson's and the Browns of the world aren't
can't do exactly those things or can't like do what
they do well in support of these other good players
that matter, Like you just it's an it's attrition. You're
just you're losing guys that matter, and I think and
you're getting a year older too, and piling up injuries
at key positions. The other the other issue I was
going to raise or question was just like it's really basic,
but it sort of if the answer to this is no,
then nothing else matters, which is, can Jamal Murray play
like an All Star like consistently? Yeah, just like because
if the answers no, then it doesn't really matter how
much better the defense can get and like, I just
I just don't as great as we agree Jokic is
I think he needs some help, like he needs somebody
else that's going to really concern the defense and Murray
Knights tonight is just like not that guy right now.
And so yeah, that feels like a threshold question for me,
which is that's a play better button kind of thing too.
I guess like can he just not be bad sometimes?
Like who know, I don't know. Maybe the injuries have
made him a different player.
Speaker 1: When you look at his career and he's been good
by his standards, certainly in December when you look at
it's funny when you look at his career splits about
how he progressively just gets better as the hear goes on,
which is, I know he's dealt with injuries, but I
also don't like even in the healthy like cut healthy seasons,
I've always like, what are you just not prepared coming
into the season? And then my question to you is
why that's.
Speaker 2: The thing you do? Hear that he's come in out
of shape a couple of times, which is like haven't
you haven't we all seen the like the reels of
his dad like drilling him like crazy with like workouts
and stuff since he was a kid. I don't know
if you've ever feel like every Jamal Murray National TV
game we get some something.
Speaker 1: It's like I remember the initial reporting, like that story
at ESPN like a years ago about it, and I read it.
I was like child Protective Service.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, he's like doing wall sits with like hot
the tea on his knees so you can't don't stand
up like but I don't know, maybe that's why he
takes summers off.
Speaker 1: He's like, I've done enough of this bonus question, who
is Calvin Booth going to sign this summer and inexplicably
give a player option to.
Speaker 2: Mmmm, let's see we need it's got to be a
good one.
Speaker 1: It'll be gonna be Drew U. Banks. Isn't it like
who's the backup? I?
Speaker 2: Who is the Dario? Sorry, Reggie Jackson? Next next in line?
That's good, We'll go through you Banks.
Speaker 1: This next team is yours and this is a fun
team to claim. I think the Houston.
Speaker 2: Rockets, Uh, can they score?
Speaker 1: That's that's fair.
Speaker 2: The defense is championship caliber. I think it's disruptive, it's
it's it's not a smoke and mirrors thing. I think
they can physically overwhelm a lot of good playoff offenses.
Like we've seen it enough. What we haven't seen is
enough individual shot creation consistently from the guys you'd look
for it from on this roster, which is Jalen Green
and which is Fred van Vliet, and the Alprin Shangoon
who's been integral to the defense being this good like
he is at least not hurting it and is often
helping it, I think, which is real growth for him.
But him as an offensive hub hasn't. It's not good
enough like that just you know, we love that about him,
that he can be an elbow facilitator, a guy who
can dominate in the post and be super physical and
pass out of there. The offense, the numbers just aren't
they're not good enough. They're twenty sixth in half court offense.
And they're doing a little bit of like the couple
of years ago Memphis thing where yeah, they're offensive efficiency
overall looks good, but it's a shit ton of offensive
rebounds and they run and they're really good in transition.
And you know, the Grizzlies actually did well the playoffs
given that profile. When that really described them, but like
it's not how you want to make your money in
playoff scenarios when you're trying to contend, like you're gonna
need a half court offense. You're gonna need individual shot
creation or a system that gets you a bunch of
good looks or more shooters to hit those looks. So
this might be a like can they go get somebody? Question?
But but I kind of didn't didn't go that way.
So twenty six and three point frequency, twenty eighth inaccuracy.
Half court offense sucks.
Speaker 1: Like if this person in grunch time offense too.
Speaker 2: If this defense like goes to waste, it'll be a
Roe bummer because they can really just make life hell
and weighs a lot of other teams over the years
have not been able to.
Speaker 1: So it's funny because I have a backup question which
I thought that you might go with something like that.
And the only note that I have to add is,
I know people have harped on Fred van Fleet like
as the shot like always not doing what you need.
It's like that's never actually been what Fred van Fleet.
Speaker 2: Is way overstretched in that role.
Speaker 1: Right, and you can see it in crunch time. I
was actually surprised their crunch time offense was twenty first.
I thought that was impressive for.
Speaker 2: That, right you it comes up nothing happens on offense.
Speaker 1: You don't know, like Jalen Green leads this team in
unassisted points and that's not okay because Jalen Green is
not good enough to do that. Yeah, and I like you,
the Memphis Grizzly profile is great, but like come playoff time,
may have had their struggles. I know they've advanced in
the past, but and like really put up fights. I
do want to ask you this question then, though, do
they like is now the time to like they could
go out and get somebody? They've been mentioned, They're the
team that has assets. They're gonna be mentioned, Jimmy Butler,
Daron Fox, the Melow Ball. They've already been mentioned for
two of those guys. I I feel like I have
a contrarian answer to this question which I want want
to ask you, like, is now the time to do that?
I'm not even saying it needs to be Well, I
guess I am looking at it through the lens of
a bigger name, But like, if you're the Rockets, you
have the assets to do this You're really good by
the way, Like this isn't And I think that's part
of the confusion with the Rockets too, is they have
one of the five best point differentials against top ten
point differential teams. Yeah, like this team has like picked
up some big time victories, and so I understand the
temptation to say, well, they can acquire someone who makes
a meaningful difference, like a call it a number two guy,
and they don't need to give up any of their
core players basically to do so because the salary matching
they have and the picks that they have, is now
the time to do it?
Speaker 2: Well, why isn't it. Why wouldn't it be the time?
Because you don't know yet? Can some of the guys
currently here develop into the types of players we need
because they you know they've got It's been a story
for a couple of years, Like they're loaded with young prospects, right,
Like is it because you think so? My? My? My.
The reason I answer with the question is like, if
it's Fox, like, I think you go do it because
I think Fox addresses so much of what you need
and doesn't really take anything off the table you could
even like it doesn't have I get you know, you
gotta have salary going out, but like you don't even
need to think about like, oh, well, what do we
do with van Fleet? Like vanfle could come off the
bench and run second units if you want, if you
don't want to play them together like I, I wouldn't
do it for anybody like I don't like Butler doesn't
do it for me, Levine doesn't do it for me,
Ingram doesn't do it for me. So if it's Fox
feels like a different class of asset because of his youth,
because of his like how good he is now and
how good he could how long he can stay this good?
But I'm curious to hear your rationale for why now
isn't the time. I don't have a strong opinion on it,
but my gut would be like, if you can get Fox,
you should probably do it.
Speaker 1: I do think I Land there. I was trying to
think of the players that would because my answer is no,
I don't think that now. If you're talking about the
one I've advocated, can they use like the Jock Landel
Ja Chante, Jeff Green, steven At, like any of those
contracts to get more shooting in here a Duncan Robinson
type or just like insert shooter there, the Mikey rotation
minutes my whole My reservation though, is one trading alprinshangun
or more importantly, Jalen Green. It just you can't do
it right now, like because of the way that the
poison pill works. Jalen Green is an example. He counts
his twelve point four million in outgoing salary for Houston
and then he counts his twenty nine point five million
in incoming money for another team. That's just too big
of a gap to like, you can do it, but
it's too complicated mid season, and I think Jalen Green
absolutely needs to go out in any deal that they're
making that's larger, because taking on his deal at this
point is probably gonna be part of the appeal. Like
if you're the Rockets, like the other team taking on
his deal, and so what are you gonna do if
you trade for a darn Fox, You're gonna then try
and find a taker for Jalen Green over the summer,
in which case what is that doing for you? So
the timing feels off with I don't want to Yes,
you could use Fred van Fleet as a team option
for salary matching. You have Dylan Brooks. I just mentioned
all the expiring guys. You could step out of your
way there. You can do it, but I'm of the
mind that you already have not too many guys. But
like Reed Shepherd doesn't get consistent playing time and so
or it doesn't get a ton of playing time. So
why are you gonna even complicate the pecking order more
to where if you get let you de Aaron Fox
an example who I want to be clear, our colleague,
Our colleague Eric Pinks at Bleacher Report, by the way,
came up with a trade that would get Houston darn
Fox without costing them any of their Phoenix Suns picks.
Reed Shepherd goes out Ama, and Thompson stays, I probably
push comes to chef I do something like that. But
at the same time, like, if you get a Daron
Fox or someone else, like, you're probably hurting Jalen Green's
trade value down the line because his role is gonna
get smaller. So you become better now, but I don't
think it optimizes your roster moving forward. And honestly, I
think the bigger thing for me is I want more
information on this team. There's no move, there's no can't
miss move that won't be available to you over the offseason.
And when it becomes easier to you, who is Jalen
Green specifically as part of that the salary matching going out,
and then also it kind of leaves open the possibility
everything we're just describing, there's a chance that Reed Shepherd
can do it, and why not give him the opportunity
before you go that route. Look, he's probably not gonna
get that opportunity this season. That does lead me to
my final concern here. How often do these mid season
trades result in just smooth sailing? And I keep coming
back to the Timberwolves trading for Julius Rando and Dante Divincenza,
where it seems like some things are starting to be
figured out. Now almost halfway through the season, You're not
gonna have that kind of time after the trade deadline.
So I would just rather when you're dealing with so
many youngsters, do I believe that the stuff we think
they need on offense is already on the roster? I
think it could be Read Shepherd. I don't think he's
ever gonna have that opportunity, at least this season. So
the answer is probably know. But I don't think there's
gonna be a big enough trade off to where you're
gonna get the boost that you need immediately that would
convince me to well, I'm going to compromise getting more
information on the players I have in place, just so
I can be slightly more appealing in the playoff. Because
this team is they're Vitals, they're a title contender. They're
not winning the title this year, right like the er
Box is not pushing them to a title. And so
if I'm the Rockets, I mean this is a compliment.
Some fans will probably take it as an insult. I'm
just waiting. There's again, if it's Fox or the metal
Balls kind of the other name I've been But I'm
considering it, and you could talk me into it. I
just don't see as much value in the Rockets making
the consolidation trade mid season as I think some other
people do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I really the the idea of it being a
mistake to sort of acquire players at the cost of
or over the top of year, young guys that you
think are going to develop. Shepherd was one we haven't
even talked about. Really. Cam Whitmore, who who knows, but like,
if Cam Whitmore becomes a really good NBA player, it'll
probably be the type of player that they would be
going out to, Like the guy who justs and bunches
and can be an offense by himself. Like not saying
that's gonna happen, but if things go as well as
they can for Whitmore, that's who I see him being.
Is like, oh, we need that guy. He can get
us twenty six a game, moderate efficiency, can go get
his own shot, all that stuff. The risk in that,
and I think you've the compelling the most compelling part
of the argument is what you said about just the
timing of it and like the poison pill stuff, and
like it's just yeah, you're right, like mid season is
not the time to do it. I think I agree
with that now that you've talked me through it. The
risk of like being concerned about bringing in someone over
the top of Shepherd or whatever's just like not going
to give them the opportunity is that like Shepherd's value
or Whitmore's value is actually going to go down because
if we go through another year of this, the mystery
box stuff is washed off a little bit and now
it's like, you know, I'm trying to think of a
good an example of someone who you could have traded
for a lot. I'm just thinking about a bunch of words.
Think about it.
Speaker 1: This is on a smaller scale, but think about what
happened with the Nixon Obi toppin Sure, Yeah, how much
his trade value degraded year over a year and they
ended up moving him for second round compensation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Brandon Pajemski right now, like, oh, we can't trade him,
and then he has a horrible start to the season
and it's like, well, his value is lower, like because
he got the opportunity and then he didn't do anything
with it, and so it's value like that could happen
with Shephard or Whitmore or whoever else. But I like
the idea that they're like the rockets are good, like
they can have they're ahead of schedule again because we
didn't see a leap like this, and they made one
last year. So it's like you're you're you're a year
plus ahead of schedule on any like rational development curve.
So I think, I think, I think I agree with
you that they don't need to do it. But but
if the question is the offense, like wherever it comes
from organic growth, you know, trade, it's just it isn't
good enough and it has to be better if they're
going to contend, like for real.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the other thing too is just tidle.
Windows are so fleeting now that you don't necessarily want
to start the clock sooner than you have to. And
your point about some players not being worth as much,
this I totally get. But maybe internally if you acquire
the Aaron Fox, you're not expecting a championship this year,
But like the entire interpretation or view of your team
shifts as soon as you like people. Most people don't
consider like, oh this is gonna take a while to
figure out that they don't fucking care, Like if you
make that, and to be fair, if you're gonna make
a move that costs you multiple first and maybe a
prospect like a blue chip prospect or two that pressures,
it's it's more, it's yeah, and it's probably also fair.
I'm probably again, like how many teams have been able
to kind of I'm not saying Pearl clutch all of this,
but aside from Boston and Oklahoma City, and like Boston
has undergone a lot of different iterations. It's just like
you don't see these title windows opening for very long,
and so I'm not gonna start the clock sooner than
I have to. If it was a matter of like
Jalen Green would be a good example, should you have
extended him, like that could have ended up being a
miss for them. But like if it was a matter of, oh,
this is read Shepherd in year two, but it's not.
It's recephering year one. It's like his trade values not
And like I don't think Jabbari maybe his trade values
a little bit because he's coming up on an extension
eligibility and he's been on even on offense this year.
But I don't look at any of these players, even
Cam Witmore. I think after year two you still retain
that mystery box.
Speaker 2: Appeal probably, So yeah, I think that's right.
Speaker 1: Oh man, this team, the Memphis Grizzlies, Are they my
team or they? Yeah?
Speaker 2: I think tell me what your question about the Grizzlies is?
Speaker 1: I mean, can they stay healthy? But that's neither here
nor the answer to that is no. John Moran is
weak to week as we record this, and they'll just
be fine because they're the Grizzlies. Uh, my question that
is actually kind of similar to what it was for
the Rockets. I want to know if the offense is
playoff proof here and they're doing You mentioned that video
already done by Ben Taylor of Thinking Basketball that everyone
check it out on YouTube. Their offense is kind of
like you watch it and it's it's bizarre in a
good way, and look the vitals. They're gonna back that up,
and like, forget about their overall offensive rating, which they're
still they're still in the top five as we record this.
I believe they're sixth in points scored per possession. I
think more importantly for them, they're eleventh in first chance offense. However,
they're still eighteenth in a half court because a lot
of the stuff they do is going to be it's
proded on getting an offensive rebound it or more importantly,
getting out in transition. They're twentieth and three point attempt rate.
They are twelfth in percentage, but I think you could
argue that they're they're not taking enough of them. They're
sixteenth in crunch time offense, which I was actually kind
of surprised by. I was very curious not curious because
they were mentioned in the Dorian Finny Smith sweepstakes, but
the two players that were rumored to be going out
John Conshar and Luke Canard or like some of the
in theory, some of their best like higher volume three
point shooters, and so is, well, what are we kind
of doing here? Because they don't have a single aside
from Desmond Bane, who's been all over the place this
year himself, they don't have like an off the bounce
three point threat, and they're one of the worst pull
up jump shooting teams in the league. I just question
not I not. I guess it isn't a bad way,
Like do they need to get a higher end I
don't even think it needs to be a shot creator,
because you have Jaron Jackson Junior, you have Desmond Bay,
and you have Jaw you have just all these guys
who would handle the ball too. But they to me,
I think they need to get like a higher end
floor spacer in here for this offense to to really
be postseason proof. Because I did dig into some past
like regular season versus postseason. For the most part, you're
gonna see transition frequency drop in the playoffs, and it's
it's gonna happen. I would argue a lot of the
time after those live rebounds, like teams are just gonna
be you're playing better teams, for one, but teams are
gonna be more locked in on getting back, and so
I view that as a fragile part of Memphis's offense. Yes,
and I would just wonder. I'm not like, I don't
think dor if Fanny Smith was the answer. I think
he was a good fit for the team. But I
kind of think that they're not thinking if that's the
guy they circled as that's who we want. I don't
think they're thinking properly about what they need to be
upgrading ahead of the trade deadline.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's all fair. We're pretty group thinking
on this one. My question was can Memphis prove its
offense is not a gimmick, which is basically the same
things like is this play is this playoff viable? I
have some numbers though, because like this is my new
thing I'm most fascinated by, because it arises at a
time where all the criticism of all the offenses are
all the same, is really out there, and so I like,
I'm really gonna make it a point over the next
month to just watch as many Grizzlies games as I can,
because like what they are doing is fundamentally different than
any other team. Like it's you don't want to overstate it,
like it's not a revolution because who knows if it's
gonna work one, but it is like a legitimate shift
in how offense is played. So like their last in
pick and roll ball handler and rollman frequency, So like
the percentage of their plays that involve either like it's
a pick and roll league, it's been that way for
twenty years. Their last by a ton in frequency. They're
tied for last in shots taken off screens, they're last
in handoffs, so they just don't do the pet actions
that have defined NBA offense. They're number one in transition,
for could see, number one in spot ups. That's kind
of the spot ups I think are the more interesting
part of it, because transition is just like kind of
a want to as opposed to the spot ups is like, no,
we're we are creating those shots through our offense. Number
one in in drives per game and one of the
highest pass percentages in the league on drives, So it's
a little OKC like drivekick, drive kick, drivekick, and score
at some point in that process. But it's like the
numbers are just ex beyond extreme for how they play,
and like if you watch it, you want that Taylor
video is amazing, Like they have they spread the floor,
somebody drives, the whole rest of the team like shifts
in concert, like in like clockwise counterclockwise, they all just
move to space. I've never really seen an offense like this,
let alone at the NBA level.
Speaker 1: So like there's Draymond Green, there's d Like.
Speaker 2: I hope it works because this is potentially really exciting.
This we're getting far afield because I'm just like really
interested in this. But when's the last time you have
a team playing offense unlike anyone else? Like I just
do we have to go to when the Warriors started
shooting a bunch of threes or like the Rockets did
the heliocentric Harden thing, Like it doesn't happen that often.
It's like in every five to seven years thing. And
if you're just ditching the pick and roll and like
not setting screens anymore, like it's been fifty years since
a team thought that was a good idea.
Speaker 1: So I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's interesting. Who knows if it's gonna work in the
playoffs though, that's really the question at the bottom of it.
Speaker 1: And it's a weird question to have about the Well,
I guess I'll loop it into two teams because just
top six is a weird way to cut up, Like
them and the Thunder are the only two teams in
the top seven of both offensive defense right now and
for so long, Memphis was the only team in the
top five of both. And I know that's regular season
is different than the playoffs, and they have a lot
of depth. It's just funny how we're questioning whether what
is maybe one of the seven most efficient offenses in
basketball overall can hold up in the playoffs, and we
tend to view depth as not we don't ding teams
for it, but we just write it off in the playoffs.
Is well, like you kind of want to shorten your
rotations to seven or eight guys when it matters most,
and they're I don't, I mean, are they even built
to do? Like who would be the seven or eight guys?
You're just playing a playoff series on the Grizzlies. There's
no way for them to shorten a rotation right now.
Speaker 2: Right well, and you want to cause like you're gonna
take Jake Laivia out of the rotation just to have
a career year, Like, can't do it, Sanchiel Dama, can't
do it, Like there's all these guys. Yeah, that just
I don't know that's that might be. Actually another question
is like is it realistic for the Grizzlies to expect,
you know, eleven deep to be makings like is Jay
Huff gonna get like fourteen playoff minutes and be awesome?
Because that's the night to night thing now, but like
it we don't.
Speaker 1: Even Jackson's not even in the equation right now. That's
what we expected to play. Yeah, they might have the
rookie of the year by the way now too, just
the way Jen Well might be rookie of the year.
Speaker 2: Just stay healthy and he's gonna get it.
Speaker 1: This team is yours. And by the way, Memphis was
not a team. They were a team that was an
easy inclusion. Uh, the Milwaukee Bucks though, mister Hughes, what
do you think about them?
Speaker 2: Through my here all right here we go just on
my note pat here. So this was another hard one
for me cause there's just like depending on which section
of the season you want to pull from.
Speaker 1: They've had like five different seasons already.
Speaker 2: Well that's the thing, Like what are we talking about?
So I'll just rapid fire them and maybe you can
tell me which one you want to run with. Can
Middleton be a true number three, of an elite number
three on a playoff team, like he's been kind of
a number two when they won it? He got damn now,
so like you know, the responsibilities on him or lower,
but he's still just critical. Can he hold up physically?
Will the bad transition defense matter? They get absolutely smoked
off live rebounds, and that's just like you're Maybe that
just means you're old. Maybe that means too many of
your guys don't care. Like does that change in the playoffs?
Can you summon the effort it's going to take to
get back when you miss a shot? Like that's we
talk we minimize transition in postseason play, but like if
you're just not running back like on makes or misses,
like that's that's an issue. Are we worried about three
point regression from guys like Prince who's just had the
best shooting season of his career to a lesser extent
Middleton aj Green like. So I don't know. I think
I named four or five things there. Do any of
those map on to what you picked?
Speaker 1: I think I ultimately landed on is the defense playoff
caliber because ever since they started the season two and eight,
they have a top eight offense and a top nine defense,
and so that's really good. And the offense, I know,
when you dig into certain lineups, the defense is out
performing the offense. I just with Dame and Giannis, their
chemistry is better. No one gets Giannice the ball like
Chris Middleton. Either their offense to me, with their most
important units, even if it's not okay right now, it's
going or it didn't start the season okay, and then
it hasn't rebounded enough during this stretch, and then you
have the Dame and Giannis injuries to boot with that
it's going to be fine. So I find myself more
drawn to the defense, which it sounds like you do
as well, obviously, I just aside from the transit and
by the way, during this stretch, they're still by five
in transition defense off live rebounds and so the number
you mentioned for the year, but even during their rebounding
stretch like that's where they've struggled. They still struggled with
transition defense, ball containment. For them, it can be fine
on some nights, it could be terrible on other nights.
I think that they probably need to get more athletic.
They're in the fourteenth percentile in defense against screens, thirty
eighth percentile in defense against pick and roll ball handlers.
I just don't And then this is the weirdest thing.
Bobby Portis is the only one of their top nine
rotation players with an above average three point contest per
seventy five possessions. Their screen navigation among the bigs is
not good, and I know part of that it might
be the way they defend. But even looking at Bobby
Portis and Giannis, forget about how you use Brook Lopez.
I think there are real spots to pick at with
this defense when you get into a playoff setting. And then,
as you mentioned Chris Middleton, I think the question with
him is Canny be healthy enough? Because when he's healthy,
and my answer will be, yeah, he's a number three
or a number two, that's fine, But does he give
you another spot to pick at on defense? You're playing
him so I'm very interested to see the progression of
this defense for the rest of the season, but once
they get to the playoffs, I'm even more curious to
see how that holds up, or where are they exposed
or where where do they excel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's funny that like kind of it to a
larger extent than just thinking of past champions like Denver,
we're asking like can this work in the playoffs? About
Milwaukee even though like they've they've won it, it was a
very different team. I think it's just did you? Did
you hesitate at all about even including the Bucks in
the in our contender group?
Speaker 1: I did not, because they play in the East, the
injuries in Orlando, and it was just like, if you
want it to be really stingy, what are you just
picking three teams in the East? So I felt compelled.
I didn't. I didn't double. I didn't like hesitate to
include them in here? Did you?
Speaker 2: I gave it like a split second. But then it's
just like they have Yiannis and he's still playing great,
Like I'm not going to overthink this like would I would?
It didn't pass the shock faced test if they ended
up in the conference finals.
Speaker 1: No, I mean, there is probably you could probably talk
me into being less shocked about the Bucks making the
conference finals than the Knicks. At this point that on, you're.
Speaker 2: On record as just the Knicks unbeliever, so I expect
that from you.
Speaker 1: Who do we have next?
Speaker 2: Oh, the Timberwolves. Do you want to go first? Or
is this me? I forget?
Speaker 1: I think this one's me? All right? The question has
to be and I think there's probably two, but they
tie into each other. Does the offense have another gear?
And can they find the optimal use or fit for
Julius Randall? And recently they have, but for the season
they're nineteenth overall on offense, including nineteenth and a half court.
They are fifty to three point at ten to rate
and eleventh and three point percentage, even though Dante DiVincenzo
hasn't shot the ball well. Jade McDaniel's basically an offensive
zero at this point. Mike Conley's been all over the place.
There's definitely not as much rim pressure, which I think
is and there's a decline in there free throw attempt
rate that I think, more than anything, is a function
of and they Edwards is spending more time putting up
three pointers to help open up the floor. They are
still I don't know if they're too dependent on Mike
Conley or it's they haven't optimized Mike Conley with a
lot of their lineup usage. This is all coming at
a time when the Julius Randall plus bench mob is
one killing it, but two it's being used in higher volume.
And so when you have Randall, nas Reed, Gnaw, and
Dante Evencenzo on the floor together, the Wolves are in
the ninety nine percent tile of offense. They're plus fifteen
point eight per one hundred overall. If you've Josh miy
Not as their fifth guy, their net ratings forty one
point one. If you throw Anthony Edwards into that equation,
they're a plus twenty four point one. I think they
have found a blueprint to making that work. And it's
you talked about bringing Randal off the bench. They weren't
playing rand Edwards separately enough for me to think that
was necessarily gonna benefit them. And I also still wonder
if you're putting Randall in this really like space heavy lineup,
you are making life harder on Anthony Edwards. Is I
think what I'm fascinated by moving forward, and so you
start to dig into it, Auntie Edwards actually has a
higher effective field goal percentage by about twelve points when
Julius Randall's on the court, And that comes down to
to me, even if Rudy Gobert is in there, like, okay,
you can talk about the spacing, but like having that
other self creator on the floor who's not Mike Conley,
and maybe now that changes a little bit because if
you're not playing Mike Conley with Julius Randall and Aunty
Edwards as much so, he's not as marginalized. I'm just
unpleasantly I'm hopeful for that they've now found a pas,
especially if Dante Devincenzo is just gonna play like he
has been and he was always gonna come around. I
still think the starting lineup should be changed. I'm kind
of at the point though, where it's I'd probably leave
Randall in there, and I put Dante Devincenzo in for
Mike Conley, and then your first sub to be Mike
Conley for Julius Randall, and like then you can still
kind of get to the lineup you want, But it
always feels like and please correct me if you disagree
that there's gonna be a fundamental trade off with whatever
kind of direction they choose, because I would be like
Anthony Edwards seeing his efficiency kind of dip without Julius Randal.
If you're gonna give Julius Randall the well he's playing
with three to four shooters at any given point, that
just means there's gonna be less three to four shooting
lineups available.
Speaker 2: For Aunt to work with him. My question is basically
some version of that. It's just like, how do you
how do you deploy the players currently on this roster
to get better offense from your starters and your and
your bench. And it's like it might be as simple
you could simplify it even for like how do we
get Anthony Edwards downhill once in a while? Like that?
The three point stuff is amazing, Like I still am.
We don't. I don't think it's been it has been discussed,
but it's like it's we're over looking, Like how incredible
it is the volume and accuracy of his three point shooting,
which like that was a that was not a strength
like you know certainly in his like pre draft and
coming up and development. And it's like it's great and
yet I'm like unsatisfied.
Speaker 1: I don't like it.
Speaker 2: I want I think the best version of the Wolf
certainly has plenty of threes from Edwards, but like, is
him getting downhill into space? And so how do you
do that? And my thought was like, well, take get
Randall out of there, get a spacer. But I think
you make a good point of like what I don't
give Randall enough credit for is being someone that defenses
like must pay attention to, Like you can't ignore Randall
wants to score and is good at it, and so
like a defense has to account for that. So there
is a benefit to guys like Edward's playing with him,
as you said, and I don't. I'll just admit to
not crediting Randal enough for stuff like that. And so
then it's like, well, okay, so let's put Devincenzo in
the first unit. But now you've got Colmly off the
floor and you have to have Gobert out there, who ultimately,
if you took Gobert out of the equation, then you
really have the space you want. But like you just
you have to play Rudy Gobert. That's not negotiable. So
like Conley not out there who's one of the has
years and years of experience with Gobert in turning him
into like a applausible offensive threat, Like, is Gobert gonna
just make it even harder offensively for everybody else to
like get into space or get anything done. I don't know.
Just every every like hole you plug, another one springs.
You know, that's kind of feel Yeah, holes in a
damn is kind of the issue with with the Wolves offense.
I do still think there's a mix there that could
work long term sustainably, even if I still am not
just gonna love having Julius Randall on my team. I
think there's ways to get it to a point where
this defense can be among the best in the league
and the offense can be just good enough. But I
don't know, I haven't seen it yet, and like they
haven't tried drastic stuff. Maybe that's the next move, is
you do try benching Conley, or you do try benching Randall.
But that's that's the side of the ball. That stuff
just has to get sorted out on.
Speaker 1: So I think that's why benching Randall's probably the right answer.
I just don't it's not even optically, But you're you're
worried about disengaging Randall. Now when he's start, you might
lose him.
Speaker 2: Right, You're worried you may lose him, and.
Speaker 1: It's not about lot. You might want to lose him
over the offseason. We still don't know like the true
motives of that. They could say like, oh, we're trying
to balance out the roster. It feels like maybe they
Julius Randall will walk and just save all that money.
We'll have to wait and see. But that's why I
would go. And if you make Conley the first sub,
I think that would and Rudy gobarstill on the court,
I think that would maybe mitigate the offensive trade off.
But then you're still talking about like what three to
four minute stretch before you pull Randall or whatever that
you're right though, So that's the holes in the damn theory.
It does feel I know that we're working. They're on
a better stretch for recording right now, but they haven't,
like it hasn't been easy sledding for them during their
like mini streak. At the moment, it does seem like
they're onto something or at least they kind of understand
how to optimize Julius Randall. Now the trick is, how
do you do that? Well, it doesn't come at the
cost of everyone else, specifically Anthony Edwards. Just this, Honestly,
I was not expecting this, But Anthony Edwards with Randall
on the court fifty five point nine effective field goal
percentage with Julius Randall off the court forty eight point six.
And then that actually drops too if you include Conley
in those non Julius Randall minutes. It's drops to forty
six point nine with Conley and no Randall. And so
I think there's something too. Okay, it might be cool
to put Edwards in lineup where it feels like he
can get downhill more, But are those then gonna be
lineups where because you know one defender is gonna care
about Julius Randall, are you seeing three to the ball
or even two to the ball more when ant does
get going downhill? And that's you phrased it perfectly with
the holes in the damn theory. I can't. I can't
do better than that.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a good point to move on. Then, after
a compliment to.
Speaker 1: Me, our next team is actually your team? Fuck me?
What's your biggest question for the new York Knicks. Is
it when will Dan Valley come around on them? Yeah?
Speaker 2: When is Dan gonna just stop hating on this incredible contender.
It is funny that I'm I think higher on them
than you, But so like, it's fairly straightforward. Your pick
and roll defense in big minutes is gonna involve cat
and it's gonna involve Jalen Brunson, and so far teams
know that and are using it a lot. The Knicks
face more pick and roll ball handler frequency than any
other team. They're giving up eight eight points per play,
which is not that's like a middling figure. But if
you can get a steady diet of that, I think
the trick like it makes playoff offense like very simple
for opposing offenses if they know they can just get
a decent look on a high volume of pick and
roll ball handler plays. Rollman don't get the ball as often,
but the Knicks are the worst defense in the league
against the rollman on a points per play basis. So
that is just my threshold concern is how do the
Knicks figure out a way to make the one to
five pick and roll not just a no brainer go
to against every good playoff team, because that's gonna lead
to unless you think Kat and if he's playing center,
that maybe that's part of how we answer this question.
Unless you think Cat and Brunson are gonna be able
to handle that, you're gonna have to pull in help
off shooters. You're gonna have smart playoff offense is getting
corner three like, that's just the thing that has to
be sorted out. I think it because the offense is great,
the defense has been better, and if the cat like
rim protection numbers have normalized slightly, like to just bad
instead of like unfathomable. But I don't know how you
build a playoff defense if you're vulnerable against like the
most basic thing every team wants to run.
Speaker 1: I basically have the same question. I viewed it from
the approach of can we get out in front of Well,
people are gonna point to this and say, well, look
at what's happening, and so you mentioned like they're actually
have the same pick and roll numbers written down, so
they're middle of the pack and defending those you have
to look at the level of competition number one. And also,
by the way, though it helps that Michael Bridges is
defending way better he's on.
Speaker 2: Both rough night the other night, but like shooting wise,
but he's had some I mean as Christmas game was insane. Like,
he's looked better in general.
Speaker 1: And so they're the Knicks Stefens in the sixty first
percentile with kat on the floor, and then the fifty
fifth with both him and Brunson. And so if you're
gonna be around league average with both of those guys
in the court, that's the goal. Now, start to break
it down by the level of opponent. Against bottom ten offenses,
they are tenth in point slot per possession and then
by the way, they're fifteen to oh I found that
fat against bottom ten offenses, so fifteen of those games
will come against really bad offense, and they won every
single one of them that beat those teams. It's not
an insult. They are sixteenth in point slot per possession
against middle ten offenses, so eleven to twenty they are
still dead last in point slot per posession against top
ten offenses. And if you want to filter out the
Celtics game to open Boston, well guess where they rank
filtering that out, because I did it, second to sixth,
it's still bottom five. And so that's not accounting for
a huge portion of your schedule. But I would argue
those are the teams you want to think about when
you're building a playoff level defense. I also think they've
gone at points to some I don't know if it's
dramatic or great length to insulate the Jalen Brunson cat
like pick and rolls, and it's come at the expense
of other guys don't have a chance to recover onto
shooters or Jalen Brunson is not gonna be able to
get there, and to that effect, they're twenty seventh in
point per spot up possession. That is really bad. And
I think their challenge is we've talked. Everyone's talking about
how they need to make trades, and I would probably
agree they need to get deeper, but the type of
depth they need, they're in a weird spot because you're
not going to replace any one of the core five.
What you need to do is get an extension of
the perimeter players you have in place who aren't John
Brunts and so you're looking at Deuce McBride, Josh Hart,
Mchalbridge's Ojan Andobi. Can you get another one of not
someone who's as good as those, but to extend the
minutes where you can maybe defend the same way when
Jalen Brunson and or cat are both on the floor,
and the goal should then be okay if you believe
in your core lineup is going to be able to
insulate yourself against the cat and brunts and pick and roll.
And by the way, I don't think that's a given.
I think when you go up against top tier competition,
all the questions you laid out are still going to apply.
You need to find a way to extend that across
all forty eight minutes to one help you survive the
regular season even better than you have so far. And again,
they have like one of the four best records in
the league, so they certainly belie here, even as a skeptic,
but also just to give yourself optionality in the playoffs.
And I actually like this is a team that you
con argue maybe they don't make a move, especially I
think Mitchell Robinson's gonna be healthy. But I've now looked
at this team and I've kind of vacillated on what
I think they need. And I'd be open to them
getting a different type of big, but they need like
another combo wing, like who can play minutes in a
playoff rotation? And I think that's the only type of
acquisition that will make me feel better about their defense,
because I don't like, they have some good evidence, but
it's not defening evidence. To the contrary, when you're looking
at defensive concerns and look, they're on a winning streak,
it just hasn't come against the highest level of competition,
and they're a really good team. I think it's yet
to be seen whether they're a great team.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was just thinking, like they One thing you
see sometimes when the one to five just can't contain
picking rolls is you just see a lot of aggressive
try I should have looked up the numbers how often
they just trap the ball handler and get the ball
swinging around Because you look at the personnel you say, like,
I feel very good about Bridges and og and hart
like sprinting around to like cover up. You know the
chain of events you trigger by trapping the ball handler
with two guys, except like, if they're all gonna play
forty three minutes and like forty five in the playoffs,
you I don't think you can play the sort of
defense you would need to play on the backside to
trap a lot against picking roles right, because like it's
just so the amount of running and changing direction and
just like the physical toll of that, I don't think
that's realistic over like the minutes load that these guys play.
So while they have the guys to do it, I
wonder if like that's just not gonna be something they
can actually go to if they need it to against
a playoff teams. Just interesting setup because personnel makes sense,
but the minute totals and just like how hard these
guys have to play, Otherwise you just may not have
enough juice to get that done.
Speaker 1: I think we haven't talked about it, but you only
need when you're in their case. I think you need
to be a league out defense come playoff time, because
your offense is just so good their second in points
score possession right now, and between them Boston and Cleveland,
any one of those teams are gonna end up in
in first and so that gives them something of a
margin for error. But it's not like you can't be
like I want to see as their schedule gets a
little bit harder moving forward, you can't be like against
top ten offenses on the season. If they still hover
around the bottom five in point slot per possession all season, again,
we're not even halfway through. That's a red flag.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure, who we got next? This is the
thunder Dan, I forget who's going first. I bet we're
gonna have a similar question though, see me, it's me and.
Speaker 1: I couldn't think of I didn't what We've talked so
much about the trade deadline. I didn't want to make
it a trade deadline question, but I have to. I
think the only thing you'll point to is just, oh,
they're twenty eighth in defensive rebounding. It's well, they don't
have Chet home Grin so they're only like they barely
had a big at all this season, So I can't
do they have the personnel to do that. Yeah, when
Chet's healthy, they'll improve upon it. They foul a bunch.
When you're so aggressive enforcing turnovers and also have one
of the best defenses of all time, you foul as
much as you want. As far as I'm concerned, it
comes back to the offense, and you don't have to
look at it through the trade deadline. But as do
they have enough contingencies too, And I think it boils
down to two separate things. Do you have enough shooting?
And the answer to me right now is no, even
if you expect alex Caruso to get better. But do
you have enough hig volume three point shooting? Or do
you have enough secondary creation aside from Shay Gilch just
Alexander and I want to say yes, especially because we
haven't seen Chet and Jay Dubb play a bunch without
Shay this season, because Chet has not played really like
at all this season. But man, when you start to
dig into the numbers without Shay, the Thunder in the
fifth percentile of offensive efficiency when he's not on the court,
they're in the forty fourth percentile of half court without him, though,
they're in the twentieth percent This is with Jay Dubb
on the floor. Excuse me, when you have Ja Dubbin Hartenstein,
you're in the twentieth percentile without Shay, you are seventy
first in the half court though. And then for the
numbers that we've seen Chet and j Dub with Noche,
that was the twenty eighth percentile of offense. That was
only one hundred and nineteen possession sample size. I am
actually asking you this question, do you think that this
team can improve upon that state by doing nothing to
where you might think that some of their guys are
gonna shoot more or better. Looking at Alex Caruso as one,
because they're twenty first in so they they're twenty first
and three point percentage, which is just not great. And
so they they're the rate at which they get them up,
they're thirteenth and three point a tenth rate. That's kind
of nondescript too. It's fine, but if you're not gonna
be one of the best three point shooting teams in
the league, it's well, do you need more of them,
especially when you're considered a five out type of squad,
But do they need to go out and actively decide, hey,
we need to trade for like another higher voe, like
a wing shooter with size because part of the reason
you might say, why doesn't Aaron Wiggins or Isaiah Joe
play more than they do? It might be a size thing. Yeah,
they're small, or do they need to go out and
get then this can be a sized bedamned thing. They
need another shot creator who kind of cracks the rotation.
Speaker 2: So I think right now, I think that's pretty clear concern.
Right now, I think, and you may not get the
luxury to do this, but I would like to just
see once Chet is back and we have Heart and
Steign like more fully integrated into the offense, because Heart
and Sign is a helpful offensive player, like he's a
good passer, he's sort of by the way like they
defensive rebound fine when he's on the floor, Like problem
solved as long as he's on the floor. And that
will lead into my question, which is a little different
than yours, But I would be inclined to try to
see if we've got lineup combinations involve Nonchha that involve
Jada and Chet and hopefully you get some better maybe
and maybe herten sign and you get some guys like
like Caruso's the example for sure to just make more shots.
Can that get you to like passable and then in
a playoff setting you need to be you can be
passable for eight minutes you know that Shay is not
on the floor, like I'd like to see if they
could put a run together where things look better offensively
with all their guys and you price in and hope
for better supplementary shooting before I go make a move.
But I think like the you know, it is possible
that they just do need to do something. I would wait,
but like, I don't know how much how much of
a look are you going to get at that sort
of thing based on Chet's return timeline, Like the deadline
may come and go before you have any idea. So yeah,
that's a tough call. I understand how it was hard
to resist the trade deadline angle for this team, specifically
for me, because we talked about it a little bit
and never really got too deep into it. Just who's
gonna close? Like, I think it's just an interesting question
because the non negotiables are Jada and Sga. You would
assume Chet Hartenstein, I think because of the defensive rebounding,
Like I kind of want Hartenstein out there, and it's
not like you get Chet to space, so you only
have one non spacer and that non spacer can pass
and make good decisions. And then after like is it
Caruso is a Dort? Is it Wallace? Might it be
Wiggins some nights? Like I don't know. I just think
I think it's gonna be a really interesting question because
one they do have depth for like that last spot.
Maybe depending on what you need from it. And obviously
we know that a closing lineup is not something you
lock in for the full season or the full postseason.
But I think it's just an interesting way to think
about this team is to is to look at like, well,
who do you actually want out there, all things being equal,
to finish a game? Because for a team this good,
it's weird that we're not one hundred percent sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's almost like, to simplify it even further, would
be are they gonna close with one or two bigs
more often than not? It's kind of the question, and
I would have argued it would have been one big.
Well I did argue before the season started up, but
that was like pre Aux Carus are shooting sub twenty
eight percent from three, and so I think that makes
things interesting. I just certainly back to the trade deadline think,
which I like might tie into the like do you
need a trade for someone who's part of your closing lineup?
Then I would advocate towards them standing pat, I want
to see what this all looks like when check comes
back at the same time. And maybe I'm just being
kind of an asshole here. If you're not gonna figure
out a way to make Aaron Wiggins a bigger part
of your rotation, then if you think you would play
Cam Johnson more because he's bigger, like an Aaron Wiggins
plus empty salary for Cam Johnson, not empty salary but
Ustman Jank or just another salary that comes close or
will work mathematically, that might be something to look at then,
because I think Aaron Wiggins a really good basketball player.
I know he's not shooting the three ball well this month,
but and I don't think he's actually the answer to
more shot creation, but like it's kind of someone who
toes the line between guard and wing and is pretty
plug and play at both ends of the floor. Like
that's what I want to see more of. And so
if you're not gonna, like, if you can't get to
twenty five minutes a game for him, or you don't
think he's capable of having, like maintaining a type of
impact across that many minutes, that's when I might more
seriously consider, well, should we just go out and do
something on the on the trademarket.
Speaker 2: Yeah, my ears perked up at Cam Johnson instead of
I love Wiggins too, but like that that feels like
that would change things in a positive way for them.
Speaker 1: But it's like does it because like do you play
Can you play Cam Johnson with the two bigs? I
guess you can. I like his I like everyone's fit
onto Okac. Probably that's the thing he's not giving you.
If you're you've done now, decided you're investing, and it's
not obliterating roster. But if you go after Cam Johnson,
that's not a shot creation move.
Speaker 2: That's no size and three point shooting. I think I
do think though that if you have you know, Wiggins
has had great three point shooting years and but like
I think one of the things that I come back
to a lot is like, man, the Thunder sure get
a lot of wide open threes for Lou Dort and
even though he's like a thirty nine percent shooter, I
just never I feel like that's a defensive win if
you force the Thunder to have Dort take a shot.
So like, if you have Cam Johnson out there, you
treat him very differently as a defense and maybe that
opens things up what you really want to do, which
is get Shade downhill and get Jadob downhill. Because you can't,
You're just gonna treat Cam Johnson differently as a defense
than even Wiggins, for example, who's had some great drive.
Just a good offensive player full stop. But yeah, I
don't know, And just i'd like the size I'd like
I don't know why. I just I don't know. If
you're gonna have a guy out there just to shoot,
I'd prefer he'd be bigger than smaller.
Speaker 1: I don't know, Isaiah Joe just because he's more of
a motion shooter than an Aaron Wiggins or even a
Cam Johnson. If he was like bigger and stronger, who
is the what would be the like what's a bigger,
stronger Isaiah Joe kind of.
Speaker 2: Like Michael Porter Jr. Like just just a big guy
that's out there to just run around and shoot.
Speaker 1: He makes so much money. Now you're talking about or
are we trading Wiggins and Joe and you like, no,
what about would this be a Duncan Robinson team or
is that not really doing He's like he's never kind
of a stretch.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's never gonna close for you. That's the thing
is like we're at such a high level right now,
we're looking for someone on the trade market, which is Barren,
who could close for the best team in the league.
Speaker 1: So I think they should stand pat for the most part.
Darren Wiggans thing is interesting, who would you who would
be your your coaching this team? What would be your
go to for like fuck matchups for a second, what's
your go to closing lineup?
Speaker 2: I think I have Sga, Jada, Hartenstein and Chet and
ideally I would want Caruso over which is over Dort.
And it's weird because I'm like making a defensive decision
and I'm passing over Lou Dort. I just think I
think Caruso unless you have a really big wing on
the other side, I just Caruso just causes so much
trouble and if he can make shots, I just I
would and he's a better decision maker than Dort. He's
just a better all around player.
Speaker 1: Probably I would close with both Dort and Cruso over
the duel Biggs for the most part, And but if
it came down to Cruso or Dort, I do think
I'm picking Dort, not only because of the bigger wing defense,
but there is value even if you don't trust Dort
as a shooter, there's value in the volume and that
dude gets them up, and I think he still doesn't
receive enough credit for like how long did it takes
Shay to get up three pointers? Like but till this year? Yeah, basically,
And Caruso is still far too passive in that regard.
I'd be interested in, like could caseon Wallace like a
case and Wallace. And that's why I like the one
big look more because it allows you to get just
a little bit more funky on the perimeter with who
you play.
Speaker 2: I just like Hartenstein so much, just I love any
like the The rebounding is gonna be a problem unless
he's playing, And I would hate to get through a
playoff run where the Thunder get eliminated because they couldn't
rebound and it's because they didn't play Hardenstein enough. That's
hard to imagine we get there, but I could, I
could see it.
Speaker 1: I am a little upset that he hasn't dabbled in
three point shooting. Yeah, I thought maybe they'd have him
space out to the corners a little bit, but hey,
he's averaging half attempts per game in December, so let's
let's hold out hope there. This next team is for you, Grant,
What up with the Orlando Magic. Do you want to?
Speaker 2: I mean, it's kind of like, do we even need
to pretend like we don't have the same thing here.
It's just it's it's Houston East to some extent, it's
just like, how how are you going to score enough
to make this defense to honor this defense? Let's let's
put it in those terms, like to make it worth
it good you are defensively? How do you not dishonor
the defense by scoring enough twenty fifth in offensive rating?
They turn it over a lot. That's been the case
for like the last four plus years. Not not necessarily
the twenty fifth rank, although they've been bad. The turnover
thing is strange. So just like, for some perspective, with
Fronz on the floor, sixty first percentile offensive rating like
that would honor the defense.
Speaker 1: That's that's good enough. We have we have the same
note do it?
Speaker 2: Okay, let's see how many more we have? Do you
want to guess what the next percentile ranking I'm going
to give.
Speaker 1: Is what they were with Franz and Paolo last year? Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Actually, wait, so they're seventy second with Fronz and
Polo this year, even though the vanishingly small sample, but
they were in the twenty six percentile last year with
Fronz and Polo on the floor together. Should we just
stop and just like think thoughts to each other instead
of looking.
Speaker 1: Into we'll subscribers like will they at this point? Like
were they thinking? Did they know what was coming? Let
us know in the comments?
Speaker 2: Or are discordy?
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's see.
Speaker 2: Uh uh, that's those are all the stats I have.
Did you have more stats? You usually do have more
stats than me.
Speaker 1: I did dig a little bit further so with when
you look last year with Franz and no Palo, they
were the ninety fourth percentile of offense and ninetieth in
half court. When Polo played without Franz last year sixty
first overall and then forty ninth in the half court.
They were twenty seventh in the half court with both
Palo and Franz. And what my question would be for
them is it's this along the same lines, but are
you gonna be healthy enough for the offense to honor
the defense because we like the timeline for Franz is
just unknown. Polo has missed so much time this year
and now Mo Wagner's out for the season and he's
important to some of their like what he can do
is a big not in like heavy minutes and volume,
but holy shit, he was a.
Speaker 2: Good offensive player for them, which they don't have a
lot of.
Speaker 1: And I mean his usage versus true shooting for a
big is ridiculous. Like I know he wasn't doing super
complex stuff, but still, And so that leads me into
there are two like different ways I'm looking at this.
If you think that you're gonna have both of your
both Palo and Franz when it matters most, like they're
the Frond specifically is gonna be healthy in time, I
feel like you're almost obligated to them. Well let's look
on the trade market for more shooting. But I also
wonder so the Polow without Franz stuff, because the Magic
are finally playing faster this year. Part of that has been, well,
when you don't have Fronz or Pollow, like, you need
to paper over the lack of skill by playing faster.
But they've always kind of done a better job upping
their transition stuff when it's just Franz. I think Polo
inherently does slow things down. I don't think it needs
to be that way for this team, and so just
so we're not kind of repeating the same thing as
my actual question would be, can they continue to kind
of kick it up a gear, like increase the urgency
which with which they operate, And I would say specifically
after live rebounds, because Palo is not the type of
guy where it's a right if you're gonna inbound the ball,
like I don't expect him to get up that way
on a dead ball, but I think that there could
be value. And if you're not gonna change the personnel,
which is probably fair given the like the number and
the scope of injuries you're dealing with right now, if
you're not gonna go out and get an Anthony Simons
or or whoever, can you continue to play faster during
not just the Pollo and no Fronz minutes, but the
Pollow and Franz minutes. And I think that might be
the best way to aside from growth from both of them, which,
by the way, Paalo, I know a lot of people
harp on his efficiency. He was annihilatory in the playoffs
last year, Like that was if you had any doubts
about Poalo, that should have been even though they lost,
that was the series that, Oh okay, and so I'm
just it's the same thing. But I'm just wondering, can
they also continue to play at a faster clip when
they have a Palo on the floor, whether it's with
or without Franz.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you would think that'd be an e solve, like,
especially since half the time the guy getting the defensive
rebound is gonna be one of your big forwards who's
gonna be able to push the ball up. So yeah,
I'm with that. I'm I'm just surprised to say that,
based on the numbers you cided from last year that
they need to trade one of Fran's apollo because clearly
they're better with just one on the floor than both.
Well you're gonna go that way, Yeah, that's clearly what
this is. Clearly against second units because that's the only
time you have one or the other off the floor.
Speaker 1: Would you if you're this team, though, how are you
approaching It's not just the trade DeLine but the rest
of this seaar Like, if there's an opportunity to go out,
I'm just gonna use Anthony Simons as an example that
type of player who's gonna improve probably some of your
on ball facilitation and like playmaking options, but just in
general your offense to open it up more like or
is it just are you're not doing I mean the magic.
Let's be honest, they're not doing it regardless of like
everyone could be healthy and they're not gonna do it.
But when you're looking at okay, like the injuries that
they've just withstood, is it kind of just no, we're
not going to do this.
Speaker 2: I think it might. The reason might be that, like
Simons isn't good enough to make the kind of difference
I would want on a team that now, after some
of the things that have developed this year, that they
should be looking at like because the defense is elite,
that's just gonna be what it is. I just and
you can peel off some of that to get a
guy like Simons if you want to. But I think
the sort of validation that this defense is going to
be great, paired with how good Paalo looked in his
tiny season opening stretch, paired with how good Frands looked,
it's now like, oh, we need like a third best
guy on a finals team, like and that Simons. Like
I'm not saying Suggs is great. We all love Suggs,
But I think like Orlando has enough stuff going for
it to where you like you need to aim higher
than Simons. I think like Simons makes sense, he addresses
the issue. But I think this team is good enough
and young enough and has enough like profile aspects that
I like to where you need to keep the powder
drive for someone like for a Fox for example, like
you need like an All NBA or like high All
star guy.
Speaker 1: So we want them to get shooting, and we're picking.
Speaker 2: Well, he's gonna run the off, Like I get, I
don't care if it's shooting, get me a really good
I'm actually.
Speaker 1: Higher on his shooting than most. The percentages aren't there,
but like he can get to the step back.
Speaker 2: I was just being yeah, yeah, no, right, that is
a fair point, though, Like the cheap way to do
it is just get a guy who's gonna make forty
percent of his threes on decent y.
Speaker 1: I guess because this season if look, if the Aaron
Fox becomes available, I think you have to as the
magine or same thing with LaMelo Ball is maybe the
best idea. Then like you split the baby, which that's
by the way, that's a horrible saying and I've said
it in two consecutive podcasts. Who came up with that?
Speaker 2: But that we can credit that one to the Bible?
Thanks Bible, I'm using them.
Speaker 1: Look at me spitting Bible versus out here. I didn't
even know it, but you kind of split the difference
here and say, like, here's a trade that I would
find fascinating. I don't know if the money lines up perfectly,
but the framework is there. And Isaac for Kevin Herder,
I like Isaac too much. Kevin Herder can play more
than ten minutes a game.
Speaker 2: That's true. Yeah, that's and right. I just said you
can peel off some of the defense. You're peeling off
a lot of the defense. If you in short stints,
I think.
Speaker 1: You would still be fine because treveling Queen exists, by
the way, Like you're just your set. But my whole
thing would be that's you're not giving up any first
round equity and you are improving the offense. And I
guess if you're if you're arguing, the defense will be torpedoed.
Like if you don't think about what they have in place,
I mean, fronds will eventually come back. So I think
they have enough there with Sugs and KCP and Anthony
Black and even go Goo batadse I would you wouldn't
consider it though, Yeah, that's just a hard no for you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think about it. I was just as I
was doubling back on It's like for what you need
from the role, Like how much worse is Kevin Heurder
than Simons? We'd both say Simons is a better offensive player,
but you're talking about someone that you're not gonna make him.
Speaker 1: An uptring to come with someone who's gonna run the offense.
That's not Simon's strength and so get someone who uhs
the more of the time is off ball stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would love Isaac on the Kings, by the way,
Like that's that would be very.
Speaker 1: By way we can find another Would that be with
the contracts by the way that Orlando has, they can
find another way to get Kevin Herder if they wanted to.
But is that would that if you're not giving up
a first round pick? Is that the type of trade
that you would consider making this season as this team?
Like it's not the home run trade?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I would consider it. I'm still I'm
in a place now though where I just I think
Orlando's got to make one big move and then like
capital B big and and then I cause I just
think I think with the two forwards and with Suggs
looking like a maybe Derek White minus some offense guy
like in the pipeline for a Derek White type career, like,
I think you got to get somebody that's really going
to move the needle because they're good enough to justify that.
Does that make sense? Like I think the small time
stuff isn't what I'm focused on.
Speaker 1: Which I think is fair, but like what if that?
The two things for me is what if the big
time stuff isn't available? And then two, even if it is,
is this the season to do it? When you don't?
When you might not? I mean, you probably will have
your two best players available for the playoffs hopefully, but
what if you don't.
Speaker 2: No, that's the thing. I'm talking about a player that
you're like, he's a cornerstone for the next four or
five years. Like it's not. It's not. We keep using
this as an example, but it's like not Jimmy Butler.
Not the guy that's like probably gonna walk is you know,
has a shelf life that's rapidly expiring like not that
kind of Yeah.
Speaker 1: There's and there's no a Cidber Pharon Fox. There's no
player who profiles as he might be a vail, like
we've mentioned Lamello Ball, but like he's not somebody who's
considered avail, Like is there another player that might fit
that bill?
Speaker 2: No, there will be a next wave though, like Fox
is now like oh we weren't talking about him at all,
and now and now he's There will be another Fox
or another whatever, like it'll happen. But but yeah, I'm
talking about the player I'm talking about for them is
not available.
Speaker 1: Who we got next?
Speaker 2: This is Philly? Uh do I lead a'll? Jeez? No
way did I go first because you you guessed all
my stats?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this is me my thing with Philly the
health stuff obviously, But I think the question is is
the offense ever gonna be I've been actually very impressed
with the defense, even you look at the injuries that
they've dealt with to start the year. But they're still
bottom five in offense. They're twenty fourth in both rim
and three point percentage. They are a plus six point
nine with the Big three on the court. But even
the Big three lineups are in the twenty first percentile
of offense. When you start to kind of dig into,
like splitting up the Big three, the numbers are all
over the place. PG and MAXI with no EMBIID plus
five point seven eightieth in offense. When it's PG and
EMBIID with no MAXI minus seventeen point two zero fifth
percentile for offense, MAXI and EMBIID without Paul George plus
one point one, they're about league average offense. I think
the big thing with this team is so like and
this is just him As an example, Paul George shooting
sub thirty percent grant on semi open and wide open threes,
So any three where defenders at least four feet away
that is not good. I assume that number is gonna
come up. But you look at the rest of this
roster and I finally I find myself asking, especially given
the Jared McCain injury, now, is there enough shooting for
them to consistently run a functional offense. So even if
you believe that Paul George overall is at like thirty
four percent, that should come up. Kelleybrady Junior at thirty
four percent, you can't guarantee me, that's gonna come up.
Joelle b by the way, he's at forty percent for
the year. That might go down. Gershon Yabicelli thirty one
point seven percent. Honestly, that could go down. Eric Gordon
all right doesn't play aton what does he playing like
three games in the past. Oh, this is only for
the month of December. I'm looking at that With's why
My point being though, with this team, Grant, is there
enough shooting for them to consistently run a good offense?
And then if there's not, have you suddenly found yourself
way too dependent on Tyreese Maxi going nuclear as he
has been.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's a fair concern. I would. They're
they're five and one over the last couple of weeks,
and they're like eleventh in offense and thirteenth in defense,
which is like, that's more. I tend to I tend
to believe a little bit more in that, And I
tend to be less persuaded by the like any of
any of the lineup combo numbers at this point, because
like I just I don't think we have I just
don't have enough information there. The shooting is interesting, I
think Paul George is gonna shoot it better, like he
just has to. And I would say it's a concern
because you know, we've said several in several instances during
this pod, like you really don't want someone maybe just
I say this all the time, you really just can't
have someone out there if you're talking about a contender
that the defense can like beg you to have him shoot.
And so like me saying, I think between George and
Maxi and an offense that runs through Embiid in a
perfect world, like that's enough. But then you know, if
if if Martin's gonna left, or if Ubre is gonna
get left or or whatever Kyle Lowry like, then maybe
that is an issue that's a high level issue. I
imagine the Sixers really hope they have to contend with
that because it'll mean that they got enough out of
their core three guys to get there. I just went
with the hell thing. I wasn't gonna go past that.
Like how is Embiid even capable of being like a consistent,
you know, all star level player for like the rest
of the season in playoffs, Like he's had a couple
of great games, but he just you can't watch the
guy play and say he's the same player. It's just
not it's not there. And I don't know if we're
getting back to that.
Speaker 1: Do you think that they're more I mean, are they
more innocular? Like if the max if Maxie and Paul
George are going to win the minutes they're on the
court without Joel Embiid, you're not gonna win a title
without Joel e Biand but like, are you more inoculated
against him not being top five player in the league
Joel Embiid.
Speaker 2: Now, it's sure that might be. That for sure helps
Who did they play? They played somebody bad last night
or the night before, and it was like not in
doubt and he played thirty minutes and I was just like,
what are we doing? Like get the guy out at
halftime if you have to. I just yeah, right, it
helps if those two can win their minutes, which like
they could because you get enough supporting casts around them.
That's that's a good one too. Again on most nights,
but you're you said the quiet part a loud. It's
like none of this matters. If Embiid isn't the best
player throughout an entire playoff run, like that will have
to be what happens independent of anything else for them
to actually contend.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so just to get the numbers right, even Max
he's below thirty five percent from three for the year,
that will come up, and it's all he's been a
thermonuclear lately. Paul George thirty one point five percent for
the year. That'll come up. Jared McCain thirty eight point
three percent. They're gonna miss that. Plus the volume that's
at twenty eight what'd you say that's gonna stay the same. Yeah,
Ubre's at twenty eight point seven percent and thirty four
percent in December. Embiid's been at thirty point two percent.
That should come up and it has come up in December.
Gershon j Abouseli at thirty nine plus percent is already
starting to come down. I'm actually if I told you
that Kayla Martin we was shooting thirty seven and a
half percent from three for the season, that would surprise you, right.
Speaker 2: That would seem high to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's no volume there really, but it's that's what
he's shooting for the season. So is that Like I
know it's the health thing, but like, what does this
team need at the trade deadline? Then when you're looking
at it, is it? I think we focused on like
a four or a combo wing for the most part,
who can get shots up. But is there any merit
to the thought of well, Paul George kind of isn't
that on ball killer? Do you need now, especially with
Jared McCain out, Like, does it need to be a
guard who's not Eric Gordon or Kyle Lowry?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, yeah, I mean maybe that is it. If
because we saw Maxi, I mean it got hurt, but
like he he it can't just be Maxi right like that.
He he's great, awesome offensive player, but that's just too
much for him. And if George is in that guy
and embiad his dement, yeah, you might need another guy
to create shots.
Speaker 1: Like really, my guard with size I don't even know
who springs to mind necessarily there. Yeah, I don't think
he actually really good for this team, but they're not
gonna dream. Norm Powello's probably gonna win.
Speaker 2: Most player gonna stay like Clarkson isn't good enough like that?
Norm Powell is just like the best possible version of
the what.
Speaker 1: About I assume he's gettable. We haven't heard these available
would have bogged down mcdonovich be long ones.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I like that. I like that because he could run,
he could you could play him at the one with
maxiof too.
Speaker 1: Or honestly, this might be one of the players who
comes close to checking a creation is a strong word,
but just the way he's been playing DeAndre.
Speaker 2: Hunter, oh yeah, right, yeah, I mean, if you could
get this version of DeAndre Hunter for the full run
like he's he's outplayed Paul George so far this year
by a lot like Paul George. We love Paul George
as a third guy. Imagine how much we love Paul George.
Is the number four option? Amazing number five if McCain
comes back to Yeah, the ideal situation for Paul.
Speaker 1: George grant that wraps up our contenders that we have
is not even outright, but those are the singular contenders
we're gonna ask questions about. But we now have to
get to the section of all the teams we left off.
So no Lakers, no Phoenix On, no Golden State Warriors,
no Sacramento Kings, and then that's pretty much like of
the teams I think are the biggest exclusions. But there's
also whether you think it's the Hawks, the Pacers, the Spurs,
or the Clippers who've outperformed expectations and have yet to
get Kawhi Leonard back is there. I don't know how
you want to tackle this. We're not going to get
into each individual team, but of the teams we mentioned,
I'll throw Miami in there as well, which team do
you think is the closest to entering the title contender fold?
Speaker 2: Well, here's what's weird is I was just sorting by
just their differentials this year, and the team we've disrespected
the most technically is the Clippers because they have the
highest net rating of any team we didn't put in
the contender class, which kind of hilarious.
Speaker 1: Maybe have a top ten player coming back?
Speaker 2: They and they're right, and they have the most obvious like, well,
how does this team get better? Which I'll just bring
a finals MVP back. Probably that's, you know, gonna be
their best player if he's healthy at all. So I
still so, I guess probably you should say the Clippers.
I guess for me, that's not where my heart is though.
Speaker 1: Well, my question because the question with the Clippers is
will Kauhi because they're not going to be a contender
without Kawhi. So what will Kawhi look like upon return?
And will he be on the court in the playoffs?
Speaker 2: Right? But I mean, but I'm just saying, like, of
the teams we're discussing, the Clippers have like oh like
a oh that could happen pathway that doesn't involve making
a huge trade. They're just gonna trade nothing for a
really great player. However, what is actually more likely?
Speaker 1: Though? I would argue that I'll use the Warriors or
the Lakers as an example. I think he's more realistic
that one of those teams make a big time acquisition
just based off the trackers are now saying Kawhi Leonard
will be Kawhi Leonard one and then two available in
the playoffs for the Clippers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're probably You're probably right.
Speaker 1: I have a half decade worth of evident and that
says I'm right.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, I mean, but then, like, are the Warriors
with say they do the Butler move, which I don't.
I'm I'm back to that. I don't think they should
do that? Are they?
Speaker 1: Are they better on the Warriors this seasons?
Speaker 2: You should have seen the after the second kaminga thirty pointer.
I was like, I think asked time for Steph to
be a number two because I'm just really reorient this offense.
It's it's clear as day. Uh, and then like check
in tomorrow and I'll just be all the way back out.
I can't. I can't be trusted.
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 2: I want to say the Lakers, but like they have
a negative point differential, they've been super lucky relative to
like what you know, what their underlying metrics say, and
then Davis and Lebrono missed time. So we just can't.
And I'm not going to say the Warriors because I
just established I can't. My opinion can't be valued on them.
Who's is there an obvious one? They haven't said Phoenix yet.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think for a good reason. They suck. They're like, man,
they get nothing out of the center position. Right now,
you dig it. I was digging in because we considered
putting them as like a team that we just covered.
But we were talking beforehand and I said, if we're
not including the Lakers of the Warriors, the Sons have
no business being on here. You look at their numbers,
like so with the big three on the court, there
minus one point six with an offense and the fifty
six percent tile Booker and Beal without Durant minus eighteen
point four is their net rating thirty seven percent tile
of offense bal and Durant without Booker minus sixteen point nine.
In the tenth percent tile of offense, now the Booker
and Durant no Bial minutes ninety six percent tile of offense
plus six point nine. Overall, here's the other I don't
I actually don't lay everything at the feet of Beal.
I want to be clear. A lot of it I
think has to just do with the center position. The
Big Three is a plus sixteen point seven per one
hundred when Nurk is not on the court, and so
there's just too many moving parts here to where oh
it's cool to see, oh Sabigadaro and Ryan Dunn in
some things, and then Royce Andill before getting injury has
been really good. And if Grayson Allen's healthy, could he
be really good. There's just they might not have any
made like you could say, oh, they just need like
kind of an like anything out of the center position.
They'll be fine. But the pathway to them making even
incremental improvement is just so difficult. I don't think I
would pick them, like, is that the team? Because the
two teams I'm leaning towards, and I'm just excluding the
Clippers because they have the easiest question. I'm probably looking
at the Spurs or the Kings because I'm sitting here
with the Kings and if they just like went all in,
like if you put Jimmy Butler on this team instead
of demart Rows and Kevin Hurder and picks, I think, like,
I don't know why they haven't been linked in. Maybe
he doesn't want to go there. Yeah, I think I
might just settle on the Spurs because they feel like
if de Aaron Fox is available, that's the team for me,
like even more so than Houston because they don't have
a long term option at his spot. You could trade
guys in terms of salary that don't really matter, and
then you're trading picks, maybe the prospect going out of
Jeremy Sohan and that's something would haggle over. But just
because you have Wemby who by the way, I don't
think it's been paid, Like he might just finish in
the top five of MVP voting and that's a real
thing that could happen. So I think it's one of
those two teams. For me, I don't feel great about
any of these teams. The standing say it should be
the Lakers. The point differential in the makeup of that
team though, just they've now decided that Austin Reeves and
Lebron James are just gonna do all like in the offense,
will be fine with them doing all the I don't,
I don't. I don't have a great answer here, I
guess is me stumbling through that.
Speaker 2: I think if you you've kind of framed it for
me in a way that clarifies a little bit. If
you think that a prerequisite for contention I'm just making
this argument up is to have like a top five guy,
then then it should be the Spurs. If because Wemby,
I think if you price in injury risks for the
Lakers guys, if you price in the same thing for
like Katie Steph has slipped, like Haliburton hasn't gotten isn't
gonna get back to that. Kawhi is the other one
that could can he play like one of the five
best players in the league for a stretch like Yeah, So,
I think if you're just really honing in on who
had and a top five guy is not available in
trade right now. Jimmy Butler's not that so, like, probably
it should just be the Spurs and Clippers, and I
feel like wildly uncomfortable about both of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Clippers are probably the answer, just because Kawhi
will come back and there's a chance he might be Kawhi.
And there's all the teams we mentioned, like every other
team on this list. I think you already said this
is predicated on like they have to make some type
of move.
Speaker 2: I think so. I think so.
Speaker 1: So is there one from that group? Is it the
Spurs that's the one that stands out from the other seven?
Speaker 2: I's it's probably the Clippers. I think it's it and
independent of them, like dependent of them, like I guess
my gut, like my gut is, I don't want to
pick the Spurs. But as I look around, I just think, well,
if you had to bet on which player was going
to be the most productive for the balance of this season,
I think Wemby might just be the pick over over
Day over, kd over Steph, pricing in health, age, regress,
all that stuff, Like, right, is that that's not crazy?
Speaker 1: Is it?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: That's not crazy? And yet I still find myself drawn
to the Warriors as.
Speaker 2: The amps going to let you do it. I'm not
gonna say it.
Speaker 1: I just feel like if they made the Jimmy, Like, so,
do do they feel like the team on this list
that if they made the trade it would go the
longest way for them? Like if you here's a good
question and the Lakers already made a trade, we know
you add Cam Johnson to the Lakers. Of the Warriors,
who ends up being the more dangerous team?
Speaker 2: Hmmm, probably the Warriors. I think the Warriors are better
than the Lakers right now today. It's close, and I
think he would serve a similar purpose on both teams.
I guess the fit might be better on the Lakers,
but I think the Warriors are better and and he
would just he would help them plenty, Like they shot
thirty percent against the Cavs last night. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Who do you think is more the team that would
be most likely to make a bigger trade of this
entire list?
Speaker 2: I think the Warriors, And I think this is a
real thing. I think they're less likely to do that
now than they were a week ago because Kaminga had
two really good games and it's just like it's never
gonna end, Dan, It's never gonna end.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I'm here's I'm not trying to be purposely inflammatory.
Here fire everybody. Then if they're flying by the seat
of their pants, where these few games or oh Kminga
closed the season, well we're just gonna ride with him.
But we don't trust him enough to extend him. But
oh we're not gonna trade him. He just had two
really good games, and I just go ahead.
Speaker 2: I was gonna say, can I trot back out the argument
I made all the time that I know bothered you bothered,
but like I don't think Jimmy Butler makes the Warriors
a contender. So if that's the case, if you now,
if you disagree with that, then you absolutely should take
I mean like he makes them better, he makes them
we would have put them in this group. But but
he's not. He's not the level of player and the
age and the short term risk and stuff like I
don't feel like he gets you where you want to be.
And if there were oh not available, you're honest like
like that, like can someone better than Steph like clearly like.
Speaker 1: The my my my response to be then trade Steph.
Maybe you don't think Jimmy Butler even gives you a
like makes you a legitle contender this sea because you're
acquiring Jimmy Butler for this season and then probably next season,
is just we're making this a two season window. Basically,
I disagree, because I do think he makes them a contender.
The thing that I've struggled to most with is if
you're going from Wiggins to him, the defense I'm not
worried about, but then like the plug and plain is
on offense, I still think Jimmy Butler is good enough
to figure it out. And the way that Steph plays
off everybody, you can go get someone as even if
Jimmy Butler proves that he needs to be ball dominant.
I just why don't you think he makes them a contender?
Speaker 2: I think it has it's it's fifty to fifty. It
has some to do with him, but it all like equally.
Steph and Draymond are both diminished like they are not
like Steph. I think might make an All NBA team,
But I'm not like I really he just has he
has games where it's like the knees are clearly bothering him.
He's not he's gonna be like a bad player tonight,
like he still has all this value as like defenses
loser shit, like he's he's never gonna be like hurtful,
but he's he is not the same guy offense, like
he is not the offense unto himself player. Some of
the some of the like lineup numbers would argue with
that Draymond is like just absolutely catastrophic offensively now, like
to the point where it outweighs the defense a lot
of nights. So it's just like it's a it's not unforeseeable.
But I think both of those guys being diminished because
of age, because of just health, wear and tear, makes
it so like the level of player you need to
put them into roles that they need to be in
on a great team now is higher than Jimmy Butler.
It's like certainly higher than Zach Lavine, brandon Ingram, Laurie Markinen,
like Paul Jorven, like all these guys that they've been
linked to. However, tenuously I don't think are good enough.
So that like saying so saying like well, we're just
gonna invest in Kaminga, it feels insane because like he's
probably gonna leave, and I wouldn't blame him if he
got a good offer and restricted free agency. But like,
if you do this for Butler, now you're consigning yourself
to like some pretty brutal years after this, and I
really don't feel like ownership wants that. That's the other
thing I think ownership likes KAMINGA. The coaching staff isn't
sold and that's why we have this like vacillation. Not
explaining my vacillation me, I'm just I'm too emotional about it.
But like, I think that's why the trigger hasn't been pulled.
Is there are real factions on either side of the
kaminga issue within the organization.
Speaker 1: There I agree with almost everything you say, Like in
the longer term stuff, I totally agree with you, But
in the short term, I just don't know, Like Jimmy
Butler is still a top twenty guy, and like, when
you have Steph on this roster, I just I failed
to see like you add Jimmy Butler to it without
giving up Steph and you could keep you could honestly,
aside from Andrew Wiggins because you need a salary, you
could probably circle any other player and figure out how
to keep them while getting the deal done. Still, if
you're giving up enough pick equity, if you don't think
it's worth it because of the length of that window.
I just think there would be a window when you
look at how we know this team is capable of
defending at its peak, and if you who's more likely
to lead a really good offense right now? Jonathan Camaker
A Jimmy Butler.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's Butler. I think that's right. I still am.
I'm just not persuaded that you know, part of it
is Boston and the thunder are so good. It's just
like I can't and you watch like Cleveland just boat
race the Warriors last night, so that's fresh in mind too.
Like you, what you don't realize watching your favorite team
all the time without seeing like what a great team
today looks like. Is that like there's a difference like
in the athleticism of these teams that we're talking about
as like Tier one contenders, the athleticism, the depth, the
just like they just move around the floor differently than
than your Warriors and Sons and Lakers and all these
teams we're talking It's not just Golden State and so
that's made me think, like this team just isn't it's
it's more than Butler. It's like you got to regress
everyone's age by seven years and then and then will
look like you know what I mean, It's it's just
very stark. Sometimes I don't understand the point then of
like perpetually, because then the players you named are just
maybe they've become available.
Speaker 1: Let's say Giannis is available, you can't get them.
Speaker 2: I think. I think the more we talk about it,
the more it seems to me like ownership specifically, and
you hear rumblings about this a lot, like guys like
Anthony Slater will like allude to it, and you know
that like ownership's belief in cominga is that like he
can be that guy, like he can be the player
around which we build the next great Warriors team. And man,
unless you just catch every thirtieth game from him, I
don't see how you can believe that.
Speaker 1: I guess even his great like, have you ever seen
the level of feel and or playmaking that would make
you think he can be central to Okay, that would
be because it's then who would be the closest analog
to a player that's had those same flaws or concerns
that you then is that Anthony Davis who's been a
better playmaker than Jonathan Kaminga.
Speaker 2: Still, I think I think that the guys that believe
in Kaminga believe that what he really is is the
guy you give the ball to every time and everything
runs around him and it'll be maybe like it'll be
like an Edwards thing where he'll develop a passing eye
or like, because Edwards didn't have any kind of feel
really like early on in the year four, he did.
He did. That's the thing is Kaminga has so defenders
of and would say he hasn't been like the Warriors
ask him to like cut and run hard and defend
and be a connective passer, and that's not what he's
supposed to be personally. I think there's a good case
that that actually is what he should do, and he
could be great at that. But I think there's a
belief that he is gonna be in a number one
alpha guy and you see it sometimes you do see it.
It's just way more often you see him not read
the floor, like not make other guys better. It's just
if he's twenty two and you think he's been misused
and that's why he hasn't developed that stuff great. I
just it's real hard for me to get on board
with that.
Speaker 1: That's really And that also comes back to a more
like mainframe problem with the Warriors, where they did this
thing with Well, you're saying they're trying to develop coming
in the way that you think he is best optimized.
Like remember the James Wiseman stuff where it's kind of, yeah,
you drafted this guy who's not good at anything, like
the tenants around which you build your offense, he's not
good at them, and you never talored really your offense
or his usage to put him in his comfort zone.
And aren't they then kind of doing the same thing
with Kaminga. But it's different because you think that Cominga
is actually best suited in what they're trying to do.
Speaker 2: I think people within the front office believe that. I
don't think the coaching staff thinks Kaminga should do that.
But that's that's what's happened in the last handful of games,
is they've put the ball in his hands a lot,
and like he's had a lot of great downhill stuff,
has made some better decisions. The other problem is he
just plays harder and better when he gets a lot
of minutes, and that's not a great quality. Like you
want the guy to try hard no matter what. But like,
the Warriors do not have a good track record of
developing and implementing young players into their system. They've basically
failed every single time. So the real thing might be
it's time to recognize that like Steph and Draymond are
not good enough to define a system anymore, and you
should just like figure out what your best players, even
if they're young, do well and have them do that.
Speaker 1: I don't know, are the Warriors a title contender if
in the trade for Jimmy Butler they send out Draymond
Green instead of Andrew Wiggins.
Speaker 2: That's such a fun that's such a like not blasphemous question, uh,
because the thing that makes me hesitate about the Butler
trade is like Wiggins is really good, and yes, you're
better with Butler than him, but like you're giving up
something significant if you're giving up Wiggins. Draymond still matters
a ton. We talked about this a little bit, I think,
but like I just still I just he's been so
bad offensively, Dan, Like he's just the turnovers that it's
just been really brutal. Good thing. We'll never have to
worry about that because they're just not going to trade him.
They don't have to answer.
Speaker 1: The answer here is it's the Clippers, I think because
they have the most defined path to title contention. I
would say after that, you have talked to me. Out
of the Warriors is the answer to Spurs then, because
of all the teams, it's the It's the easiest for
them to justify making a big move because it's not
just about this season, and they're not already kind of
asset depleted, like it might just be them. I there
might be ak. I still think the Kings made I'm
too high on the Kings apparently.
Speaker 2: I mean it's a little broken lately.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know what, like they are like the
whole Mike Brown stuff. So but like I'm staring at
the Lakers here, I do is it is it weird
that I trust the Lakers more than the Suns in
this discussion?
Speaker 2: No, because I agree with you. It's just a health
thing for them, Like we we've established, if the Suns
are all healthy, then it's still not not great. But
if you can have a D and Lebron and Reeves.
I like what they're doing with Reeves now, and they
go make a trade then like if they've already made one,
they may they go make another one of that size
or better. Like you can see it spurs, so spurs
Quippers and Lakers.
Speaker 1: Then that's what we're kind of setting do it. The
Sacramento Kings have made us a Sacramento Kings adjacent podcast
of Late Grant. They fired Mike Brown and they didn't
ruin a podcast we recorded, but they were annoying enough
to do it, like sixty minutes after we finished recording. Yeah,
what are just your thoughts on the state of the Kings.
We know now that Doug Christy interim head coach. We've
had the comments from dearon Fox everybody else since then.
How are you feeling about the Kings? The decision is
to fire Mike Brown, their direction, like, just where are
you at with this whole situation?
Speaker 2: I think, I think, I'm I still feel like there
isn't We haven't gotten what you would call like a
sufficient explanation yet. In situations like this, usually it would
have come out by now, and there have been plenty.
There's been plenty written but it just usually it would
be fairly clear that and not. And this didn't happen
that deeron Fox and his representation said, like, you know,
as a condition of me considering staying here on my
next deal, you got to get a new coach, like
I mean, And this didn't specifically happen in Cleveland, for example,
but it did seem like that Core was kind of
out on Bickerstaff and moving on from him was just
sort of like nobody was upset about that. It didn't
seem like among the players there. So that hasn't We
haven't gotten that report. We haven't gotten that Brown lost
the locker room. So all that's kind of implied and
like see priced in And so where that leaves me
is that it was like a capricious decision by an owner,
an owner that has made a lot of those right
like that that feels like the cleanest explanation, But we
haven't gotten like really explicit reporting. I know Ramona Shelbourne
had some recently about you know, it was decided at
the top, I think, but we haven't gotten anything that
satisfies me, like even though I do think, you know,
it just was vivek round a Dyve, you know, getting
his eighth coach in twelve years or whatever it is.
I think it's a eight and thirteen or eight and
twelve or something like that. Is that where you know,
to be honest, it does right.
Speaker 1: There was a bit like the.
Speaker 2: Tyrone Corbin era, Like George Carl Tyrone Corbin, Dave Yeager,
we used to coach here. Does anybody remember that? It
wasn't that long ago? Is that how you feel though,
where it's like we haven't gotten like the smoking gun yet,
but it's like it just seems like the simplest explanation
his ownership made a hasty decision.
Speaker 1: Yet I think that's accurate. Basically the Shelburne piece, it
was clearly there was a great there's a ton of
great information. There was great reporting by Ramona, but it
read like the front office and ownership trying to do
damage controller get their side of the story across, and
it was so inept at doing so. Or I would
say it did so. But do you know what the
messaging was coming out of that piece that the organization
basically was saying, we didn't really know what to do,
so we fired Mike Brown.
Speaker 2: Yeah, kind of right, And and it also seemed like,
I mean, well, not only did we not know what
to do, we didn't want to do this, like you know,
like that that was the vibe that I got from
like from players and to even like maybe McNair, like
it wasn't the headline, like nobody wanted to fire Mike
Brown or some some something like that.
Speaker 1: They also tried to use the extension talks as cover
for but like they were, they were on the fence
kind of about it before they signed him to a
three year extension. That's like that just makes you look
fucking stupid because you sign him an extension anyway, and
then made the call less than halfway through the season,
I think, and de Aaron Fox, I know a lot
of people speculated before they're shelborne piece and then before
he came out and posted his you know, social media
rebuke that he was the reason Mike Brown got fired,
and I'm just so over the There was a video
of them talking at practice the day that Mike Brown
got fired, So it was really dearon Fox that did it,
and it's no and he's it's also probably not Mike
Brown telling dearon Fox to request a trade. And this
isn't an insult to Dearon Fox, who in any given
season Kennan has made an All NBA team. That's not
a player who is good enough to get his head
coach fired.
Speaker 2: Well, not on a normal team, but it is the Kings.
What I would note, it's so like they you know,
take what they can get in that regard. I I was,
I don't know, small flex. I've talked to dearon Fox
a couple times, like over the years, and he he
just doesn't seem like that guy like you know, and
maybe that's you never know, like I can't like because
I know him really well. No, Like I just I
do think it would really surprise me if it was
like a strong arm like him or me moved by
him like that. Never, that never squared to me as
something that was like logical.
Speaker 1: You also haven't had from Mike Brown's camp. The counter
oppoment Dear and Fox said, we never argued and I
asked him to coach me hard. You never, we haven't
heard anything counter to that. And so that, by the way,
the like, not that anyone necessarily gave Mike Brown endorsement,
but the closest I saw to a player saying this
was the right cause, like Malik Monk saying like it
was time for a change. It's like Malik Munk. It's
just like out on Mike Brown. I look, I understand
the impetus to make a change. This is the easiest
change to me, rather than investing more first round equity
and trades or whatever. And I don't think he coached
this team perfectly. The key On Ellis stuff is beyond maddening.
And I won't pretend to have seen every King's game,
but there's the inconsistent usage of him, And like, why
is Malik Monk starting instead of ke On Ellis when
Keon Ellis is probably your best defend, like Kean Murray's
your best all around defender, But like ke On Ellis
could have make Kegan Murray's life a lot easier. But
I'm seeing a lot of people look at Keegan Murray's
struggles and kind of blame the approach that Mike Brown
is taking to the offense. This is the conversation we
had when we supported the Derosen movement a vacuum by saying,
just for the value, you probably do it, but what
did you think was gonna happen to Keegan Murray on
offense when you have Malik Monk, de Martro's and Darn
Fox and Demontes Bonis in there. No, you didn't expect
him to shoot sub zero percent from three. But when
you look at his true usage stuff, which is just
basically a measure of everything he's doing on offense, it's
night and day compared to last year. And so you
marginalized probably the third most important player in the organization,
if not some people might make the argument for a second,
that's not on Mike Brown. That's a function of the
roster that this front off is put together. And when
we got to talking about the Kings, you and I
are actually a little bit more optimistic on could they
fix this than the consensus, believe it or not, just
based off things I've read and watched, listen to whatever.
But like they've needed the same things for multiple seasons
running now where you could say, oh, they also needed
a shot creator, and they went out and got that,
but you got a shock creader who doesn't elevate your defense,
doesn't elevate your spacing. And we're talking once again about
like they could really use a backup four or backup
big and then like another combo wing this is year three?
Speaker 2: Yeah, of saying yeah, where do you think this leaves them?
Like is this is it? Because I don't think things
will like Doug Christy, who knows, maybe they'll maybe he'll
get the bump of like, Okay, the assistant coach we
all like is in charge. Now we're going to play
for him, Like maybe I just don't think he's gonna
be like a meaningful plus And so is a trade
coming now? Is are we going to see McNair go next?
And then the Kings get back into that cycle that
just torpedoed them for years of where you fire a coach,
you keep the executive, then you hire a new coach,
but you fire that executive and put a new executive
in that didn't hire this coach, and you just never
have them synced up. That was one of the beautiful parts.
It's just like what do you do? What is what's
the next step for this team?
Speaker 1: It should be honestly, if we're honestly, if we're being honest, grant,
the actual blood take is dearon Fox is going to
get traded. I don't think it's gonna happen this season,
but it's gonna happen over the offseason. That's where this
is now headed, because I think that they've continued to
make even if they're not the wrong moves in a vacuum,
they haven't made the right moves. Yeah, and I know
that Moni McNair's received a lot of praise for how
he's built this ross, so he deserves like the Kings
finding Keon Ellis and like giving the league Monk a
home and expanding his role from where he was with
the Lakers. The Sabonus trade has worked out well for
the Kings, just like so much of this is just
kind of luck, like he has it none of his
like his if the Domas was his biggest swing, and
I suppose that's worked out. But you're also at a
point where it's, well, now your most important player might
not want to re sign with you, even though I
still think a lot of that has to do with
just how the financials line up. Yeah, I don't know
what comes next. I assume this is gonna end poorly
because it's the Kings. And Tom Ziller for Good Morning
against Basketball had a great piece like a breakdown of it,
and even he even said if this follows the typical
King's trajectory. Daron Fox isn't going to get moved over
the offseason. He's gonna get moved before the trade deadline
because he's going to have asked her out. And I
don't know if that was in it's that was speculation
on his part. Maybe it was informed speculation, but that
does seem like I would be a little bit surprised
if it happened before the trade dead line, although maybe
he'll ask her out. That just seems like where this
is headed, because the franchise doesn't seem like it has
a coherent vision in place, and very quickly a coaching
change mid season, at the end of the season whatever.
To me, it should only be made if you know
or couldn't think that there's a better alternative out there
right now? What about Doug Christie's very short stint as
an assistant coach makes you think that this is the answer.
There are other veterans on this staff that could have
gotten the ring. So what did they see in Doug
Christie that makes them think this was the right mover
or an upgrader that he can steward this team for
the rest of the year. And then who is is
it Doug, Like, who is the coach like you think
is going to do better for this roster than Mike Brown.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is always the problem when you find and
it's it's a it's doubly problematic because Mike Brown's one
Coach of the Year twice like that, he's not like
you guess, guess you're not gonna find a three time
winner out there that's like happy to now like the
coach of the year thing is crazy. And we've talked
about how like sort of silly it is year to
year but for Tis, but you're not gonna do better
like you're gonna do different like and that seems like
what the point? What the point was here was let's wait,
we just need a different voice. I guess, like just
things aren't working.
Speaker 1: It's like has that even been I didn't really notice
it in the Shellburn piece. I think Ziller mentioned it
in his and it's we always tangentially say like maybe
the players were tuning him out or like you said,
you need a different voice. That hasn't even been part
of the messaging. I've more so seen league sources say,
like you can't criticize your team like that. I Meanwhile,
d Aaron Fox is saying everything Mike Brown has said
publicly about us, he tells us who our faces. And
so I'm not saying Mike Brown was perfect. This just
what was the line, and I quoted yeah from Ziller.
The thing about the Kings under Round under Round a
DVA is that everyone, well almost everyone is a mood
swing away from being fired. And that just seems like
what happens here unless you think Mike Brown is they
have other issues, but among their biggest issues is their
crunch time record. They've played more minutes of crunch time
than any other team, and they've lost so many games
in that they've blown leads. If you think he's responsible
for that, okay, fine, that's not even part of like
the justification that's being spun here.
Speaker 2: Right, That's what I mean. That's the circle. That's a
good way, good place to end it, which is where
we started it with me saying like, I'm just unsatisfied
by any explanations that have been out there, and it
does just I think that's dead, right, is that? Yeah,
it just comes down to the owner just made a
like kind of hasty, not that well thought out decision,
and that is the that was the norm until Mike
Brown was there like that, that's the thing. Like this,
what we saw the last couple of years was the
exception to the rule. And we're kind of back to
the rule now. And that should be very concerning if
you're a Kings fan.
Speaker 1: I think, because well I was just to say, that's
a great nutshell of the entire discussion.
Speaker 2: We're back to the rule.
Speaker 1: Not like this team can probably be salvaged. It won't
be because of how things are run in Sacramento. That
was fun. Do you want to we spend so long
on do you want to take it? Well, it went
under two hours, So what do we talk about for
the next six minutes? Really everyone expected wen.
Speaker 2: Twenty minutes on the Warriors. You can cut that out
and make it its own thing if you want to.
I don't know who's interested in hearing that. Thanks everybody.
Let us know if we you know, we didn't tear these,
but let us know if there was someone that like
we should or shouldn't have discussed. We went pretty deep
here now that we've added eight other like also considered. Uh,
but you know, it can never be too thorough. We try,
as evidenced by the length of this podcast. Uh, make
sure you rate, review, subscribe, follow us on all your socials.
Check out both of us on Blue Sky. Dan has
our handles there Twitter too. I guess I'm still gonna
call it Twitter. Make sure you're you're commenting on the
YouTube videos. Over six k subs, Dan inform me today.
So just nowhere to go.
Speaker 1: But got to be like a record for a podcast
on YouTube, right, I don't haven't seen anyone that has.
Speaker 2: Never Uh, tell your friends, tell your enemies. Shout out
to Frank nil Keenan apologies, Jared Allen