Speaker 1: What is a Fellasi goes. I am damping that like
coming at you with as always my certified FANTABULARUS co
host mister Grant Hughes, a very special or unique or
different type of podcast from US. Today it's gonna be
Trade Dead Vibe Team because we got to keep springing
these in here because the time of year. But we're
going to talk about the NBA draft picks that stand
to define or shape the twenty twenty five NBA trade deadline.
It was basically it probably wasn't a joint effort. Grant
came up with the concept and then we kind of
fleshed it out from there. The prep was a joint
effort for sure, but you were the one that made
that idea like stick in my head, like this is
how we're gonna frame it. And so the approach is
like multifold and fascinating. And it's one of those things
that I said this to you, Grant. It feels scattershot
as we're preparing and talking about it, but I think
it's gonna coalace into something that I mean, it is us.
So let's say semi coherent instead of totally coherent. But
before we dig into how we approach this and what
this actually means, How the heck are you doing?
Speaker 2: I just want to point out I feel like this
what has happened with this idea and where it's gone
is a really good summation of what I think of
it as, Like, well, just the dynamic here, because like
I guess I thought of it and I texted you
about it, and I didn't really have I think it
started as like, hey, we should talk about the picks
that like might or might not convey that could affect
the trade deadline? Like what do you think? And I
think you were like in and so then I put
I rounded them up yesterday, I think yesterday, And the
doc I put together was like maybe a page, like
page and a half, and then you get a hold
of it and turn it into an eight page bullet pointed,
highly organized, just with like talking points. I was like, God,
damn it. I really feel like for people that don't know,
this is what happens is you will take something to
its absolute extreme in a good way that I would
never do, and the podcast benefits from it. But holy smoke,
I couldn't believe how long this thing was. When I
opened it back up today.
Speaker 1: It was. I did do fourteen hundred words, and we've
reached the point in our partnership though where like normally
I would be reticent to send that to something like
a guest because I don't want to overload them with information.
But at this rate, it's been years, Grant knows what
he's in for, right, I have no problems about sending
you fourteen hundred words that you may have to scan through.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know why I was surprised. It's not
a knock. I just wanted to illustrate, like, here's here's
here's how it gets done listeners and viewers.
Speaker 1: That's how the you. It's funny though, you were before
we get into the actual criteria of this, you were
way lower on your own concept than I was, because
you in the initial message you sent me about it,
you're like, as I'm typing this out, it's not a
good idea, and I'm like, this is one of the
best ideas you've had.
Speaker 2: That's a That's another aspect of the dynamic here.
Speaker 1: I feel like, uh, this is interesting where it didn't
end up being just picks that could convey and we're
looking at this through multiple lenses and there are basically
kind of three buckets we ended up separating these teams into.
And so there's the one that you outlined where it's
these teams they have draft obligations elsewhere they're not necessarily contenders,
So what are they going to do? Like does this
make them more likely to sell or does it mean
that they're gonna try and maybe win a little bit more?
And there's Honestly, when you sent your original doc over,
I don't think I realized, like how many of these
situations there are. This has to be one of the
times where it's okay, like this isn't normal.
Speaker 2: I was shocked to just putting it together. Just forget
like if we dispense with the different buckets, Like I
think there are nineteen first round obligations this year, which
not saying they're all going to convey, but there's thirty
teams and there are nineteen first round picks that are
like maybe maybe not like you might get it, they
might get it.
Speaker 1: And Oklahoma City is tied to every all nineteen.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, there's that too. That's understood, but I could
it's two thirds. There are two thirds of first round
draft picks have like some kind of little tag on
them that it's just just talking twenty twenty five, like forget,
we'll go out, you know, we'll reference ones that are
further out, but nineteen different instances in this coming first
round where where a team finishes, there's unprotected ones too,
So I mean, I guess that's its own category. But
like where a team finishes is gonna affect like what
happens to that pick, which is like that's insan I can't.
I don't know. We didn't look this up like going
back years, but that's gotta be like on the very
high end, I know.
Speaker 1: How you would look at because there's not data necessarily
on like the previous draft obligations. There's only the future
draft obligation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well you'd have to like go look at trade
deadlines and see like, oh, this twenty twenty three protected
pick went somewhere.
Speaker 1: Honestly, we're getting to a point though, with the way
these protections are written, and then the swaps of the
swaps of the swaps of the initial swaps, it's just
it's going to become too hard to follow. The other
two buckets were what's I find this to be. Maybe
the most interesting bucket for me is the potential buyers
that have other teams's picks, And so you would use
the Spurs as an example, just having a Minnesota pick
in twenty and thirty one, having the Hawks picks, having
the Bulls pick this year. And so we get into
those teams, and the third bucket was, Okay, these teams
don't have other teams's pick, but what's interesting is that
some of them might be desperate enough or win now enough.
Where are we going to see a bunch of first
rounders in twenty twenty seven or beyond being dealt? And
so we go through that bucket. There are some teams
that fall under multiple ones. We kind of just slotted them,
and we tackled this from we invariably decided to tackle
it from the team perspective. So we'll go through different
teams and just as a fore warning, we left out
just sort of the I would call them the four
gone conclusions or just like the ones who should be
Like Memphis is an example. They have all their own picks.
They're a buyer like because they have all their own
picks and no other teams's picks, Like we're not going
to talk about later Memphis picks. And then Washington. They
have a first round obligation to New York. That fucking
thing's never conveying, So like that's not what is situation.
Speaker 2: I forget what the protections are on it.
Speaker 1: This year we talk about it with the Knicks, I guess,
but we'll talk about it from the Washington Wizards uhetive.
Speaker 2: So before we start, like the nutshell summation of what
we're trying to do here, it's kind of in the title,
but it's basically to just like, and this is the
year to do it because there's so many like just
get a handle on what kind of future pick obligations
might have an effect on this trade deadline? Is that
like a fair summation of what we're trying to do
because everyone's putting fake trades together, Like you need to
know like sort of what's possible what's not as a
threshold level as far as like they can trade this
pick or they can't. But it's also like how do
some of these pick obligations and like conveyances affect like
what a team actually should be trying to do, right,
Like a team that's got a kind of protection and
like should not be trying to tank, like you know,
there's that's an obvious, like extreme case, but like that,
that's kind of the goal here is to sort of
lay out the landscape of like how these future like
immediate future especially picks are gonna could and should affect
teams behavior at the deadline.
Speaker 1: And my final note would be, I guess this kind
of dovetails with what I said if teams will under
multiple buckets. But looking at a team like Utah as
an example there we'll talk about them potential potentially owing
a pick to Okay see this year, but they have
all these Cleveland Minnesota picks. They're not going to be
in the potential buyers that could trade these picks because
they're not a team. As Grant kind of mentioned, we're
looking at how do these picks influence behavior, and just
Utah's not at a point in their developmental arc where
they should be dealing distant first from other teams. In
my opinion, we're going to begin with the teams who
have obligations to other team notable obligations to other teams bucket.
This will be done alphabetically, except in this case we're
just gonna start off with Miami because their outlook could
change at any given point, and so I think it'll
be best if we alternate on these, and I'll start off,
and we can just give the nutshell of what we're
specifically looking at for this exercise. So, for Miami, they
owe their twenty twenty five first round pick to OKAC.
It is lottery protected. If it doesn't convey, it becomes
unprotected in twenty twenty six. They also owe their twenty
twenty seven first round pick to Charlotte that is also
lottery protected. However, if that doesn't convey, or if the
OKAC obligation does not convey this year, that pick becomes
unprotected in twenty twenty eight. So effectively, what we're looking
at here, there are other ways to frame it. If
Miami does not make the playoffs this year, they owe
two unprotected picks in twenty twenty six, in twenty twenty eight.
That is fascinating in a vacuum, it's morbidly intriguing now
because of the Jimmy Butler trade sweepstakes, and so Grant,
how do you think this influences what they do with
Jimmy Butler, what type of return they're looking for with
him or should look for with him. It feels it's
been talked about, but like it feels like it should
be a bigger story with regard to Jimmy Butler's future.
Speaker 2: Right, So the simplest if you're thinking about, like what
should Miami prioritize, what should it care about? I think
the simplest answer is convey that twenty five first, right,
Like you want that to go, because that's that's where
you start. Now. The counter might be you, like, you're
confident that in twenty six you're gonna be a top
five team or whatever, and you're gonna convey a pick
that's twenty fourth or something, and then you're you're good
again in a couple of years, and that one going
to Charlotte is again in the twenties. Like, if you're
optimistic and you think, you think, like you know, we can,
we're not afraid of having Like I think it's a
very scary thing to have an unprotected pick outgoing, especially
just for any team, but for a team that's like
skewing older and we're not sure about the core, Like,
that's really scary. I still think you want to convey
that pick in twenty twenty five and you hope it's
sort of as bad as it can be. And that
just means, like in the Butler trade landscape, you probably
want to get somebody back that's going to help you
be decent, right like, or at least not miss the playoffs.
And that's music. Well, that's the thing is. It's like, well,
but like, how do we weigh that against we don't
want to take on a Bradley Beal level of money
for two more years, like because that's also bad and
might hamstring. So I'm curious what you think. My gut is,
like you just want the pick to convey this year,
and you don't want to put yourself in the position
of having two unprotected picks going out when maybe you're
gonna be bad. Who knows, even though there isn't it's not.
It's not an easy decision necessarily. And the Heat, by
the way, I think, are among the teams that are
always confident, like we don't care will be good, that
unprotected pick's not gonna hurt us, So I mean it might.
So that's it though, right, like you you probably want
that twenty five to.
Speaker 1: Go, Yeah, you absolutely want it to go. There's there's
no argument against like, oh, they could be fine and
for all the how you might feel about Jimmy Butler,
like they're worse with him. Well, they're a minus two
point three points per one hundred posessions with him off
the court this year, and so it's not a matter
of just you could remove him for anything and they'll
be fine. What I do think would be worth a question,
do you think that they are more Are they better
off trying to get that pick to convey by keeping
Jimmy Butler or by trading him for a return that
they think would give them Probably, just objectively, if you're
going from Jimmy Butler to package whatever, your probably playoff
chances in theory should be lower. But that's also not
factoring in. Once Jimmy butler seven games suspension is up,
what are the chances that he's never mind a happy camper,
but a compliant camper about returning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like you're I think the assumption should be that
he's gonna make it real bad, Like he's gonna make
it Minnesota levels of uncomfortable. That's gonna hurt the team probably,
So I do I take your point, like, Yeah, having
Jimmy Butler's better than not having Jimmy Butler or having
Jimmy Butler's probably better than whatever garbage you have to
take back because nobody wants that contract and the rental
possibility and the free agency whatever. But like he could
make it so bad. Oh yeah, I mean, if anybody
could could make that a close question, I think it
is him. So I Miami's a big news Dan. Miami's
in a tough spot, good not a good spot.
Speaker 1: That's why I still really do believe that I know
King's fanciald. Differently, I love Sacramento is a landing spot
for the Kings actually, but just from a talent perspective.
I don't don't talk to me about the payroll. But
also for Miami because it's right de Rosen and Kevin
Herder and then I'm they would have to throw in
their twenty twenty seven pick. That's not like the greatest package.
But like those two dudes will help you now. And
I don't think you're a better team, but like you're
you're still a team. Yeah, but where it's like if
you just get Bradley Beal in a first round pick
or even two, Let's say I Phoenix is able to
turn Ryan Done or oh zoegadaro On into one. I
don't know, like, what of those two packages, just the frameworks,
what do you think gives the Heat a better chance
of making the playoffs this year in the East?
Speaker 2: Probably the Kings one, I just because you're getting multiple
bodies that can help, and like I would just assume
that Herder and de Rosen will be better in Miami,
just because that's I still drink the kool aid to
some extent. But neither, I mean neither of those come
with guarantees. Like you you still you may try your
best and you might still have to like eat it
and you're giving up a twenty six unprotected because you
missed the playoffs.
Speaker 1: Before we move on, do you think that this pick
conveys this year? If you had to guess yes or no.
Speaker 2: Well, so it's just do I think the heater are
going to be or not? Man, I I think I
think it will convey. I think they will make the playoffs.
I don't feel good about that at all. Uh, just
that just feels like the Miami thing to do.
Speaker 1: I'm calling it now this pick is not conveying, Okay.
I think it's more likely that they somehow figure out
a deal to a mend what's going on with maybe
one of these. Then it is that they actually convey
the pick by making the playoffs. Okay, you want to
take us to our next one.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is the Atlanta Hawks. So they are sending
twenty five twenty six is a swap, and twenty seven
first to San Antonio from the de Jonte Murray trade.
They own the Lakers twenty five first, which is unprotected,
potentially juicy with some downside there. They own the Kings
twenty five first, thanks Kevin Herder, with top twelve protection,
top ten protection in twenty six, then twenty six and
twenty seven. It turns into seconds in twenty six and
twenty second twenty seven. That's hard to say if not conveyed.
They own the twenty twenty seven first from Milwaukee or
New Orleans, the least favorable of those, and that also
has top four protection. So kind of the same question.
Speaker 1: Dual bucket team, right, what's that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, multiple milwauckey team, multi bucket. I mean the obvious.
Let's start with more immediate, like what does what are
these various obligations and the certainly the nearer ones sort
of incentivize Atlanta to do and not do it. The
deadline and you know, I guess you can stretch that
out for a couple of seasons.
Speaker 1: Really, do you think so? My gut reaction is, and
I'm not saying for them to do something stupid, although
I think they would also be another fun Jimmy Butler team.
Just let me look. If you guys want chaos, put
me in charge of an NBA franchise, Like, I will
do things in markets that normally wouldn't do them, and
I will make no apologies for it. My gut reaction
is they should be not like super duper buyers, but
just devalue your own picks, moving forward as much as possible,
being as good as you can within reason. But when
you start to look at their protections or i'm sorry,
the other picks that they're owed grant, it's sort of like, okay,
could they view the Lakers twenty twenty five first as
a proxy for their own They're like, how much more
valuable is their first round pick to compare to the
Lakers this year? And then could they also make the
case that I'm saying, without doing anything, that Kings pick
like maybe it conveys, but like if it doesn't, okay,
if you're gonna get a top ten protected Kings pick
and you have to swap your own pick. Does that
cancel it out? Maybe if you're gonna get a Kings
pick in that season. So what I'm really looking at
it is, I'm saying, so, could they view the Lakers
pick this year as a substitute for their own and
then even the pick in twenty twenty seven where it's
I guess Milwaukee or New Orleans. One of them could
be really good, but it's kind of it's loosely protected.
Could they just look at this and say, Okay, like,
we're out our own picks, but we still have picks
in those years, and so we're just gonna stay the
course and stan pat be mediocre. I don't know if
it does it also give them a license if they
wanted to, and they won't, I want to be clear,
But I also think it opens the door for someone
like you, who in the passes argued they should just
strip it down. They could technically go that route, depending
on how they feel about these other three first rounders
that they have in their their chamber.
Speaker 2: Yeah, when I make the strip it down argument for them,
which I'm like less and less convinced by, the better
they look, and the more I'm kind of like Atlanta's
like looking pretty good.
Speaker 1: It's the DeAndre Hunter effect.
Speaker 2: It's he's got me. The argument I make is like, well,
if you don't have your own picks, at least you know,
the next best thing is somebody else's and like they
that's what they have, Like you can just view the
two incoming twenty five's, you know, with protections in that
twenty seven as like, yeah, you just substitute those for
the three picks that you still have going out to
the Spurs, and you're like, you're like break even. I
think my thought is you just you're sort of doubly
incentivized to be a buyer talking about Atlanta because there's
no benefit to tanking obviously, because you're not. Your draft
picks will not improve no matter how bad you are,
for basically three years, and then you can use these
other picks that you don't really have control over in
the same sense, because the success of these other teams
determines how good they are to trade for when now stuff,
Because why wouldn't you be thinking when now when you
don't have like your own picks and you don't benefit
at all from being bad, So I think that's kind
of a not a great position to be in because
you do really surrender like a lot of control. But
wouldn't you do you agree that what we're looking at
on the screen here basically is an argument that the
Hawks should be trying to go get somebody to make
the team better. And that might be true this year
and next year at the deadline.
Speaker 1: I think I would lean that way as well. But
I think they're also in a position where this is
not a roster where it's completely bereft of players who
theoretically could be he be in Atlanta and be good
long term. So if you wanted to stand pat, I
think that that because you have these others where it's like, honestly,
you could view what pick has more value. I think
people would say the Hawks is twenty twenty five first
is more valuable than the Lakers twenty twenty five first.
Maybe you necessarily know that's the case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I mean the Lakers, the Lakers have the
twelfth best point differential in the West. Like they it's
just like regression is like screaming right now, like it's
Ron and Ady have been healthy that that twenty five
first that could be a top seven pick before this
is all over. Who knows.
Speaker 1: I do. When I look at them, I would say
they're either going to be convinced or forced into being
a medium size, Like they're not going to trade all
of these picks. That's not going to be like to
go the home run swing, but they're incentivized to maybe
be a buyer. But I think what it for more
than anything, what I think it does is it ruins
the buyer's market because they're absolutely not going to be sellers, Like,
if anything, they're going to stand in a normal if
they had their own picks. And yes they've been probably
they've been better than I expected this year, But if
they had their own picks, maybe even over the summer,
they would have looked at moving Bogdanovich DeAndre Hunter, and
now it's like, well maybe they'll move Quimpella and Larry
Nance Junior. They're probably not going to move any of
those other guys. And so if you were a buyer,
but I know Bogdanovic hasn't been healthier that good this year,
but it's kind of taken at least one or two
intriguing names off the board for other buyers because this team,
whether you think they buy or Stan Pat I just
I would be flabbergant did if they.
Speaker 2: Sold, Yeah, beyond Capella and Nance for sure, because those
are like, well, that's a get something while you can
kind of thing. But I agree, I think they're just
not incentivized to sell and they are a team that
like normally you'd say, like absolutely, you could probably get
a lot of stuff for Hunter, Boganovich, whatever, but that's
just not that doesn't make sense for them.
Speaker 1: And that'll be something to look back on after the
deadline of if you think that it wasn't active enough,
because even if like the trades we've already seen, if
Dennis Shreuter going to the Warriors or Drian Phinney Smith
going to the Lakers ends up being like two of
the three biggest deals we see during trade season, people
will be bummed out. But then you have to go
back and look and it's just like, well, this type
of situation with Atlanta where it's they're not terrible, they're
not great, and yet they're not incentivized to try and
be one the other at this point, how does that
just impact the trademarket at large? Yeah, our next team,
oh boy, the Chicago Bulls. This should be an easy.
Speaker 2: Properly they is it?
Speaker 1: Ever, No, it's not. They owe they're twenty twenty five
first to San Antonio. It is top ten protected. It
will then be if it doesn't convey top eight protected
in twenty twenty six, and then again in twenty twenty
seven before turning into a twenty twenty eight second if
it's not conveyed. You looked at this Bulls team entering
the season, and I would say the prevailing consensus was
that even if they tried that, this pick was just
absolutely going to convey. As we record this grant there,
they have the tenth worst record this week. So it's
right on the borderline.
Speaker 2: It's one where you wish it was clearer right like this,
and especially for this team, right on the borderline. Is
that like the Bulls tagline for the last like seven years.
It's like they're right on that borderline and they love
it there. They just want to be right there in
that like indecisive middle. So do they want to keep
this pick like today? Oh?
Speaker 1: Here's my thing? Is just I guess they could look
at it saying, what's the difference where if we finish
ninth in the lottery odds versus we're the number fourteen
lottery team, and so if we end up striking Gold,
we'll get to keep the pick anyway. But I just
to fault to everyone loves the top of this draft class.
Why wouldn't you want to be among the teams that
are going after prospects in the top of this draft class.
But now we've reached the interesting conundrum of well half
the seasons in the books, you have a ton of
ground to make up. If you want at a bottom five,
it's probably when you look at the teams. Washington, New
Orleans is getting healthier, but it doesn't been great when
they're healthy Toronto, Charlotte, Utah, Portland, Brooklyn, Philly. Of those teams,
really only Philadelphia is trying to get out of the
position that's in front of the bulls, and so could
they just be maybe they view how they got here
as sort of accidental. But now, well we got to
commit to just try to be as good as possible
or standing pat even just because what's the point Like
we could trade zach Lavine, and we could trade Fujin,
we could trade Kobe White, but we're not going to
be bad enough to necessarily guarantee that we're going to
get a top raft pick.
Speaker 2: You're at the mercy of the Flatten Lottery odds at
that point, and like you're and it's not like, yeah,
you're getting to a bottom Like what would you say
is out of the question in terms of like where
the bulls could finish record wise, Like they can't get
into the bottom five. I don't think, Like I just
I don't see how that's possible. Six seven maybe, But
then you're still just like I don't have the odds
up in front of me. But that's like, like you said,
it's not even close to a guarantee that you're those
protections are going to ensure you keep that pick, So
like you would have to be just talking about again
getting back to like what behavior is incentivized here? I
think it still needs to be. And this is just
a broken record for us. Sell off everything you can
do the best you can to keep that pick and
hope that you strike golden it's the top whatever, three, four,
five pick, and at least then you've hopefully gotten off
of the money you don't want and not taken back
too much in exchange for it. Just that that should
be the goal still even though there's just like, what's
happened to this point in the season means that it's
just a little harder to achieve that goal than it
probably should have been.
Speaker 1: I also will note a competent franchise would even look
at this situation independent of this pick, because you could
really look at it and say, if you trade Vooch
and Zach, are you getting an it? Like are you
getting You're not getting a first round pick for Vouch?
And then with Zach Levine, I thought you would get
a prospect or a first round pick, But the fact
he's still on this team makes wonder can they only
hope for expiring money? And so you could make the
case they're not going to get assets. What's the point.
A team that's more competent would also be focused on
getting as many other assets as possible. And that's why
names like Kobe White and I would assume we should
also be on the trade block.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah, No, it's they just made it harder on
themselves than they needed to by by weight. I mean,
the market for Levine, I guess last year was so
bad that like maybe it would have just been the
wrong decision to trade him. But the second, like I
don't know, a month ago, like they needed to be moving.
The second it was like, oh, Zach Lvine's good again,
Like mark it up, move him immediately.
Speaker 1: What he wins? If the best deal to date was
Michael Porter's junior and Zeke Nausey for Zach Lavine, does
that change? Like do you kill the Bulls for not
to again? Denver is not interested in it. It didn't seem
like Chicago wanted Nausey's money, because no one in their
right mind wants that money on their books right now.
But if that's the best out there, I still think
it just comes back to you could get two first
round picks for Kobe White right now, and that's what
you should be doing.
Speaker 2: I agree. I wrote something the other day just asking
the question of, like, is it possible that the Bulls
could find themselves in a position where the right decision
objectively is to keep Levine through the deadline, And like, yeah,
actually it might be. And that's the fact that that's
a possibility is just is an indictment of like how
they've conducted business the last handful of years. But like
that really if they if the Bulls don't trade Zach Lavine.
I don't think you'll get to say just unequivocally they
messed up at this deadline. It's just like that might
just be the right call.
Speaker 1: Who's next?
Speaker 2: This is the Pistons. They are sending their twenty twenty
five first round pick to Minnesota with top thirteen protection.
Nobody panic that turns into top eleven protection in twenty six,
top nine and twenty seven, and it becomes a twenty
seven second rounder if it is not conveyed. The Pistons
are pretty good. I think they're five and one in
their last six. They have kind of turned that corner.
It's probably like pretty I mean, it's got to be
like this is the most exciting time for the Pistons
in five years. More than that, I don't know. So
the question then is with top thirteen protection on that pick, like,
are you buying are with obviously without trading future first,
which is doable considering some of the contracts they have.
Do you want to just do you want to wash
your hands of this, like have it go? Obviously the
bonus of if this pick goes you had a pretty
decent season by Detroit standards. Is that? Should that be
the goal? Or I guess the counter is this team
still needs a crack at another like high lottery guy,
even though they've had several, and you should want to
hold onto this pick.
Speaker 1: I think they should just get the like let it
convey out of the way, because I think if we've
seen anything then from this season, let's say it doesn't convey.
Now these protections are getting lighter, and why do you
believe you're gonna get worse, Because if you're gonna get worse,
that would have to be I would assume deliberate. And
you all have traded some people, and so I would
look at it as you're the only team with cap space,
try and get a little better, see what money you
could take on. And by the way, that also serves
a rebuilding purpose because presumably if you're leasing out your
cap space, you'd be getting some asset back. Maybe maybe
it's just a good player that another team is trying
it doesn't want on their payroll because of apron reasons,
but maybe you're getting a pick or something. I still
think that's the approach. I will say, though, I think
what it does more than anything for this team under
normal circumstances, knowing that unless they go to lengths to
carve out more cap space. They're only going to be
able to pay Malik Beasley the non tax payers mid level. Now,
that might just be enough to keep Malik Beasley, But
in other types of seasons you might have just said,
if you can get two or three seconds from Elik Beasley,
he's been super valuable, just move them. I think that
should absolutely be off the table now because one, he's
helping you in the in the immediate but two you
might just be able to keep him, Like you might
have to give out more years because there will be
other teams at the non taxpayer mid level exception over
the summer. Maybe you have to give out more years,
but he has helped your team. So if you're even
if if you don't view this season as the season,
you're not bad enough to say let's punt to me anyway,
You're not bad enough to say let's punt on the
outside chance of keeping Malik Beasley at a time when
we would expect to be better as players improve. And
also maybe we're more aggressive on the transaction market.
Speaker 2: I think like top thirteen protection or I guess lottery
protection is like right around that. I'm trying to like
land on a all things being equal threshold of like
when you should want the pick to convey and when not.
And I think it's that's right around. Like the cutoff
for me is if you have like a top eight
protected pick, like I think you probably want to hold
onto that, you know, you know what I mean. Like
I'm trying to arrive at some kind of rubric for
where it's like the default assumption should be. I guess
that's hard because everything's so situation specific. But like, I
don't know, the Pistons are these kind of picks are
right on the line. I think you just want you
just want this pick to go. You want to be
unencumbered going forward to the extent that's possible, And like, yeah,
I think you want to be like a moderate buyer.
I just like for years it's been the Pistons and
although like they got that fourteen point one million sitting
there to and they're gonna do something and play facilitator probably,
But if you can make that like more of a
buy and not just a dump, I think that's probably
that's not the worst way to go.
Speaker 1: There's I will say their pick is also and we'll
get to them, is because of how good the Pistons are.
It does make Minnesota having this pick more fascinating for them,
which we will get to. Next up on our list
is the Indiana Pacers. I don't think we need to
a ton of time on them, but they owe their
twenty twenty five first to Toronto with top four protection.
It's also top four protected in twenty twenty six. It
then turns into two seconds Utah's and dallases and twenty
seven and twenty eight if it does not convey. So
in theory, because the Pacers they've they've really turned things
around lately. Andrew nemhard for MVP apparently, I think is
the proper stance to take. You view them as buyers,
so they could still trade functionally up to three first
round picks plus swaps. But you also have to ask yourself, yeah,
this pick is gonna convey, so we know it's gonna convey. Yeah,
but are you comfortable dealing Because any trades you make,
unless you're just dealing a Benedict Mathern or Jarvis Walker
is the primary asset, which there's dual purpose there. They
could be salary matching. You're then sitting like a twenty
twenty seven. First, it's not far away, but at the
same time for a team in Indiana's market and just
knowing how ephemeral windows are and competitive windows are in
general in the NBA, they're just saying it feels different
than like we traded a twenty twenty six pick, and
so does this make that I'm less likely to be
the type of buyer that would be in on maybe
names that would upgrade what they're doing now. But they're
steering clear because we're not giving up a twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 2: First, my gut is that, well, if the season had
started differently, and it is true that like things seem
to have turned around, like even like Halliburton has been better,
which is kind of a threshold thing for the Pacers,
Like if he's going to be great, then I think
maybe you start thinking harder about putting those picks on
the table. And if he's going to be something less
than that, it's like, oh, maybe we don't have the cornerstone.
We want the flexibility these picks afford us. We're not
in a position to buy. My gut is you because
of what's available, I don't think I want to put
any of those future conditional firsts on the table. If
who knows, maybe new names will emerge or like it'll
just become.
Speaker 1: Well who is because I saw Stein mark Stein linked
them to interest in Cam Johnson, who fits everywhere. I
don't think if you were to do it'd be because
that's a constant player where it's two first or a
pick and a player. I don't know. If I don't
for what the Pacers need, I still think I know
Aaron E. Smith hasn't played in a while. Whoever they're
acquiring to me needs to pack like a real perimeter
defensive punch.
Speaker 2: And that's what I canna say.
Speaker 1: So I was gonna ask the like, is the level
of let's say the level of Cam Johnson as a player,
but it's like, defensively, is that good enough to get
you to move? The conditional future versus have to be
even like who would be I'm trying to think of
who the worst player is that the Pacers would say, Okay,
we will trade our twenty twenty seven first.
Speaker 2: For I mean, he's not on the table, but someone
just well like Andrew Wiggins, who's gonna be not as
good as shooter as Johnson, but good enough makes a
little more but is gonna be the guy that you
can throw at the best wings you face defensively. Someone
like that, you, I think you probably give up one
or two future first. I think that's just at least
more of the player type I would be interested in.
Speaker 1: Someone like he's notable either, but Herb Jones, Oh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, he's I think he would cost maybe more
than Wiggins though, just younger, better defender, all that stuff. Yeah,
I don't know. I would you. I feel like I'm
always like, way too quick to do this, but would
wouldn't you rather make Matherin or Walker the centerpiece assuming
a team was similarly interested than one of these semi
distant first.
Speaker 1: I think the problem is that and both of them
have played better, right, but they're going to be more value. Like,
I don't think any team is sending you a player
on let's use just Cam Johnson's level. I'm not saying,
but like that level of player, You're not getting out
of that trade without giving up a first like in
actual first round pick. You can't. I don't think the
Nets would do Maybe maybe they would just from a
pure talent play, but I'm not I don't think Andy
should do this. I want to be clear, but I
think if you offered Benedict mather and Jarris Walker for
Cam Johnson, I don't know that the nets would be interested.
Just because you're also Bennec Mathers's extension eligible after this seasons.
Now you're talking about paying him coming up soon. I
think that all factors in again, in if I was Indie,
I would not offer both of those guys for Camp Johnson.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean that's just an argument. You answer the
question then, as those firsts are more valuable than either
of those two guys, I guess as trade chips. Right.
Speaker 1: That's not Gareth Walker just because he has the two
years left on his rookie scale. And I know Matt
Mathern' showing up like he's showing more on defense. We
know what he can do as a scorer. So I
would think, would you of those three like a future
pick for me? Indie too? I mean the protections matter,
but would you rather have Indies twenty twenty seven first
Jars Walker or Bennetcmathrin if you're a team that is
trading with them, so just.
Speaker 2: Say I'm Brooklyn, just to put a face on it.
I of those three, I think the asset I want
the most. Yeah, I think I want that twenty seven
first the most, even though like the Pacers should be
pretty good still, right, Haliburn's gonna be you know, in
the it'll like yeah, right in the middle of that extension,
like you're going to be trying to win, so you're
just betting on like the downside, I guess. But that
for me, that's got more to do with like you said,
with Matherin, like I don't know how he fits on
a winner, Like how different is Matherin than Cam Thomas
in a lot of important ways? And then you have
to pay him.
Speaker 1: That's the other defense I would say that about that.
Uh I you could probably talk me in or actually
I probably would pick Jarris Walker, but I think he'd.
Speaker 2: Be the number one asset you'd want out of those three. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think the issue there is, though, is that even
if even if you thought the number two asset was
Benic Mathren at a vacuum, I just think there are
so few teams that would give up a player like
as good as the Pacers want without getting any sort
of first round equity back.
Speaker 2: And that's what you probably, especially Brooklyn or whatever. The
teams just want picks.
Speaker 1: More of the story the historically conservative franchise, even training
for Pascal Siakam. What they gave up was conservative in
those types of trade terms. I don't expect any fireworks
out of Indy at the day time.
Speaker 2: I think I just my team, or you're a team
that I'll take it. I think it's me. So we're
onto the Sixers here. They are sending their twenty five
first to Oklahoma City that has top six protections. It's
top four in twenty through twenty twenty seven, so next
year in the one after then becomes a twenty seven second.
They're also sending their twenty seven first to Brooklyn that's
conditional upon that OKAC obligation being fulfilled to the previous
pick we just mentioned that's got top eight protection through
twenty eight, then it becomes a twenty eight second. The
Sixers also own the least favorable twenty twenty six first
rounder of Houston, the Clippers or the Thunder, So that's
gonna be. That's gonna be probably in the late twenties,
you would assume, if unless something goes sideways for the Thunder.
The Sixers also own the twenty eight first from the Clippers.
With no protections whatsoever. That's kind of the crown jewel
of the hard and trade. They have swap rights on
twenty twenty nine first rounder with the Clippers that has
top three protection. I mean, it makes sense for them
to get the OKAC obligation out of the way this year.
Probably tell me if you disagree.
Speaker 1: People or would it make sense to not do that?
I just there's no way to get how bad? What
do you have to have a bottom four record to
guarantee that you get a top seven pick? Right, so
like there's even a chance that you just at this point,
you can't be bad enough to guarantee that you would
keep that pick.
Speaker 2: Well, don't you remember earlier this year when it was
like just the darkest, darkest days for the Sixers, talking
about like, oh my god, the Thunder could get like
the number seven pick or whatever out of the Sixers
this year.
Speaker 1: You need to have the second worst record in the
NBA to lock yourself into a top six pick.
Speaker 2: Well, that was in play for a minute, it felt like,
But yeah, I think, I mean the more interesting aspect
of all this is like the Sixers can absolutely still
be buyers with with some of these other income that
twenty eight Clippers pick if you want it now, the
market is what it is. We'll probably have to say
that fifty more times. But like that unprotected twenty eight
Clippers pick, that's pretty choice. That's one you can put
on the table if you know you really needed to
make a serious offer for something.
Speaker 1: But like they're distant, if you're gonna to me, it's
not about their buyers or they should like or actually
I guess the question is does it make more sense
for them to just stand pap because wasn't the assumption
for all of us that you know, they have the
kJ Martin Human Trade Exception contract, they can still aggregate
contracts in a trade that they were just gonna make
what we thought was a really good roster even though
we all acknowledged their fragility even better. And now it's
sort of like, well, Jared McCain's out for the season,
Joelle Elmbiid has been barely available, Paul George is missing
wide open threes, and his availability has been all over
the place. If you're the Sixers, what is the urgency
to buy?
Speaker 2: I just wonder how much of the conversation around the
Sixers has fundamentally changed because the question you're asking is like,
I mean, you're not framing it this way, but it's like,
oh what if this could this just be a gap
year you know type of thing. And the issue with
that has always been, well, Joel Embiid, you're tied to him, like,
however good he is is, how good you are, however
healthy he is, just determines your chances for success. Like
that's still the same, and it's a lot harder to
believe he's going to be healthy and good going forward.
So that does change the calculus a little bit. But
like you're tied to him anyway, and you just extended it.
So it's like, I think you still need to operate
on the on the assumption that like we're going for
it because we have him. It's just even scarier now
because of how diminished he seems and how like infrequently
he may be available going forward. So like, you know,
and to me, in one way, the conversation about what
the sixer should do hasn't changed at all because that's
always been what it was, but it's just but in
another way it has because it's even harder to stomach
the idea that we're tying our whole like next half
decade of roster planning or two embiid because it's just
that's a scarier proposition.
Speaker 1: Now now, is that like playing like it's a weird space,
Because I agree with you that they should still view
it as they need to be buyers. But because of
what's happening, isn't the bar for what for what or
who you need to go after been raised? So in theory,
if you want to buy, you have to be even
more aggressive because it takes more stuff to get better players.
Because like I think we could have talked, I'm just
trying to think of an like Dorian Phinney Smith as
an example. He still would have been a good addition
if they wanted to get him. But if you're looking
at these sixers, you're not viewing Dorian Phinney Smith as
a finishing touch anymore. The bar of that has been raised,
and to then go out and match that bar, especially
when you don't have these higher like you have Kellyer
Bray Junior and you have kJ but like you're not
teaming with these salaries that you can move that get
you an expensive players, So they also need to be
semi cost effective and good enough to elevate what we
all agree is a worse than expected version of this team,
the Sixers.
Speaker 2: So it's weird because you're still in kind of like
a middle ground. So let me ask you this, Like,
I agree that the way things have gone this year,
specifically with Embiid and to some extent, George, what you
need to be a true contender accounting for those two
guys is probably more than you would have had they
been healthy and whatever. But like, that can't rise to
the level of like we talk about with Steph sometimes
in Golden State or whatever, or it used to be
the Brunson conversation. It can't be that the Sixers need
someone who's better than Embiid, right, Like, it can't be
that because if that's where you are, you're fucked because
you can't trade for that guy, like at least if
you're talking about when healthy, like top end product whatever.
So it's like again I'm kind of back to like, well,
how different our things really, because it's just it's never
going to be realistic to get someone who's as good
or better than Embiid. And if that is what you need,
in fact, then you should blow this whole thing up
because you're never gonna get that guy. You don't have
the AMMO for that, right.
Speaker 1: Right, That's it. They're such a tough spot, which is
I mean our takes on them over the off season
have aged like well, but.
Speaker 2: That's the situation though, where it's like in a vacuum.
All the stuff they did made sense. It's just had
you known Embiid was gonna be this, you probably would
have revalued you probably would have reevaluated everything. Like if
you all the questions we have about Embiid going forward now,
like why are you adding Paul George to that at
his age, at that money? You know, But they're just
they're pot stuck, they're pop committed, and they go as
Embiid goes, and that almost like nothing. We're talking about
picks and stuff like nothing else matters for this team.
Speaker 1: So I'll set the over under on the number of
first round picks that they move at the trade deadline
at point five? Are you taking the over the under
for Philly on that.
Speaker 2: I could see him going over because you but I
don't think they're going to trade that twenty eight Clippers pick,
So I guess that leaves one of those like crummy
ones from twenty six that's least favorable of like half
the league.
Speaker 1: They could also throw like their own two thousand and
what twenty nine first round you want.
Speaker 2: To give up your own picks with with that Embiedix?
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, what player would get you to
move that Clippers pick right now? That would be something
like would would Portland do figure out the money afterwards?
R W three and Tamani Kamara.
Speaker 2: For that pick? I mean they should uh for the sixers, shouldn't.
Speaker 1: They're also a weird position. I know, Yabuseli's been their
most consistent big just period, and so you probably didn't
expect them to mean it's like, oh, do we need
like another big man on this roster?
Speaker 2: I mean, like my first thought was that twenty eight
Clippers unprotected pick with Paul George for someone who is
like on a max contract that's actually better than him.
You know, I don't know, I don't know who that is, all.
Speaker 1: Right, who says no Paul George for Tobias Harris and
Paul Reid.
Speaker 2: Everybody runs to the table to get that one done.
Speaker 1: Our next team and final team in this bucket is mine.
The Sacramento Kings grant. They owe their twenty twenty five
first to Atlanta, as we already covered, but just as
a refresher, it will convey to Atlanta if it's top
top twelve protected. It is then top ten protected in
twenty twenty six it turns into two seconds if it
does not convey. They also are sending their twenty and
thirty one first to San Tonio via swap, so they
could still trade that pick. The list of picks that
they could trade are twenty seven, twenty nine, and twenty
thirty one. If you were looking to maximize it, however,
in twenty thirty one, it would have to be the
least favorable of their own in San Antonios, and so
what you've effectively done is lowered the value of that
tradeable thirty one first round pick by swapping it. They
can also include up to three swaps, and so if
they really wanted to go balls to the wall, they
could include three first round picks and three swaps. There's
not a player on the trademarkt right now that is
worth doing that, but just as a refresher, However, in
the backdrop of all this, do you view the Kings
as buyers still? Given they've been better since you know,
Doug Christy hit the plague key on Ellis Moore button,
and the Kings seem better off for it.
Speaker 2: He knew.
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of noise about the Aaron Foxes
future now. And if you're the Kings, like you still
just on balance, you have not been as good as
you were hoping to be. Does that make you less
inclined to go out there and make upgrades? Because again,
we have to look at this through the lens of
it'd be different if they were just giving up this
year's first round pick, but at the earliest they can
give up a twenty twenty seven first round pick.
Speaker 2: I think their decision making has to depend on how
sincere they think. Dearon Fox is being about the idea
of like, I want to be here, but I need
to see progress type of thing, because sometimes when players
say that, it's really just dipping a toe in the
water of like I've seen enough, I'd like to be
gone type of thing. So if if it is true
that you in showing Fox that you're serious and looking
to improve, if you can show him that by trading
some of these future picks and being a buyer, I
think you probably want to do that. Granted, that opens
you up to well, we'll see, but potentially having to
pay him the super duper max on his next deal,
which there's just not a lot of guys that that
seems like it's a great decision for from a team perspective.
But if you think that what he's really doing and
he's with Clutch, so maybe file that away too. Is
saying like it's just prepping for the trade request to
become official at some point, like he's he's been there
his entire career. He should buy now have a pretty
good sense of like how this organization runs.
Speaker 1: That's not good for the way it's yeah, exactly right,
I'm kind of leading up to that.
Speaker 2: It's like, then if you do think you're just gonna
lose him, I don't think you should be thinking very
hard about buying, even though you're in that middle of
the West where a trade could you know, move you
up a tier. But you gotta be really confident that
you can take Fox at his word and then that
if you do go make a buy that will influence
him like backing off that trade request that feels like
it's coming.
Speaker 1: I have many fold questions for you. The first of
which is what's more likely the Kings trade a twenty
twenty seven first by the deadline, or later maybe one
or more of whatever one or more, or they trade
the iron Fox.
Speaker 2: Well, let's talk about what the wrong decision would be,
which is probably to trade that twenty seven, because I
do think Fox is angling toward a trades. So I'll
say it's more likely that you're asking if they're gonna
be buyers. Essentially, I think it's more likely they trade
that twenty seven first than they trade Fox.
Speaker 1: I agree with you, although there's a chance that the
Fox noise may save them from themselves in the sense
that they would be too hesitant to do anything, which
is not of We watched them do nothing last year
at the trade deadline, so that's not great. But at
the same time, if you trade as you already much,
if you trade any of these first and then Dean
and Fox is up and asker out anyway, you better
hope those picks are protected.
Speaker 2: Like, yeah, I mean you're talking, we're talking about what
a rational actor would do. I think.
Speaker 1: However, let's just say that Fox says he's gonna stay
and they can believe him. So now we're looking at
it in those terms, Would you give up your twenty
twenty seven A twenty twenty seven or later first, depending
on what happens with this pick to Atlanta? Are you
giving up that in a trade for Cam Johnson?
Speaker 2: Well, I think you'll have to if you want Cam Johnson.
I think I think Cam Johnson and what it kind
of comes down to, like, is that really the best
they could realistically do in terms of like what player
type would help them most? And I mean it's it's
not far off just given what's actually available, like realistically,
because they need forwards and he's gonna be a very
different type of offensive helper than the guys they have.
So I think I probably would give up that at
twenty seven or later first for him, but I'd still
be running. I'd still have like real wouldn't you have
reservations though, Like we're gonna go get another offensive focused
guy that like we might run into the same Keegan
Murray problem where it's like how do we get him shots?
Speaker 1: How do we max what happens what happens to Keigan Murray?
Speaker 2: As part of yeah, I think you do it right?
Or do what do you I assume you think they
should do that if that's on the table, But it's
not uncomplicated if they do pull something like that off.
Speaker 1: No, it's not uncomplicated because also part of the reason
is if you're Brooklyn and it's Kevin Herder and Trey
Lyles and that for a first in twenty seven or
twenty eight for Cam Johnson, is that the best offer
you're gonna get for Cam Johnson?
Speaker 2: Yeah, probably not, because you're thinking it's gonna take two first, right.
Speaker 1: Potentially, The difference is is that you're not gonna get
like a twenty seven and twenty nine first, Like, if
you get a first, it's probably oh, it's a twenty
twenty five first that's not great, and then a pick
after that. So I probably would give up the pick
for Cam Johnson to vacuum, even though I don't. I
don't think he solves like this team's biggest issues.
Speaker 2: Right at all?
Speaker 1: Does make them better and more bad Allen's just because
they are so guard heavy. I was trying to think of,
just like would you do that? The other question I
had before I asked you, like, what would be the
like ideal player for them to target? Like would you
do the Jimmy Butler framework? If you're them that we
outlined where it's you have to figure out the tax
stuff after. But it's if it's Kevin Herd or Trey
Lyles that twenty seven first that could spill into twenty
twenty eight plus Damar Derozen, are you doing that for
Jimmy Butler and knowing that it might just be you
could And let's even say that. I think Jimmy Butler
will go wherever someone pays him. I think, honestly, I've
seen a lot of Phoenix Suns fans kind of patting
themselves on the back like stars keep wanting to come
play here. I was like, well, your owner just said
that they would pay Jimmy Butler money that the Heat won't,
And so I think other teams can say that Jimmy
Butler would want to go there too, maybe.
Speaker 2: So maybe so I would be stunned if if, even
if offered that extension, he would stay in Sacramento. Just
oh wow, Okay, I mean, well, I guess like it
depends on what else is out there, But I think
if another team was willing to come somewhere near that,
who is that would be the question. Because we keep
talking about how few teams actually have money. I think
you should probably assume it's a rental, And so you're
giving up a twenty seven first basically to clear fifty
million dollars off your cap I suppose, which that's not nothing.
But if assuming Fox is still there and Sabonis is
still there, and you're gonna have to pay Murray pretty soon,
although I don't know what that's gonna look like. It's
not like you're clearing fifty million in cap space that
you can go spend. You're still you know.
Speaker 1: Well, the other thing too, is that if you really
wanted to and I know that Jimmy can make stuff noisy,
but there's no team if you're not willing to play
ball on a sign in trade, he can't leave. He's
not going to Brooklyn and then there's no other team
that could pay him. And so unless he wants to
leave for the mid level, dare him to do it.
Speaker 2: So why don't the Heat just do that?
Speaker 1: Then you know, well, you would have to at least
maybe a fresh start. You can convince yourself that he'll
be if again, if not happy, I hate to use
the word compliant that like had the subservient implication, but yeah,
won't make waves, not just but like maybe he would
make waves anyway. Honestly, I would do it because I
would look at it as right, even if he opts
out and leaves like, well you got Kevin Herder's final
year off and then you got out of the last
fully guaranteed year of to martyr. That's the cost is high.
I want to be clear on twenty twenty seven. First,
but the possibility of like, well what if it's they're
in California, what if you be Butler? And what if
they win like not a title, but like what if
they're just really fucking good?
Speaker 2: And then the sign and trade possibility as a way
to like maybe you get something back, that's yeah, close
to worth that twenty seven First, Yeah, that's not I mean.
Speaker 1: I would do it. I think we'd be in the
minority if like, if you have Poled Kings fans, I
bet you they would probably say no, I would absolutely
do it.
Speaker 2: I don't know that. That's what I was gonna say.
Next is like I think they might be okay with
that because I don't think anyone's in love with the
Rosen at this point, and so it's just like, well, okay,
we'll just get in another like quote unquote Butler's much
more of it, Like you don't have to put the
quote marks around Star so much as with him as
you do with and if you. I don't know how
what percentage of fans would think ahead to like, well
that we've got like downside protection because we can sign
and trade them for something. I think I think you
probably have a pretty high approval of that trade A Butler,
I think I don't know, let.
Speaker 1: Us know case.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: I think the effects of all this is to say
that because of their draft obligations and then the darn
Fox noise on top of that, I really just think
this increases the likelihood they do absolutely nothing.
Speaker 2: It kind of balances out a little bit. Yeah, because
unless they just really know the fuck what the Fox
situation's gonna shake out, as you've got to be pretty careful.
Speaker 1: Grant, you're gonna start us off in this new bucket.
How excited are you? Oh no, wait, we're in the
same me. I just think that.
Speaker 2: Uh So the Jazz are sending their twenty five first
to the Thunder with top ten protection. End of conversation,
it's top eight protected, and do that six and a conversation, Well,
I mean they might be who knows. That's the real
question about the Jazz is when are they gonna like
start getting serious about trying to win games? Yeah, so
top top ten protected this draft, top eight in twenty
six and the obligation not no seconds dan obligation goes poof,
it's gone. It's not gonna be bad.
Speaker 1: Would it look for OKAC if they don't get this pick,
like it just turns into nothing, Like what are they
going to do for draft assets?
Speaker 2: Are will they notice? Do they do the thunder? No,
they know that they have an incoming Jazz pick. Is
it like? Is it in a store? Is the is
the the trade document like that got them this in
a storage closet somewhere under boxes.
Speaker 1: When the NBA sends out the draft schedule and they
see that they're on the clock and you tosspot and
they're like, oh shit, like like.
Speaker 2: You guys, look at this, Holy shit? Can you believe it?
But we all right, I guess we'll make another pick. Yeah, No,
this is a I mean it's it's they'll keep it
this year. I don't know. Is the question just like
what are the odds that the Jazz uh convey next year,
or what are the odds that this pick goes extinguishes?
Speaker 1: Well, they've been on offense a lot better lately, and
so I think the question is does it in like
just to ensure because if you look at it, okay
right now, like, yes, they are slated to keep that pick,
because they have the fifth worst record in the league,
But like in theory, you know there are only seven
losses out of having like maybe one of the lemon
worst records in the league. Does it increase the urgency
when you're even looking at next year, like to be okay,
like we gotta trade Collin Sexton, I think would be
the or Jon College just like one of the place
it shouldn't be Walker Castlaries too young, Like does it
increase the odds that they move any of their veterans
or you think that they're just again this year and
next year they can be confident that they're bad enough
they don't have to worry about this pick.
Speaker 2: Covey, I think more of the latter. I mean, I
although I would say, like you should be feeling some
urgency to get off the I mean, unless it's the
case that you know you there's some reason to believe
that the market for Collins and Sexton and whoever will
be just better over the summer or next year, like
you should you your intention should be the same, like
you should be try trying to move off those guys
if you can without taking anything bad back. But yeah,
I take I get the point. Like you definitely could
argue that they should be like real serious about getting
off those so they just get to keep the pick
both years. But I don't. I don't think it's going
to fundamentally change like what what they do.
Speaker 1: I don't think it needs to. The errors came in
the previous two seasons where they should have acted earlier
and more drastically, and just with I know people are like, well,
like you can get off John Collins's money, what is
cap Space doing for Utah at this point or for
flexibility aside for being able to lease it out to
get more draft picks where they just have a shit
tunne already, Like you could say, if they're right, offer
for Sexton or Collins or Clarkson comes along, Yeah sure,
I just don't think their needs. They're gonna be mentioned
as sellers because they are sellers. But that's also maybe
part of The problem with the trade deadline market is
we're talking about teams that might be incentivized to stay
pat or not sell, and they fall into the latter
where maybe they're not incentivized to do it, but there's
definitely not an urgency for them, like the Bulls have
an urgency to sell.
Speaker 2: Sure, Yeah, very different situation for sure.
Speaker 1: Now I lied we get to move on to the
new bucket. This is teams that are potential buyers who
own other teams as draft picks. We begin with the
Houston Rockets. They can I think the best way to
show their argument is because they have a lot of
convoluted obligations, they can trade up to four outright first
rounders right just right now, in this moment. In twenty
twenty five, they can, which is this year, they can
swap its pick or okc's. If OKC exercises their swap
for Houston, they can swap those picks with Phoenix's pick.
In twenty twenty seven, they can swap their own pick
with Brooklyn. Still in twenty twenty seven, they own the
Suns' pick outright, and in twenty twenty nine they will
get the more favorable first from Dallas or Phoenix, but
they also have the option to swap their own pick
with the less favorable of those two picks. So basically,
if they want, they can have both Dallas and Phoenix
pick in twenty twenty nine. So there's the notable obligations
for them. They are buyers, they're good enough to be buyers,
but they also just have it. Even with your Barie
Smith Junior injured. They have a ton of guys. I
posted a Rockets clip from our discussion a couple podcasts
ago Rockets fans, not all of them, but they seem
hell bent on saying that Jalen Green is better than
Daron Fox right now. I would strongly disagree, but my
point being, there doesn't seem to be an urgency to
make a move this season. You could still argue, just
given the state of their half court offense, should you
give up like a first round pick just to make
some type of up Gradely, what do you think ends
up happening with this team?
Speaker 2: Yeah, We've talked about them a fair amount, and I
guess I've gone back and forth. Like the needs are clear,
you run into the issue of you can't pay all
these guys. In fact, at least one in Green of
the guys that they have decided to pay, it's like,
did you really pay him or did you just kind
of do the preserve the asset thing. I guess I
can understand why at least they're broadcasting we're not. I
guess it's just all we know for sure is they
don't want to make the Jimmy Butler trade because that's
which is not very smart. So I don't know that
that forecloses and I but the implication of that is
that we're not looking to make a win now trade.
We're not looking to consolidate a bunch of young guys
or picks for for somebody else. I think that posture
could change if and when Kevin Durant or Devin Booker
like start to shake loose like that kind of thing.
It does feel like they're just obviously because of the
Phoenix stuff, just like that's that's the move. You know,
they both sides should be interested in that kind of trade,
I think. But I I guess I guess maybe at
the moment, I do believe them that, like they're not
actually looking to make a move. And if that's a lie,
then good job, because that's how you create leverage. It's
just like, oh, we're not interested. But I kind of
I kind of buy that. I kind of buy the
logic of it. You still don't, I mean, we this
was more true over the off season, but you still
don't know like what your best combos of all these
young guys are. So this is is still a fact
finding thing to some extent. So I buy I buy
it that they're not buying, you know, in any significant way?
Are you what do you think?
Speaker 1: I not only buy that, I think that that is
the appropriate call. I just you get more information, reevaluate,
and we recalibrate over the offseason if necessary. Also when
jailing Green is no longer on a poison pill, regardless
of how high you are in jail and Green, like,
if you're gonna make a mega trade, he's probably the
most logical form of outgoing salary, unless you want to
pick up Fred Vanfleet's team option and go that way.
Brooks as well, they just have so many options. They're
already good. What I would rather see them do is
hit the read play Read Shepherd button. Dude, Dude, drop
him forty nine in the g because he just if
read Shepherd is the read Shepherd you, and I thought
he was coming out of the draft. The Rockets become
what the No Notes team movie, right, because.
Speaker 2: You're like, oh, they just need a primary shot creator
that can space and do all this other stuff like
there is.
Speaker 1: So and then if they want to do something. I'd
be more of a proponent of how many seconds does
it take to get Buddy healed? Or expirings in seconds?
For can you get a Duncan Robinson? Guys who aren't
necessarily guaranteed playing time, but they can help you on
any given night if the offense or matchup warrants it.
Speaker 2: Now? Is there a player who's not on the market
right now that might get on the market that would
change your change the calculus for you at this deadline.
Speaker 1: The more I think about it, I do trust the
Aaron Pox is shooting more than most I think, like
as a self create creating shooter. However, I don't even
I told you this on that I don't think I
would trade for he would make me think. I know
Rockets fans team against it. From what I saw in
the comment section, LaMelo Ball is the name I look at.
It's like if Charlotte decides to do some kind of
weird pivot. I mean, you could argue that they're bad enough,
bad enough with him, excuse me, but they could also
look at themselves and say, what's our pathway to getting
good enough with him? And so that would be the
name I circle. He fits their timeline. He's on the
fun Max and under contract for an additional four years
after this one, So it fits kind of with he's
not gonna break the bank when it comes to paying others,
like he's not de Aaron Fox is gonna be on
his third contract as an example that in most cases
that's what's gonna happen with a trade like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, so are you the green being a poison
pill guy like makes it it'd be so much easier
if he had next year's salary that counted as outgoing.
But like, are you are you sending Shepherd? And like
what's going to Charlotte? I know you, we haven't like
talked about this, but like Shepherd has to be in
that deal if I'm Charlotte, and and.
Speaker 1: Even yeah, I mean honestly does he If I'm.
Speaker 2: Charlotte, I yes, I need I need read Shepherd.
Speaker 1: I would say, yes, I'm not giving up Alpern Shanghun
who's poison pill. But let's say he's not. I'm not
giving up Alpern Shangun in that instance. I'm definitely not
giving up Tarry Easton. I'm definitely not giving up Amed Thompson.
Everybody else is probably like on the table, but I
am willing as the rockets to supplement future first rounders
in lieu of a lot of these other Like if
if you could give up to first and keep Read
Shepherd instead of giving up Read Shepherd, I probably I
know LaMelo's already on, Like it's just it becomes a discussion.
But that's is there another name I even thought about?
This is it's just different, But like they would be
a really fun Steph Curry team if the Warriors, oh yeah,
they're come of Jesus moment, that would be sure.
Speaker 2: I mean I was thinking the the Booker or Durant,
where the like were the names I thought of? But
and I already mentioned but like, yeah, Fox, LaMelo, I mean,
I don't Steph Sure, I'm trying to think of like
what other primary.
Speaker 1: I'm not even trading for Kevin Durant if I'm them,
that's just so short term. Think about what you need
to give up to match the money now because of
the way that your poison pill suggest Like if this
was the summer and you would talk about, all right,
it's Jalen Green, like I wouldn't even be able to
be this summer. But like I don't know, just the
Kevin Durant timeline. Even Booker this season has played in
a way that I think there's probably Rockets fans that
think that Jalen Green is just better right now, That's
not true.
Speaker 2: I want Fox has been better than Booker this year.
And if Rockets fans are convinced that Green is better
than Fox, then he's way better than Booker.
Speaker 1: You want to take us to our next team?
Speaker 2: Yep, we're on too, the Ultimanty's Oklahoma City Thunder, who
I don't know. Do they have any picks? Yeah they have.
Speaker 1: By the way, I wasn't writing all of it out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, that would have been this would have been
a ten page doc if instead eight, if you'd now
all the Thunder picks. Basically, they have all their own
first next seven, and they can get up to six
additional first rounders coming from various outside obligations and can
do anything they want. The questions are like when do
you pull the trigger? Basically because all the same stuff
we talk about with Houston of like you have to
pay Jadab, you have to pay Chet, like you really do.
You really are not that far away from basically being
like a three max team or close to it. So
you have to consider that it's not just as simple
as we'll keep drafting first rounders and just pay them forever.
And they're a great team. You could cite the rebounding,
you could site into your defense, you could cite eating
a secondary another well, really for them, just go get
another primary creator because they could. But other than that,
like I don't know, do they do they need to
do something? If so, what and like I don't know
what level of player does it need to be to
justify them kind of getting getting after it and finally
putting some of these assets on the table there. It
almost just needs to be someone that has a chance
to close for them, Like that has to be the
like if they're gonna do something, And I think it
still needs to be a shot creator, shot maker, maybe
preferably one with size, but just someone because as of
right now, like Jdubb looks overtaxed in the non SGA
minutes and then.
Speaker 1: In the playoffs. You know last year he looked over
at tax just playing like as the second option with
SGA on the court, and so you want to try
and fill that. I'm not chasing that type of an
upgrade right now because you might reach a point where
you say we can't play that. It's like the Pelicans
party line, like we need to see everybody healthy for
an extended period of time. Maybe you're never gonna get that.
With Chet Holmgren, I'm more optimistic we're not at that
point yet, but like, wait until at least the offseason
before you see how the playoffs unfold before you make
that call. But just the lack of information with what
you look like when you have one heart and stign
and a homegrown on the court together, but just more
extensive availability this year from Jay Dubsha and like I
just can't talk myself into them doing anything. And while
you could say, like, well, what about doing something more
minor for them, like a Cam Johnson, they just don't
have throwaway players when it comes to like going to
match a Cam Johnson's South even Aaron Wiggins plus Ustman.
Jay made me think like I don't know that i'd
want to give up Aaron Wiggins.
Speaker 2: Good man, like we can just keep showing up in
big game like against the Cavs he had like realm
and that guy's good and on a great contract. Yeah,
that's not a throw in at all.
Speaker 1: And that's the problem because you could also say, well,
like if Aaron Wiggins is playing time, it's not going
to be a constant, like shouldn't you But would Cam
Johnson's playing time on this team be a constant? I
don't fucking know.
Speaker 2: So I think that's right. I think like, because what
do you The counter the question is, if you're trying
to change that opinion is like what do you lose
by just you know, holding onto this team through the
deadline and like assessing after hopefully everybody's healthy and plays together,
seeing if you need to make a move over the summer.
I guess the only thing you lose is like you're
a year closer to having to pay a couple guys
windows And then the more broad like concern of well,
windows are short and they're great now, So like anytime
you're this good, you should be willing to do whatever
it takes to get a little better. Like that's that's
somewhat persuasive to me. But but I just think to
frame it from the perspective of that Cleveland game, which
was the best game of the year, just awesome across
the board, It's like, oh, this exposed you know, look, man,
Calves just were dunking all over the place. The rebound deficit.
I'll look the Thunder a fla. It's like the Thunder
didn't have their two best defensive players like and and
like they're stretch big. Like I don't feel like you
can look at that loss, which was close, and view
it as a referendum on like what the Thunder need.
It's like, well, yeah, they got too real high a
starter and a high end rotation guy on the bench.
Like it's not an argument that they need to go
out and make a deal. I'm arguing it's a straw
man right now. But you get the idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know, like what would be the case
or the scenario where it would make sense for them
to do anything. It would almost have to be not
only does this player fill our biggest knee now, but
they don't become superfluous once chet is back in your
full strength and so it's basically you need a shot
creator that plays the three.
Speaker 2: It's kaw Kawhi is available or something, you know, something
like that.
Speaker 1: Look at how many contracts they've.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well then you're then you're losing Wiggans and Joe
and somebody else you probably don't want to lose. But
that's the that's the type of player you're talking about,
where it's like this is an ad, no question, Like
this is a for sure AD. He's gonna play all
the biggest moments. Like there's there's like ten guys in
the league you could add to this team.
Speaker 1: That that's true for would you have to be like
would Ogna Nobi even fit like that? Like go get
og O where he's like, well look at what he
makes and he doesn't provide enough of the shot creation, so.
Speaker 2: Out no, like what does that? That doesn't solve any
of their problems, which is insane a great player.
Speaker 1: Like throwing money out of the equation like what the
Kawhi leonards is probably the answer. And so it's this
team should they this team? And your point about the
title windows being fleeting, which we've both made like a
few times, it's they're the exception like them and what Boston. Remember,
everyone wanted Boston to continue trading, like when you're set
up the way that they are, and even you can
probably loop Houston into this there. It's just different with
Houston because their windows not quite open, like they've wedged
it open a little bit. But and we consider them
a contender, But do you consider them one of the
I would say four or five most likely teams to
win a title. You're putting OKC, Cleveland, Boston in front
of them, for sure. I think if Dallas is gonna
be healthy, So it's a common like those are the
teams where they feel like the exceptions to the window rule.
Speaker 2: Yeah, a little bit for sure. And the Thunder are
really like the exception because the two guys on rookie
scale deals are their second and third best player, like
you got you gotta, you got a little while. But yeah,
I I just don't. I don't see the guy that's
out there that's available.
Speaker 1: McHale who McHale Bridges? Would that? I said, I'm not
saying he's available, but I'm like, would that move the Thunder?
And if the Knicks were like, or we're gonna move
mchaal Bridges or something like.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I think you have the Jada problem
where it's like, oh, he's a little overtaxed as a
second unit leader like that, right.
Speaker 1: The two of them combined though result and like the
Karl Anthony Towns without Jaylen Brunson minutes when Michel Bridges
is on the court, although they kind of tether j
B to Michale when Carl telle I don't have the name.
Kawhi might be the right answer. But then that's when
you get into the money of it all, where how
would they want to match and they don't have Who
is the closest? Is it Isaiah Joe? Someone making more
than three million dollars? It's Usman Jang, I guess, but
like who's making real money the mid end contract? Who is?
Who do you view to throw away? Like it's just.
Speaker 2: It's well, you're just choosing between Wiggins and Joe and
like that's kind of it unless you think, oh, well
they just extended Caruso, Like I clearly they don't view
him as a throwaway piece.
Speaker 1: Do you think that would be worth consideration if the
nets were willing to do it. So it's Joe and
Jang and then maybe a first, or is that still
just like, well, why are for Johnson? Why? Then it's well,
why are we doing that?
Speaker 2: I mean that's yeah, I probably think pretty hard about
that if I were the Thunder. But it runs into
the same problem of like, yeah, you got a very
good player who's probably better than the guys you gave up,
but like, so he's gonna play, you know, seven more
minutes a game than Joe did. I guess maybe maybe
when the margins are as slim as they are at
the top of the contender list, like that's that is
valuable enough.
Speaker 1: But then it's like Joe is the one who like
he'll set screens and fly around, and like that's not
really Cam Johnson's case.
Speaker 2: No, yeah, different, very different players.
Speaker 1: We need to move on. Apparently the Orlando Magic are
my team. They have all of their own first moving forward,
and they own Denver's twenty twenty five first. It's top
five protected not only this season but through twenty twenty seven,
at which point it would just extinguish no seconds are involved.
This would have been to me, like you would view
it as a lower level first that you just include
to make some type of marginal the moderate upgrade. If
you didn't want to go all in. The Magic are
fascinating though, because Okay, Paulo Bancaro back, Bronz Wagner not
Mo Wagner out for the year, They've just they've been
banged up. Gogo Mataza has probably been their best big
at like better than Wendell Carter Junior this year. Do
you view the Magic as a team that should act
or will act at the trade deadline? In general?
Speaker 2: I kind of view them as a little bit like Houston,
where it's you're ahead of the you're ahead of schedule.
You can count on being like good to very good
for at least for four or five years, and then
who knows after that. One guys are more guys around
their second contracts, although like I guess two of them
already are talking about Suggs and Franz. I think the injuries,
I think, and and the fact that like you're you're good, Uh,
there's there's not I don't feel any urgency, which you
do have to weigh against. Like, this team's needs are
very clear. This is the defense, it's as great. The
offense needs solutions. So it's like from that perspective, it's
like if you have the right guy out there, you
maybe just go get them regardless of the timeframe. But
I don't know who. I don't know that that player
is on the market other than LaMelo or whatever. We again,
not on the market as far as we know. I
don't think there's urgency here to be buyers as good
as as good as the Magic are and as good
as they might be with everybody back, like you can
just this is a we're happy with this, we can
just go for it next year type of thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's kind of stepping on tones of what
you said. It's also where if they're going to make
a meaningful improvement, like the bar for it is so high,
similar to Houston or even an Okac that as you
is that player even available? And then in their case
though even if they are available, can you justify making
that move without knowing when Frands is going to be back?
Speaker 2: Well? Yeah, can you justify making any this is about
this year move? Really? Is that that's the question? Right? Like?
And I don't I don't know that you can, And
I don't know you should worry about that because like,
what what reason do we have to believe unless you
think obliques are like a really recurring injury. It's like
a calf stream, like, why aren't they going to be
just right back in the mix for top four next
year if they do nothing? You know, and then you
have more information and then you can really assess, like
and hopefully there's more guys available on the market, so
or not just talking about Anthony Simon's and on and on.
I think I think waiting is just I don't feel urgency.
Speaker 1: If I'm the Magic I still would look to add
just some type of shooter. Yeah, sure that although you
know what name might be and we don't. I think
he is available or would be the Kobe White, Like
the name I have circled for them kind of fits
their payroll structure at the moment too. And I would
make that move even without knowing what's going to happen
with Franz.
Speaker 2: So I think that's the type of movie you could
justify because that's clearly well let's talk about it. That
would be the type of move where you're like, this
is a piece for us, like a core piece going forward. Right,
we assume he's going to start next to Suggs, so
we can give up two first or whatever it costs
for him. But then you have the Bulls problem of
like he's gonna hit unrestricted free agency. So that's that's
one where you really need to know, like are we
good on this next deal before before you give up
those two first. But that's the type of player where
I do think you could justify making it now because
you're not doing it for this year necessary or not
only for this year.
Speaker 1: I think where that gets wonky too, is that in
most cases, so if you offered your twenty twenty five
first and the bull excuse me, in the Nuggets twenty
twenty five first for Kobe White, that's not going to
get it done because the Bulls and Beery have their
own twenty twenty five first in that scenario. So with
the Magic you also have to be acquiring someone where
it's comfortable to give up a pick in twenty six
or later.
Speaker 2: M Yeah, yeah, yeah, that could be. That's fair. Have
fun with this one, Grant, Oh boy, we're onto the
San Antonio Spurs, easy point. They have all their own firsts. Uh,
so they can tank if they want to. Uh, just
just really look for that next guy around Wimby.
Speaker 1: What would tanking look like for them? Is it just
firing Victor women Yama back to his planet.
Speaker 2: Is knocking him out of the arena every night. They
can swap with Boston in twenty twenty eight. There's top
one protection on that one. That's fun. Also can swap
with Dallas or Minnesota in twenty thirty, can swap with
the Kings in twenty thirty one. They also control the
Hawks first in twenty five, twenty six, and twenty seven.
Twenty six is a swap. As we mentioned, they have
Charlotte's twenty five first with lottery protection become seconds in
twenty six and twenty seven. They have Chicago's twenty five
first with top ten protection. As we mentioned, that's top
eight and six and twenty six and twenty seven seconds
in twenty eight, and they have Minnesota's twenty thirty one
first rounder thanks Rob Dillingham.
Speaker 1: Like by the way that the Spurs shorting the twenty
and twenty four draft class has proven to be pretty smart,
pretty smart.
Speaker 2: What are they gonna do? They got? I mean, they're
they're almost in Oklahoma City territory of like if a
market emerges for a player, they can just kind of
just beat it with whatever. Although like probably around the league,
the assumption is going to be that the Spurs own
first are not going to be very valuable for the
next decade or so, so that hurts them a little bit.
That's also true of the Thunder and really any team
that that's positioned that way. But like, you could just
you could just fire off all these other incoming first
if you wanted to, and still have the best the
best offer for a lot of guys. I guess it's
just a question of like when you pull the trigger
really right, like and it they can afford to wait
because they have the best They have the guy who's
going to be the best player in the world in
like three years.
Speaker 1: Who's my question. Here's my question, And I ask it
this way because they, as you kind of alluded to,
it's not just about they could have the best offer
for player ACKs available. They have the assets to create
their own trade market.
Speaker 2: Right, which by we say that a lot, but like
what you mean by that is this player is not available,
pub or whatever, but the Spurs show up and say,
guess what we have for you, and then suddenly that
player is available. Like that's that's what that means.
Speaker 1: Right. They could get the Kings to trade the Iron
Fox right now. They could get the Bulls to trade White.
They could probably get the Hornets to trade LaMelo Ball.
That one might be a little bit more. If you're so,
you're saying they can't afford to wait, should they? Though
Victor Yama is one of the he's at least one
of the ten best players in the NBA right now.
We talk a lot about fleeting windows. He has not
proven to be injury prone. But when you're dealing with
someone this much of a physical anomaly, that has to
be in the back of your mind a little bit.
And even if it's not just the idea of we
have one of the ten best players in the NBA
right now, that could be a license for patients, it's
also a license for urgency.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think, I think a couple of things. And
this is like just this is how it's always going
to be, or will be for a while. When you
have to talk about Wemby and like what you do
around him, like the rest of the Spurs roster is
like is just objectively not close to being like a
like who else on the current Spurs roster? Are you
like that guy's closing a finals game? And that does Yeah,
for you, it's Stephan Facell, easy peasy. But I think
for most people it's like maybe nobody, maybe Stefan Castle
in five years, but that's like, okay, so maybe any
maybe a junior in high school right now that we
haven't seen yet in five years, Like that's equally plausible.
I do think like the fact that he's there means
that the level of players you need around him is lower.
So it's like, if it's me, I am not in
love with anyone on the current market enough to justify
like really buying almost at all. And I think what
I'm doing is waiting at least until summer, maybe till
the next deadline, doing marginal stuff like the Barnes acquisitions,
think things like that, and I'm just still I'm gonna
bide my time, like for maybe one more year, but
after that, I do think it's go time, assuming Wemby
continues on this trajectory and stays healthy, because you're right,
he's at a level now where I don't it doesn't
matter how old he is or like where he is
contract wise, it's like you got, you got the guy,
like you got the hard part's done and you don't know,
like now just you can't be thinking about, oh, let's
wait till let's time this to when Okase falls off,
or like let's wait till the Celtics get too expensive,
and after bat it's like, no, you gotta just you
got to start shooting your shot by like by let's
say by this time next year. You have to get serious,
I think, But.
Speaker 1: Not yet now is it in all or nothing proposition
with them to where you wouldn't split any of these
assets up? And it's like, well, they didn't do anything
that mortgages their future or someone they have to pay
a boatload of money moving forward. But this player X
player why they acquire at the twenty twenty five deadline.
You're not sure that they make them better. And maybe
you got off Zach Collins's contract in the process, but
you're not necessarily a capsock contender, but you are better. Well,
I mean, if you could give up Atlanta's if you
could give up two first round picks to get where
just even in twenty twenty five first round, or just
one of these actual first round picks, not that Charlotte
first round pick, to get somebody who helps you now,
but he's not Wenby's co star. He makes you better
as a making a contender. Are you considering doing it
just to then say, like, let's get Lenby to play
in progressively more meaningful basketball game so that he is
even ready when we go and make this all in move.
Speaker 2: So just so like we're talking about the third or Cam.
Speaker 1: Johnson being if you just said trade two first and
a contract you don't want, Like, let's say that Nets
are willing to do Zach Collinson too first for Cam
Johnson just as a framework. Is that something you're looking
at that's not even close to you being finished? Is
that something you're doing anyway? Though?
Speaker 2: I guess I guess I could see the logic of
if we're viewing Johnson as like a fifth starter on
whatever great version of the Spurs team we're gonna build
over the next three years or whatever, and that's the
cost of it. Yeah, you definitely don't need to be
like we're holding we're gonna do something that costs us
seven first rounders, like that's that's that's what we're keeping
all this power drive for. You can start like peeling
away some of these assets because you have so many,
you can still go make the Godfather off or after
you do this hypothetical Johnson trade. I guess I'm okay
with that. I I I just think more broadly though,
like there's gonna be another Cam Johnson, and I like
just because he's the best name, Champagnie, because he has
already on the team. Maybe like I I just because
I just think the market sucks this this deadline. So
it's like, yeah, Cam Johnson, it seems like the best
plug and play fit. But it's like there'll be a
guy next year that's at least as good summer and
maybe cheat or this summer or whatever. So if you
I don't, I don't know why you why you think
you've gotta have Cam Johnson this year unless it's like, well,
we're also gonna get off Zach Collins deal or there's
the other benefits to it. Maybe that that could push
you that way, But you know what I mean, I don't.
I just don't. I don't feel urgency yet. But it
won't be long until it's like one hundred percent let's go, Hi.
I just don't feel like they're there yet.
Speaker 1: I guess I would say I'm not giving up multiple
first round picks as the spurs for a non star.
I think the team. The Knicks went the extreme when
they did that for Mchal Bridges, but for Michael they
were good enough to say, we'll give up multiple first
round picks or someone who's not going to be our
second best player probably yea, probably banking on him being that.
Speaker 2: And he's like the last the quote unquote last piece too,
if you know what I mean, Like, Okay, this is
the although like if you had how far are the
Spurs really from where the Knicks were? Pretty far from
where the Knicks were pre Bridges trade that that's not
a fair comparison. Yeah, I'm not. I agree with you.
I'm not giving up multiple firsts for someone unless.
Speaker 1: As a non star. Yeah, I mean you got Cam
Johnson for one, for like if that's what it ends
up being. And that's just he's the name that's being
banning about all the times. It doesn't because even here's
the question who what player archetype is the one they
should be prioritizing.
Speaker 2: Literally anything like that's that's where they are still right
like this this rosters so unfinished, and you have so
much leeway to like mess around with what when Ben
Yama can enable you to do from a roster building perspective,
It's just like they need like they need a true
point guard, they need three and D wings, they need
a stretch.
Speaker 1: Like there's you could do anything if and when it
reaches this point, I'll say, when it reaches this point,
probably some time before February six, should they be a
Kevin Durant team.
Speaker 2: Just just go for it this year?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, that might be the one where it's, Okay,
we gave up what money that you weren't gonna keep
anyway moving forward to get him? And how many first
does it take? And like would you let Jeremy Sohan
be the deal? Brett, Well, we're not gonna give up.
I mean maybe like you're giving up. It'd be Barnes
Collins another set like so hand And then what too for?
Is that too much for Kevin Durant, Like you're gonna
go Zach Collins in the process?
Speaker 2: Mm, just like why do you want just just to
get Wemby those like those high level games a little sooner?
Speaker 1: You don't think Kevin Durant would make them like Webby
and Kevin Durant, like plus Vaselle is not a contender year.
Speaker 2: I think Kevin Durant's in his mid thirties and you
don't know what you're gonna get out of him. Year
to you, that's what I would say for the rest
of this year.
Speaker 1: I first, I'd be curious because in a vacuum, Phoenix
doesn't take that deal. They trade Kevin because Kevin Durant
wants out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they want Steph Castle back to probably and all
kinds of stuff.
Speaker 1: Grant been farewell to this bucket. We reach our final
bucket that has a bunch of teams, and the theme
of this bucket is teams that may be motivated to
trade distant first round picks and swaps. Our first team
highlighted I kind of picked as a troll job because
it's the Cleveland Cavaliers. They can trade their twenty thirty
one first rounder or swap in twenty thirty. I saw
someone on Blue Sky say people hate covering the Calves
this year because there's no controversy even like, think about
the conversation we just had about a contender in Okay. See,
there's not even that level of discussion to have with
Cleveland because they don't have the assets to have that discussion.
And so this is not a team when you look
at who's available, what they could do, what they what
they need quote unquote in needs. There should be no
motivation to trade either of these two assets, correct, No?
Speaker 2: I mean, like, yeah, we thought the Donovan Mitchell extension
was the was was the main like controversy remover the
fact that they just don't have any picks to trade
is the other one. This team, this is a team
you just like fast forward as is to the playoffs.
Have everybody healthy and let's see because they're you know,
they're obviously good enough.
Speaker 1: There if the Nets room willing to trade Cam Johnson
for twenty thirty and twenty thirty one like the swap
and that pick, would that just be might as well
just accumulate the talent because you're sending you'd send out
George Niang is part of that deal. But then you
get to the money by saying, oh, like all of
a sudden, we need to include a Karis Lavert or
an Isaac o Korom. Both those dudes have been pretty
valuable to what they're doing.
Speaker 2: This is this is a hands off team for sure.
Speaker 1: To me, that was easy for me. Who's up for you,
mister Hughes, Oh?
Speaker 2: Just the Denver Nuggets they can. Let's start with the positives.
They can trade their twenty thirty one first rounder, which
is conditional on this year's pick going to the Magic
with top five protections, twenty seven pick going to the
Thunder of top five protection twenty nine pick going okay,
so like and then okay, other good news. They have
swaps they can trade in twenty six, twenty eight, and thirty.
And if you don't think swaps are valuable, the Phoenix
Sun's got one Bradley Beal and that wonderful contract and
no trade clause by trading a bunch of swaps.
Speaker 1: And I think you could also argue that the Celtics
built a championship team on the like odd dear White sap. Yeah, well, no,
I need Jalen Bred. Was it Jalen Brown the result
of a swap?
Speaker 2: Oh? I don't remember. Well, Tatum was a trade, but
you know, I can't remember if that was a result
of a swap.
Speaker 1: Oh. Look, I'm pretty sure Jalen Brown was the result
of a swap though.
Speaker 2: So the Nuggets are a team that obviously needs uh something.
They need some depth, they need to not keep losing
rotation pieces. So like, so what's a twenty thirty one.
That's not even that has to be conditionally conveyed like
and attached to whom? What's that getting you?
Speaker 1: Is?
Speaker 2: Is that enough? Presumably the salary? Zeke Also, by the way,
do you know Zeke Nase's extension started this year?
Speaker 1: I for some yeah, I knew it started, but for
some reason I thought he signed it forever ago, which
that doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2: Well, deliver, No, it doesn't make sense. So Nause and
Saruch are like, you're matching salaries. I guess you've got
those swaps. You're you're limited unless you're gonna go mpju,
which again you've brought it up, like who's clamoring for
that contract? You're looking at like slightly over mid level
kind of money type type of player that you could
bring back. Are there other guys they should be thinking
of trading? Just kind of like, what's a realistic expectation
for what Denver can do with its limited pick assets, salaries?
And like should they just not do anything? Like should
they just like just have one pick that's not promised
to somebody?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the issue there is what is the
best you Let's say they include a swap and a
conditional twenty thirty one first round pick attached to Dario
Sharz and Zeke Najy. What is like the like, what
is the player in that salaries and that you could get?
And so I think if they're gonna do anything meaningful
unless they're just viewing that as a vehicle to get
off of Zeke Nagy and Dario Sars, which would just
be they will get justifiably destroyed if that happens. Like,
are you thinking about including a Julian Strother or even
a probably not Watson, seems like he has more upside
and you kind of know when Christian Brown is at
this point, like if you included Christian Brown, could you
get a sexy enough player to where it's, oh, like
we feel like the title window, Okay, you've now shortened
that window, but you've you've actively you've actively kept it open,
which you're not really sure if it's open at the moment.
They're just they're in such a weird spot because I
don't know who the best because when you're including that
type of a pick, even conditionally that far out, you'd
expect to get someone who's probably like the sixth or
seventh best player on your team.
Speaker 2: Still, Yeah, I don't know if.
Speaker 1: There's a guarantee they could do that because some of
the money they would be sending out is just viewed
so negatively around the league because it's negative value.
Speaker 2: Well, just like let's say it's Nase, Sarrich, and Brown,
which brings the issue up of that the team taking
on three contracts is probably dumping somebody too, So there's
that cost. It's like, are you getting anyone by combining
those three and a thirty one first? That's like definitely
better than Brown by himself. It's like, yeah, you're the
benefit is you're off of Sarich and Nase. I just
I just don't see. I don't know who that is.
I don't know that that's actually a possibility.
Speaker 1: Do you would there be a team like if they
included multiple swaps and I think the one that I
came up with like a month or two ago, if
you could send Nase and Sharich to Charlotte along with
two swap for Nick Richards and Cody Martin. Who's saying, no,
these are swaps, they're not out right first rounders.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's the thing. If you're going to
Charlotte like, what are the odds Charlotte's gonna take advantage
of either of those swaps?
Speaker 1: You know, the swaps in twenty eight and thirty twenty.
Speaker 2: Well, if I'm Charlotte, I definitely want the back end
of that. I don't want twenty six is like, there's
almost no chance that that's for sure, that's zero, that's
a useless Honestly.
Speaker 1: If you're Denver, you can include that as well, just
to say, like, to the other team, we gave you
three swaps, even though optically that would look terrible, but
functionally I don't think it would change.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean both of those guys would be upgrades
on the rotation, right like you marginally probably, although Richards
would be quite a bit better than anything backup big wise.
That although then the argument is like, well, how much
does that really matter because Aaron Gordon's gonna play backup
center in all the games that the Nuggets really care about,
and it's.
Speaker 1: Cody Martin helps you survive the regular season, particularly on defense,
but he's not gonna be winning. Are playing closing minutes?
Speaker 2: Yeah? That that really is the other issue with Denver
is it's like they they know who's going to be
on the floor in big playoff moments, like those guys
are already there probably and they don't think they can
get someone that would change that with what they have.
So it's like, how much do.
Speaker 1: We care about me better than I would say, because
Jamal Murray's just penciled in No matter how you fee
about Jamal Murray at this point, you're just been playing better.
They have to be better than Christian Brown or Peyton
Watson essentially, Well, right, I mean, I'm.
Speaker 2: Just talking like you're closing five in a playoff game.
Is is Murray, Brown, MPJ Gordon, and Jokich? So Watson's
probably the sixth guy, and then I guess Russ is seven.
I don't think I'm forgetting anybody, so like I guess,
I guess. I guess there's value in upgrading a guy
that's like your six seventh, eighth best player, but like,
can you do that with what they have? I guess
if you're throwing all the swap out there, that does
change things, but you're still dealing with like such limited
matching salary.
Speaker 1: I guess though part of that because you could look
at it and say, well, they just gave up two
swaps to get Cody Martin and Nick Richards who are
backups for them, But you're also getting off Naugs money
and then Sarches money, which you know that was a
self They're in this self dug hole with those But okay,
that's the time to undo it. Is like there's no
undoing it. It's like you can't. You have to view
that as some cost. So do you view it as
all right? Well, Richards and Martin, like if they were
to stick around, they would have more value if we
need to make matching salary on an additional trade, Like
is it worth it? I mean, Zetagy has three more
years left on that contract. One.
Speaker 2: It's brutal to be as good as they are and
have an in prime MVP and have to be thinking
about how do we get off these contracts that we
no one forced us to sign.
Speaker 1: I think they end up doing nothing, right.
Speaker 2: I think they just yeah. I think the market is
going to tell them like there's just not an obvious win,
so they won't do anything.
Speaker 1: Next team is mine? Oh, the Golden State Warriors, ply yours,
So tell me they can trade some imminent first, like
they can trade twenty twenty five or twenty six and
then they can trade twenty seven or twenty eight, and
then they can also trade their twenty thirty first only
if it lands in the top twenty, which is the
you know, I've seen a lot of people talk about, like, oh,
the Lakers can technically trade their twenty twenty seven pick
just if it lands in one to four. That has
zero value. If you're trading a pick that you can
get if it lands in one to twenty, that's a
different story to me, because the back the back third.
That's O to Washington Grant. I think I'm not going
to ask you the question. We've talked too much about
them in past podcast. It feels like this franchise. I
viewed their pursuit of marketing and Paul George's performative over
the offseason, and then I do like that they acted
early with Dennis Shooter, but that almost kind of felt like, well,
this is the most we're really going to be willing
to do to like improve this roster. Do you see
a scenario in which they are prepared to give up
a first in twenty twenty seven or later?
Speaker 2: I think probably not. I do think the heat loss
the other day, all the reporting from local guys, was
about like a very I don't think it was the
word wasn't heated, but like a pretty focused conversation in
the postgame tunnel between Mike Dunlevy and and Joe Lake
of the Owner, and what what the reporting seemed to
indicate from that was like lakeub is like not happy
with how things are going, and that the conclusion you
would draw is the Warriors are more likely now after
that bad loss, to make like what you and I
would probably term like a panicky type of move than
they were before it. So I think you factor that in,
but that might just be seconds for nick Vucevic like
that that feels like the kind of thing because I
don't I don't think.
Speaker 1: You can do this report from Amy where it was
just and I actually understand it from an asset perspective,
but it's or I think it was Mark J. Spears
actually excuse me, basically said no, no, like Nikolo Vuchvich
is a bigger priority for the Warriors than Jimmy Butler,
and so to see that written out is funny or said,
but when it comes down to what it costs in
terms of assets, you under stand it through.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, I don't know when it was last said
that like Vucevic is actually the sensible acquisition that kind
of kind of is given what it would cost to
do something else. Yeah, I don't think they move any
of these because the guys that you would like, oh yeah,
for sure, we can justify that are just not available.
Like we're talking about Ingram, Levine Butler. Who am I forgetting?
Like those those are those are your big three of him.
That's why I said ing Ingram is one of them. Like,
I don't think you're given up first for those guys,
So that this is these first will probably remain intact,
is what I would say through the trade deadline.
Speaker 1: I would agree with you. Would you I've asked you
as many times if it means getting Jimmy Butler, are
you doing it?
Speaker 2: I don't think so, uh, because as we've talked about,
it's they're not going to trade Draymond, even though if
it were Wiggans or Draymond, I probably think real hard
about trading Draymond. I don't think the Butler Overweigan's acquisition,
considering contracts, not just who's good is a big enough
one to justify all the other shit you're sending out
to Miami, if it's first, if it's Kaminga, if it's whatever.
So like, it's not an argument that the Warriors are
good enough as is. That's obviously not true. But I
just don't. I just don't do the Butler trade. I mean,
unless it's unless you can make it all kinds of
matching salary somehow and it's all expiring, and that's what
Miami wants and you're not giving it. Just you just
can't do it without losing Wiggins. I don't think, and
I'm I'm kind of out on that.
Speaker 1: I don't think this would get them this player in
a vacuum, but to kind of lower the bar, I'm
just asking you, would you give up Kaminga or A
twenty twenty seven first to get Cam Johnson?
Speaker 2: I don't think so, because Cam Johnson does not like
raise this the level enough to justify well. I mean,
if you know Kaminga's gone and or you're gonna have
to pay him way too much to keep him, then
maybe you just do that because Cam Johnson's gonna make
maybe half of what Kamingo wants. But I still don't.
I don't think Cam Johnson like raises your level enough
to justify. Certainly not a twenty seven first because like
that might be a that might be a very good pick.
Speaker 1: Is there any chance they'd be a sleeper darn Fox
team if he became available, or is that just too
small because you have to send Wiggins out probably as
part of the matching salary, although you could if you
make it on like February fifth, when you can aggregate
Dennis Shrewder, you might be able to get there without
Wiggins's money.
Speaker 2: I mean, I actually think that Fox is someone I
would kind of fire a lot of the assets that
because there's your bridge, Like you could play with Steph
whatever for the next couple of years until it's over,
and then he's your Like he's gonna be in his
late twenties and you can have him be your guy.
He certainly addresses like what they need, which is another
guy to create shots. Even he I don't think gets
them into the contender class. But I don't know that
that player's out there at this point. He's definitely I
would I would. What I would give up for him
is like so far beyond what I would give up
for Butler, Ingram or Levine or anyone else that we've discussed,
but also wears under armored shoes, so he's the only
other under arm or athlete. Got a factor that in.
Speaker 1: Would you and this team already made a buye? But
like if this player is sitting around looking at his team, like,
why aren't we doing anything major? Are you firing all
the assets in an Anthony Davis trade? M Just.
Speaker 2: For sure, it's probably costing you Kaminga and then what
how many of all.
Speaker 1: Three first whatever salaries?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: And then whatever first?
Speaker 2: Oh man, that might be Like god, he solved so
many problems.
Speaker 1: He's at that age too, where it's at thirty one, right,
Anthony Davis.
Speaker 2: The downside for sure? I think him and Steph though, yeah,
I would think real hard about that. I think I
would really. I mean, I don't even know if the
Lakers do that though, honestly, even though they probably should.
Speaker 1: If he has for out and the Warriors are offering
three first Kaminga Wiggins like, I don't know who's I
guess there are teams that could beat that, but who
would like Houston, I don't even think would go beat
that offer.
Speaker 2: Right, That's the way you make when you think your
most important years are like the next two and then
you're just willing to eat it after that, And that
might be where the Warriors get if this season continues
down this path. So, yeah, that's an interesting one. I
think you. I think you do that if you're the Warriors,
given me how much they care about Steph same.
Speaker 1: I want to be clear Tod Lakers hands like, that's
the same situation as Fox, Like, you don't move Antony
Davis unless he kxser out and you're the Lakers.
Speaker 2: You have the Clippers, all right, Uh, they can trade
twenty thirty or twenty thirty one firsts uh. And they
also have a twenty thirty or twenty thirty one swap.
So whichever way you want to do that, are they
good enough right now? Or do you believe enough in
what they've done so far? Plus at Kawhi now? Plus
however you think Kawhi has looked to justify moving one
of those two one or both of those assets.
Speaker 1: I just want to know how uncomfortable people are going
to be when the Vita Zubox makes an All defense
team or finishes like top five and Defensive Player of
the Year voting. Uh. I buy into what they've done,
but I don't think that you can trade at, swap
out right first whatever without note like Kawhi has played Okay,
that's great, but like we haven't seen him make it
through finish the season healthy in approximately eternity. So I
don't think you have to look at this team and say,
I believe in what we've built so far, but Kawhi
is too much of a wild card for us to
double down on it.
Speaker 2: I think it would be smarter and hopefully more likely
that they trade Kawhi than they like go out and
spend stuff to add just because like, I think you've
gotten what you wanted out of this season as the Clippers,
which is you've been competitive, you opened the new arena
that he's talking about, how that was a priority, Like
let's put a decent product out there. Like you've exceeded
expectations by I mean like across the board, right, nobody
thought the Clippers were going to be in the playoff
mix like this to this extent. So I think you
just take that small win and then kind of don't assume,
like what what's the trade that of given what they have,
that's like, okay, we're gonna take another step, you know,
in the immediate.
Speaker 1: And This might bring up a question that we should
probably ask in terms of how valuable are distant first
round picks, because when you look at them from our perspective,
they're like having equippers. Twenty thirty one first round pick,
that's fucking value or twenty thirty that's that's fucking valuable.
But if you were, if you were to offer Terrence
Mann an outright first and a swap, so however, you
want a structure twenty thirty and twenty thirty one and
you want Kobe White back or the Bulls laughing at.
Speaker 2: You, No, I don't. I would hope not. That's the
kind of trade the Bulls should do.
Speaker 1: It's just I think it's tough as the opposing front
office knowing, well, I'm not gonna be making these picks
or exercising these swaps, and so you need something immediate
and they don't have Like Terrence Mann doesn't fit that
Bill Norman Powell would, but you're not gonna get him
up with the way he's played this season.
Speaker 2: There's well, I think if you pull, if you do
that as a Bulls, as the Bulls or as someone
similarly positioned, you're just buying the upside of that pick,
which as we talk about it, like I don't know
the Clippers are going to be a free agent destination,
you know, if they get the books cleaned up, like
and we're way out, you know, so like based literally
no one on the current Clippers roster will probably be
on the team by then, So like just as an
illustration of how much could change, like they could have
two new Max Superstars by then that they signed. Like
the upside of that pick is huge, but it's far
from guaranteed. So I think I still would consider it
if I'm the Bulls, just for all the reasons we've
talked about why you probably want to trade Kobe White.
But I mean, if I'm the Clippers, I don't I
don't know we were doing that well. I just think
like they're they're just really hard to judge because I
do think with this ownership and this arena and this
every like they're gonna it's just really hard to know
like what the bottom is gonna look like for them,
because they're always gonna be able to sign guys. I
think like they're one of the few places where like
cap space actually is like, yeah, you could just build
a contender.
Speaker 1: Turned down Paul George this past summer.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's because they're like, we're gonna clean
the books up so that we can get the next
two guys in here eventually. Well, I don't know, it's
that's a tough one.
Speaker 1: I don't think they trade like any They might do something.
Maybe they could use PJ. Tucker's contract like the expiring,
but I don't think they're gonna.
Speaker 2: Do anything for real. Yeah, I think I would agree.
Speaker 1: We're onto the Lakers, which is my team, so I'd
kind of alluded to this. They can trade a bit
like they're twenty twenty seven first if it lands inside
the top four. I don't think that has any real value.
So they can really trade their twenty twenty nine and
twenty thirty one first both are conditional, are conditional upon
their top four protected pick conveying to Utah in twenty
twenty seven. Although is it conditional or does that one expire?
Do I get to type a like, doesn't it immediately extinguished?
Maybe I got that one wrong.
Speaker 2: Got to go back to the jazz on the spreadsheet here.
Speaker 1: Regardless, I think that they have two first round picks
to trade, and they can include sub swaps We've already
seen them trade for Dorian Phinney, Smith Grant. Is this
a team that you have Lebron, you have ad and yeah,
it does expire right away, so it doesn't have to
be conditional for so apologies to anyone watching. They can
trade twenty nine and twenty thirty one out right, and
they have three swaps that they can include. Is this
a team so you kind of already shot down the
notion unless you were getting an Anthony Davis type player
or Daron Fox? Is this a team that should be
more motivated or has more incentive to trade these later
first and swaps?
Speaker 2: Well? Like why should they be treated differently than the
current Warriors? Like a lot of the motivators are the same, right,
Like you've got in the Lakers case, they have two,
but in the worst you've got it like a late
prime star that you want to try to compete? Like
should should the analysis be different? Because I'm asked because
for me, it's like I can't evaluate the Warriors the
same way i'd evaluate another team just because I'm gonna
watch them every night. I'm not gonna watch every Lakers
game and like live and die with it. So for
some reason, and you can just tell me if this
is irrational.
Speaker 1: It's irrational.
Speaker 2: Better about the Lakers, like throwing a first in salary
for Levigne or whatever, than I do for the Warriors.
Maybe that's just because I can imagine their ceiling being
a little higher because they have two stars. Say well,
although Lebron we've talked about is maybe not quite that anymore.
I would be more willing than I would if I
were the Warriors to throw some draft assets out there
to get a Levine level. Levine is like my specific
guy for this team. I don't know why. That's just
how it's always been.
Speaker 1: So I think the differences are is that the Warriors,
in theory, depending on how you feel about that twenty
thirty pick they owe to Washington, they just have more
future first round equity at their disposal, And internally it
seems like are they still holding out hope that they
have bridge to the future in place with pods and
coming as specifically, whereas now I think from an outsider's
perspective like mine, the Warriors have exactly zero bridges into
the future right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's a fair position to have, and.
Speaker 1: The Lakers they have zero bridges into the future. But
they can't even look at anyone internally and say, like,
you know what, right, don't connect he has all NBA
potential And I think that's the difference. And someone actually
called me out on this, I think, on YouTube, and
they were right, like, why should we say that. It's
like the Warriors are better set up for the future
than the Lakers. There's no I might feel that way
just because this Lakers front office has not proven to
me that like they're gonna make the right moves, but
like the Lakers are probably going to be more of
a free agency destination as they clear their books, and
I think they're at least more like it's at least
a debate. I think what the Lakers though, specifically, is
you can say that their two best players are better
than Golden State's two best players in the aggregate. Steph
is the best player of those three or of the four,
but like the gap between Lebron and ad and then
Draymond is massive at your point. So I think that's
why the Lakers might have more they're also just the Lakers,
and I think there's also look, Steph has been with
the Warriors his entire career, same with Draymond, and there's
that goodwill equity built in with the Lakers. It's sort
of just like Lebron was. Yeah, he's been there for
a while now, and so is Ad. But if you're
not going for it with these guys, what's the You're
not riding like the Warriors aren't aren't riding emotional goodwill
and vibes. The Lakers aren't necessarily riding that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's a pretty key. So so then
I guess let's well, let's just like put names to it.
Is there someone that you think would justify the Lakers
putting one or both of those first on the table
for in this market.
Speaker 1: I'd probably do it for Fox. That's not gonna get
you Fox. He would really like Clutch would have to
play like, well, yeah, that's the other factors, Like they
could Client who signed to Clutch the Warriors, and the
Lakers could just like Collie there. I don't. I wondered why,
and it's probably because of the age and the contract
and the spacing issues, but like, why aren't they being
mentioned as a Jimmy Butler destination because in the players
in a vacuum, I know they like to pretend that
ruy ha chamor is like this cornerstone, you give up
all the matching salary you need to get Jimmy Butler
in a vacuum? Is it just the age and the like?
Do you not like the Jimmy Butler fit? And I
guess I don't love it? And he's someone who needs
would prefer to have the ball, and like it's the
same thing with Lebron and you're running stuff through a
d So I get it, but would you give up
your first? Like, would you give up a first to
go and just get Jimmy Butler? Man?
Speaker 2: I think you.
Speaker 1: Had, By the way. That might be the other difference
to the Lakers matching salary I think is if you
don't want to say it's less attractive, it's it's definitely
not as palatable as the matching money that Golden State
is going to Like what is the bad contract on
Golden State's book right now?
Speaker 2: I mean you might be Draymond at this point, but yeah,
it's like Wiggins is a good contract.
Speaker 1: I think the next deal that's the end.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they'll be there soon. I mean shrewder Well, he's
expiring whatever. Uh yeah, So like the Lakers can't get
like if the Heat just want all expiring money and
or like positive value contracts, like I don't can the
Lake The Lakers can't like quite do that right, Like
there's just it's not quite the same.
Speaker 1: Like maybe you can compensate Detroit in seconds to take
on Jared Vanderbilt, like I it was that a flyer.
I honestly don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's one way to do it. So do you
think they do anything?
Speaker 1: They might do stuff, but it's gonna be on probably
a level below the Doriyan Phinney Smith. Okay, just because
they don't have seconds to move anymore.
Speaker 2: The big move has happened. You heard it here first.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you think that they would do do you
think they should do something bigger than Doriyan Phinney Smith.
Speaker 2: I think if you can do something with one of
those firsts and your bad salary, you probably I would
be for it.
Speaker 1: I mean just too if you can get first, of all,
maybe you don't even need to give up first at
this point. But even if it's one first, then you
can protect it and then immediately extinguishes or like would
the Bulls do it? For two swaps in twenty eight
and thirty is that far enough out They're probably still
going to try to be good or in the bottom
they want to be in like the middle ten.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, the Bulls know they're giving up the sixteenth pick.
They know it. So like, if you think you can
do better than that, you gotta do it.
Speaker 1: The Milwaukee Bucks.
Speaker 2: Are you okay? They like the Nuggets can trade their
twenty thirty one first. They are a second apron team,
So just as a refresher for everybody, and I have
to do this like every week or so. Cannot aggregate salaries,
you can't get they can get under the second apron
if they salary don't Pat Conaton, But just they're the
team that's like, you can't aggregate, can't take back more
than they have, all the restrictions that the second apron imposes.
So if you're trying to get better, you're talking about
that twenty thirty one first and Bobby Portis or and
Pat Conaton or whatever, and you can't just lump together
stuff like you used to imagine them last year. There
would be so much and several other seems to be
so much easier to come up with trades to make
the Bucks better. Oh, the twenty thirty one first, and
like Pat Conentson and Bobby Portis and whatever else, you
can get a forty million dollar player coming back.
Speaker 1: LIKEE not, So is it weird that they're not being
talked about more as because I feel like we talked
about with the Lakers the Warriors, and I know they're
not second. Is it just the second apron which kind
of bails them out from having to consider because just objectively,
you have Giannis Attenta Koumpo, you should be putting that
twenty thirty one draft pick on the table to get better. Otherwise,
what the hell are you doing here?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean, well, it's just who's the best player you get?
It's the Denver Proty one pick. If you're trading Bobby Portis,
It's it's.
Speaker 2: Really the Denver problem, although maybe not as bad because
Portis makes more than any single guy the Nuggets could
non MPGA Division control a.
Speaker 1: Little bit better than Zeke Nagy too a little bit.
Speaker 2: Better, but he's also like way more important to the
team than Zekena September, So like, I like, how are you?
It's it's like it's that thing where Okay, we'd like
a Bobby Portus upgrade Okay, cool, what are you offering
Bobby Portis and a first that your administration will not pick?
So it's like, how do you what does that look like?
I just I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just they're not going to do anything right.
Speaker 2: It doesn't seem like there's a way realistically.
Speaker 1: Which means that we're moving on to the Minnesota Timberwolves,
who would have been more fascinating to talk about had
they not made the trade that they did for well,
forget about the Julius Rendald Dante divincenzol cononnthy Town stuff.
If they didn't trade for Rob Dillingham, they'd be at
they'd have more assets in play. They are also a
second Apron team. They do own Detroit's twenty twenty five
first again top thirteen protection that becomes top eleven in
twenty twenty six, called by top nine in twenty twenty seven,
and they can trade a swap in twenty twenty eight
now the valuing that Detroit pick, so again they have
to trade a standalone South. They have standalone salaries they
could move. I mean specifically, you look at Julius Randall
as just the big exp could be expiring money. It
also helps though that the Detroit pick. I think you
look at it and say, okay, that will convey at
some point over the next three years.
Speaker 2: Ye right, I agree.
Speaker 1: Do you think though, that they're going to look to
do anything where it's let's see what we can get
if we attach this to Julius Randall, because it doesn't
seem like those are the terms they're thinking.
Speaker 2: And I think, and specifically I think you would look
at this situation normally and say, what can we turn
Randall and that that first into that maybe extends out
another couple of years like that would that would be
how you like, why another team would take Randal on
is if they had a contract similar to his that
they didn't want to be on the hook for or whatever.
The fact that the Wolves made the Randall trade tells
me that they don't want money that's going out beyond
what Randall's probably I don't know what. We should have
a player option discussion at some point on here, like
odds of players picking them up, but like, doesn't that
seem like the reality there where it's part of the
reason Randall's on the team is because the Wolves wanted
to get cheaper over the next several years. And so like,
how does that square with giving him up and at
first to take somebody on that will just cost you
more money. You know, the next two three seasons.
Speaker 1: What happens with him will be fascinating because if they
allow him to just pick up his player option, or
if he opts out and they just let him leave,
that it was clearly financially motivated that they. I guess
even if they had him opt out and signed him
to a short like a longer term deal worth less money,
it's still not quite clear. I think it was pretty
financially motivated, but there was. We tried to justify the
basketball perspective of it all, and I look, you know,
we've kind of killed Julius Randall a lot. Julius Randall's
been about what you could expect from Julius Randall. I
don't like. I don't individually like what disappoints you that
you didn't already know about if you're if anything, he
spent more time off the ball, like been okay, spending
more time I'm off the ball?
Speaker 2: I expected, Yeah, I think no, if you were familiar
with Julius Randall's game, uh, this is what it is.
And and and maybe it's been even a little better.
But yeah, no, I don't. I don't think you can
be disappointed in Julius Randall. You can be disappointed in
the Wolves for either a making a financially motivated move
or be thinking Julius Randall would be something like very
different from what he'd been in the past, But like
you can't be I guess to be clear, in general,
when we're like being annoyed at Randall, it's like we're
not actually annoyed at the person. It's just like what
he's what the team thought he would.
Speaker 1: Be, honestly, because the bigger story is like, Okay, Mike Comedy,
I think was he shooting almost forty percent from three
over his past ten games, but he has not played
particularly well this season. Rob Dillingham has been seldom used
and injured a bunch dealt with ankle stuff. And so
is that the cardinal sin not thinking that like or
if you thought because I guess they thought Julius Randall
could be like a quasi not for general, but help
bridge the gap between Okay, we have this much left
of Commley and then Dillingham will eventually be ready and
Julius Randall's gonna just help us, you know, bridge that
gap even more, Like is that like I don't know
what the actual cardinal sin of this team is, because
had you kept Towns, they're probably I do think they're
probably better than they are right now. Devincenzo's playing better,
but they're like this team has made a couple of missteps.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think it. I think it was just
the farther we get from it, the more it's just
like it was money because you made yourself worse. You
took a team that was a conference finalist, and it's
not like you traded Towns for I mean, you kind
of traded Towns for a guy who plays the same
position less effectively and is worse on defense somehow and
like a shooter, which is like, it's just we tried
to justify it. I think there were like semi reasonable
cases to be made if everything like broke right, But yeah,
it just the mistake was I guess maybe the mistake
was signing Towns so that that size of a deal
to where you just decided you had to get off.
Speaker 1: The thing with Towns this season, because when you approach
it from the self creation element, it's like, well, look
at what he's doing in New York. And it's well,
he was never gonna have that agency or space in
Minnesota because they weren't using him at the five as often.
And that's what so is that the Cardinals cit you
should have just kept the team together, that's the answer.
But I don't expect them to do anything. If I
were them, I've mentioned this to you, I would just
would you at least consider. I don't know why Utah
would do this in a vacuum, Like if you can
use Julius Randall and the Detroit pick to get John Collins?
Is that too much? Like are you looking at it?
Can we use seconds instead? And I don't even know
what their second round commitments are off rip And if
I'm Utah, I don't really know why I would do
it for seconds unless you just wanted You think Julius
Randall's gonna opt out because you don't want to be
in Utah and you want to get off that money.
Speaker 2: That's that's the thing where it's like, oh, they could
clear thirty million in space.
Speaker 1: Like to do Actually, they have Utah's second this year,
beck Julius Randall, utah second and another second for John Collins.
Speaker 2: I think I do that.
Speaker 1: If I'm the Wolves, I think they're so invested. At
least Chris Finch seems functionally invested in like and he
even said Julius Randall's done everything they've asked him too,
and they have used him in a bunch of different ways.
It's just man talk about a team's ruining the vibes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, too bad.
Speaker 1: Our next team is your team, but technically my team.
Speaker 2: Great vibes here, except you don't believe in him. The
New York Knicks can trade the Wizards twenty twenty five
first with top ten protection, so good good for them
topy We already said topy protected in twenty six then
who like Who's like, Oh, I gotta get a piece
of that that top ten protected Wizards pick. Can't wait
till I get the number thirteen pick, Like, you're so
what they can trade are twenty six and twenty seven
seconds because that's what that pick is going to ultimately
be and a twenty thirty swap. Uh do you do
anything or you just wait for Mitchell Robinson to come
back and fix the whole operation.
Speaker 1: That's the It's like, I don't even what could you do?
I don't think they're gonna do anything, because I do
think Mitchell Robinson is a people forgotten which is fair
like he is super he's super limited on offense. He's
incredibly value on defense and as an offensive rebounder, but
he's never healthy. So that money he's on it's not
a ton it's below the mid level, but he's not playing,
So that's a bad like in theory and negative contract
around the league, what does Mitchell Robinson end the Washington
pick get you? And if you're willing to include a swap,
if you could get Robert Williams the third, would you
do that? Because then you're just getting someone who plays
your second best player's best position.
Speaker 2: Well, that's the thing is like, is that even guaranteed
to be any better than like, I think the high
end of what Mitchell Robinson will give you is like,
is definitely not worse than the high end of what
Robert Williams the Third is going. Well, maybe not the
high end of rober Williams the third is kind of
an interesting player, but like, if you're I guess if
you're pricing in the injury of stuff, it's with Williams specifically,
it's like, well, he's as likely or more likely to
just not play as Robinson. So, like I was asking,
like facetiously, because I think you do just wait for
Robinson to come back and just assume that he's gonna
solve some of.
Speaker 1: Your problems unless you really like the idea of it
being precious and you want to use Robinson. Can you
get some type of reserve wing in there? But again,
the thing I came up is like, what would you
need to give Charlotte to get Nick Richards and Cody
Martin for Mitchell Robinson? I don't like, do you just
give up the Washington first? But the Washington anyone who's
watching quote first?
Speaker 2: Do you give up the twenty six and twenty seven
seconds for?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Like, do you do that? Because I think you
could argue Mitchell Robinson is better when he's healthy than
the two players that are coming in. Well, Cody Martin's
a goat.
Speaker 2: But you know what I'm saying, No, I think that's right.
I think Robinson is like in a weird place value wise,
where like if you're an acquiring team, that's you probably
are viewing that as like dead money or you know
what I mean, Like you don't care that it's Mitchel
Robinson so much, and if.
Speaker 1: You I had thought a little bit about like if
you could get so it'd be Mitchell Robinson plus a
small salary. And then had you not traded the Detroit pick,
could you have sent that pick back to Detroit maybe
even with this swap and gotten Isaiah Stewart or is
that not enough to do that.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's a Stewart would be man. I
totally agree, but yeah, that would be a would be
a huge win if that were possible.
Speaker 1: Do you agree though, that their biggest need is probably
like a reserve because they're similar to you mentioned this
with uh Denver. It's like they're closing lineup is set.
You're not getting someone better than Josh Hart.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, they're closing lineup set, And I think like, yeah, yeah,
it has to be set. But it's like with Robinson
back you move towns to the four for some percentage
of the minutes, Like you also have like this other
interesting look, so like it's not another big I think
you're just hoping it's Robinson. So one more body that
could play on the wing would be would be nice.
Speaker 1: And there's just something uninspiring about trading Mitchell Robinson for
someone who you're hoping can be your seventh or eighth
best player, because that's what unless you think Mitch Robinson's
never gonna be healthy again.
Speaker 2: I just don't know why, and which the Knicks would
be in a position to know too, So like if
they do move him, you we should assume that that's
the analysis.
Speaker 1: Our final team, the Phoenix Suns, perhaps the team most
likely to trade just at first round pick. They've been
linked to Jimmy Butler. They can trade guys. Get ready,
it's a long list. They're twenty thirty one first and
that's it. So the questions here I have two For one,
do you think that they could get a first for
Ryan Donn or Ohsoe Gadaro.
Speaker 2: We talk about this all the time. I think I
think the best you could do with either of those
guys is like a is kind of like the Washington
first that we just talked about, or maybe a little
better than that, or.
Speaker 1: Or it's like Okac or Boston gave up this year's
first and you're picking twenty ninth overall.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're getting like the worst of half the league's
you know, twenty twenty six round. You know, you know
what I mean, Like, it's not gonna be a true
blue first round er. I just don't see.
Speaker 1: It now unless that's the difference then between getting Jimmy
Butler and not getting Jimmy Butler. But I think that
I'm probably not doing it, is my point philosophically. There
are two questions here, are you giving up the twenty
thirty one first and Bradley Beal to get Jimmy Butler?
And I think I think there probably I would there
We could argue that, yeah, just do it, like why
wouldn't you do it? But like, is Jimmy Butler like
this team? The vibes are off well, I mean they
won the other night and the vibe seemed pretty good there,
but like you're now just mortgaging more and more of
your future and just knowing the inevitables is gonna come
where you're gonna suck and it's gonna be rough and
you have how much have you really increased your title
stock this season when Jimmy Butler doesn't upgrade your center rotation?
So I think there's an argument to be made that no,
there's you don't want to get Jimmy Butler because you
have to strip it down at some point, and this
isn't gonna be like increase your title ods enough. But
I think the and I think this is the correct argument.
Though the opposite of that would be, if you have
to blow it up, Jimmy Butler will get you something
and won't have a no trade clause. Bradley Beal isn't
gonna get you anything and has a no trade clause.
Speaker 2: And if you have to blow it up, you're getting
good stuff for Durant and Booker. So like So in
answer the first question, if it's if it's Bale twenty
thirty one for Butler, I'm definitely doing that, I think.
And that's with knowing I'm gonna pay Butler one oh
six or one twelve for the next two years on
that extension, because that's just Beal money anyway. And I
think Butler's a better player than Beal, and and from
Phoenix's perspective, it's just on brand because it's like, well
that let's get the bigger star, like I whatever, Like
you know, you're so far you're so far in with
Beal that what's the difference, Like you might as well
be a little better and give up that twenty thirty one.
That's that's how they've operated since this ownership group took over.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this is similar to what you
said about Julius Randall. I kind of hate the way
that people are framing Bradley Bealle a some type of villain,
Like why won't he just wave his no trade calls?
Or he looks unhappy and he wants to leave. First
of all, we don't even he probably would wave his
no trade clause go to Miami, but the reporting is
Miami doesn't want him. So that's like, you can't be
mad at Bradley Beal for for that. Bradley Beal could
be mad that this is how he's being treated, but
he's the one that negotiated this contract, got the no
trade clause, Like that's why the pressure is coming. I
just I that's the contract team to go. You cant
get mad at Bradley Beal.
Speaker 2: Bradley Bill is a stud, Like good for you, man,
Like you got a massive deal, Bradley Bial won. Bradley
Bill is a winner, Like he got a deal he
never should have gotten with clauses that literally nobody else gets.
And yeah, this is a shitty fit. And like he's
diminished because of injury, but like, that's not what you like.
He's he's he's the biggest winner out of anybody involved
and insummation.
Speaker 1: That's why that Wizard's pick going to the Knicks is
never gonna con May you just that? But the other
question then would be, let's say Miami sends Jimmy Butler
somewhere else or just refuses to trade him. Are you
willing to move? Like? Should they be willing to move?
Speaker 2: This?
Speaker 1: Twenty thirty one first attached to is it Grayson Allen
or is it use of nurkice? And again this is
we don't have the notes here. Because Milwaukee was the
first team, their second apron team, they can say they
can't aggregate salaries, they can't take back more money than
they receive. They are not even close enough to the
second apron to get out of it realistically, like use
of like as a framework, use off nurk and twenty
thirty one for Isaiah Stewart, is that a deal you're doing?
Speaker 2: Yep?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so they they're they're in the mode of we're
i mean talking about it a non star, like a
role player that is gonna play maybe twenty twenty five
minutes a game, if you gets you out of Nurkic's
money and it upgrades your rotation, like you just need
to do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think so, I mean, you're the pop committed.
Argument is sometimes like a fallacy, but like what you said,
it up proNT, like this is gonna go totally upside
down sooner than later. And when that happens, you do
have guys you can trade for somebody Else's a good
chunk of someone else's draft. So like, I guess the
counter argument is like Stewart over Nurkic does not get
this team into the Contender's inner circle or anywhere close
to it. So what's the point from that perspective? But
like it's kind of a you come this far, why not,
Like you still have the you can pull the ripcord
and trade Durant and Booker and you're you'll you'll survive.
But like, but my.
Speaker 1: Whole thing there is is Isaiah Stewart gonna prevent maybe
by the trade deadline. But let's use Kevin Durant as
the example. Like if they don't make a move, I
could see Kevin Durant just being like, dude, trade me.
I'm not gonna sign an extension here if that's not
gonna be like, shouldn't you pearl clutch your twenty thirty
one first round or a little bit harder kind of
knowing that sentiments on the table and Isaiah Stewart again,
maybe he play kates your stars for now. But if
all it's doing is delaying something coming to a head
with Kevin Durant specifically over the off season, but w
if something comes to a head with Kevin Durant, that
just means the Devin Booker Crossroads is coming up.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, that's all related, that's all tied together like
one happens. That's you need to just treat it as
like a full tear down. Yeah, I mean I see
your point. But like I mean, you might just argue
that the Durant trade request is coming no matter what
you do, so and nobody knows when, so you might
as well trade that thirty one if you think it
makes you. That's really as we talk about it, the
fact that like the Suns can't get anyone using that pick,
if it's you or I, our logic would be, we
can't get anyone using this pick to meaningfully change like
the level we can hit, so why would we trade it.
I don't think that's how the Suns look at things,
you know what I mean? Like, I think they view
it as we can get a better player today, and
so we'll do that.
Speaker 1: And they're so pocamated that if it's if it means that, oh,
we get to keep Kevin Durant happy for the rest
of just this season, Like you just have to make that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, Their time horizon is like, you know, three
feet away. That's how they view the world.
Speaker 1: With that, I think we're done. Unless you have anything
else to d grant you want to take us out
of here.
Speaker 2: First of all, I will say that this was highly instructive,
and I will be referring to this document several times
and watching this podcast over and over so I can
see the graphics that explain all the pick obligations. Thanks Dan,
Thanks everybody for watching, for listening. Hopefully this was helpful.
Keep all this stuff in mind. If you're making up
fake trades, it kind of matters. As always, please rate, review, subscribe,
give us five stars wherever you're listening. Make sure you're
subscribing on YouTube. Make sure your thumbs up in the
videos leaving comments A that good stuff really helps things out.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna add something before we close. Herb Jones is
out in definitely with a torn labram in his shoulder,
so we talked about him a little bit in this episode.
I'm not going to add something at the front. The
Pelicans are so fucked, man, that team is cursed curs.
Speaker 2: That's rough, that's rough.
Speaker 1: That's rough stuff. So I guess, insummation, I probably wouldn't
trade two first round picks for Herb.
Speaker 2: Jones this season. That's maybe, maybe now is the best
time to do that, shouts Frank Milo Keene. Apologies, Jared
Allen