I dont want either unless cost is non Vassell/Sochan players and 2 firsts or less. But at that point 5M doesnt mean anything is the point and I’d rather have Trae deal for 3 years than Garlands at 4 years personally.
But at that point with their money and any amount of picks you are quasi going all in anyways is the point and I’d rather just get the better player if you’re doing that (which they shouldn’t)
You're vastly underestimating what Garland would cost. His value is not at his lowest. He's 24 entering his prime and there won't be shortage of suitors, which is all that matters for CLE who will have leverage and won't undersell him. it's not SA or nothing for Garland.. Not to mention the NBA knows the spurs are badly needing a quailty PG. They'll make them pay.
Last edited by JPB; 05-19-2024 at 10:06 AM.
This is the problem I keep mentioning with any of these trades for these oft mentioned guards. The Spurs can obviously make a a good offer in a vacuum, but the whole point of trading Garland would be to sell Mitc on contending or having a pathway to doing so and upgrading the fit while decreasing the baseline of talent won't get them any closer.
Unless they could turn Allen and Johnson into Ingram (but then the Pelicans would run into the same problem with Williamson), they'd be looking at LeVert as their secondary creator.
Can't see them taking Collins. It'd more than likely have to be either Jones in place of him or maybe Branham and Graham.
Last edited by TD 21; 05-19-2024 at 11:06 AM.
No, because the salary is only PART of the equation. The other part is acquisition cost. You can probably get Garland without any Atlanta picks, just the two others ( CHI,CHA) plus a pick or two of our own.
We hold the chips, lest we forget that! I prefer castle/rob/Topic with Wemby vs Garland.
Charlotte's pick is wortless. Charlotte never makes the playoffs and there is only one year left on it to convey, and it's lottery protected so has low value. Chi also top 10 protected and they will likley be another tank team to keep that pick next year.
Vassell is the only player with some value outside of Wemby so basically you want to trade little value away so I don't know what you think to expect back in a trade.
I agree on the value part.
My top offer would be something like Keldon, 8, 35, CHA FRP, and Malaki (plus filler). Maybe put the CHI pick in play too. Other teams can outbid us. I’m not giving up the ATL picks.
I’m convinced the Spurs either trade for a point guard or they draft Castle #4.
I agree about acquisition cost, but in Garland case the biggest question is should you be paying Garland 40 million a year?
Financially an nba team can only have a max of 3 max slots than can pay, and paying that 3rd max slots wipes out all your depth (see phoenix and brooklyn from the last few years) so most teams are going to try and keep it as 2 max slots and a highly paid 3rd guy. We know Victor is a max slot player. For now we have Devin as the highly paid 3rd guy. For roster construction purposes that means we have 1 max slot to give out. Should we be giving that slot to Garland, even if the cost is not high? I'd say no to that. But I don't like undersized two guards masquerading as point guards, so I'm a bit bias here, since that is what Garland is.
After you factor in the spurs can just take a young point guard with upside with a high pick in the draft, it makes almost no sense at this point to pursue garland, or really any other point guard now.
I look at it as % of the cap. Devin, at his high salary, will be 20% of the Spurs cap and that will go down between (1) the structure of his deal, and (2) the new cable deal.
Next year, Garland would be about 25% of the cap. Also will go down with new deal (modestly).
Then factor in that we’re still in Vic’s cheap years, and the fact that most of the current roster wont be on this team anyway
I don't see how the Spurs and Cavs make sense as trade partners in a direct trade. The Cavs are a Top 4 team in the East and aren't going to extend Mitc just so they can take a step backwards (especially with Mobley also likely getting a max extension this offseason), the Cavs likely will want to move Garland for another high caliber player who better fits the team. The trade ideas for Garland I found in this link make a lot more sense for Cleveland (no opinion on how much sense they make for the other teams): https://fansided.com/posts/darius-ga...novan-mitc
The Spurs simply lack the right assets to go directly after Garland, IMO. I don't think Cleveland is going to view Keldon or Collins (lol) as the kind of players they need, and SA likely doesn't want to move Vassell to get Garland (certainly it doesn't look like the Spurs fans here would want that - I wouldn't either).
I think this is great analysis, but we shouldn't forget that the Spurs can afford to be a little more aggressive since we are lucky in that we have a max-caliber player (Wemby) essentially playing for the MLE the next 3 years. Not saying that Garland is the guy to get aggressive for, necessarily, but we can't forget that wrinkle if we wanted to overpay someone over the next 3-4 years.
It looks that we either want a max or near max guy (Trey or Garland) or on the opposite end, a rookie. Seems like there should be an option somewhere in between.
In the link I provided, the Cavs get Brandon Ingram, Mikal Bridges and DFS, or Reaves and Hachimura (this is the weakest of the scenarios, IMO).
I don't see how the Cavs would prefer Keldon + picks (especially the ones discussed in this thread) as more appealing than any of those options.
Ok, but who is that player CLE is waiting for? Nets aren’t moving Bridges so long as Marks is there, guys. Ingram is a possibility but how does that work with Mobley? LAL best package is also built around picks.
I think the biggest priority for CLE, who gave up all their assets to get Mitc btw, is to get him to resign at all cost. Mitc ’s top priority is to have Garland gone.
I really don't see Nola making that trade and Brooklyn would be taking less than they were offered last year for Bridges. The LA offer looks realistic, but I don't see it as better than the lesser Garland packages we've discussed here.
With the three-way proposal with ORL, add in one more FRP and I think you'd get BKY interested in moving Bridges. I disagree that Marks won't move him, Marks is a smart guy, certainly he sees that cashing in on Bridges now is he best hope. BKY is really in a precarious position, which pisses me off since HOU controls their draft over the next few years (the swap rights on the 2025 BKY pick are funky, but other than that they're all the Rockets).
^ weird double post. Sorry about that. Hit send on the first one early and still don’t have edit access for some reason
Toronto tanked pick still conveyed they aren't worthless pick plus the spurs hold their own first round picks again they have worth and keldon or sochan zollins malaki sochan even. We have plenty of pieces and we aren't trading for magic Johnson
Agreed on Bridges, at least for Garland.
Ingram's mid range game would work fine with Mobley, who can play more around the rim with Allen gone and with Mitc providing volume three-point shooting.
Hachimura would be an ideal fit with Mobley, but despite superior size, Reaves would invite the same defensive issues a Mitc -Garland back court possesses.
Mitc 's priority, other than maximizing his earnings, is having a legit chance to contend for a championship. He'd clearly prefer to do that at home in New York first and probably some other glamor market second; but that's where the disconnect with Garland is. They're a poor fit, but by all accounts get along well.
I think all of us on this board need to take this purported Bridges proposal last year with a grain of salt. The rumor is they were offered "4/5 firsts" but we don't know what those first were. Doubtful they were 4/5 unprotected picks. Even the guy who reported this says that the he was skeptical of these offers:
As more substantial offers continue to pour in with the trade deadline looming, the Action Network's Matt Moore reported that Brooklyn has turned down "multiple offers of five first-rounders for Bridges." Moore adds that it's possible the offered draft choices could be heavily protected or include pick swaps.
"Two league sources said the Nets have claimed multiple offers of five first-rounders for Mikal Bridges, but I'm pretty skeptical on that front," Moore wrote. "One, it might be five ‘firsts’ with swaps and/or heavily protected picks, and if the offer was really five firsts, why share that and then continue to say they are not interested in trading Mikal Bridges?"
Shams reported that BKN turned down an offer of Jalen Green and "multiple FRPs", but again... were those protected FRPs? Scotto followed up and said the Rockets discussed sending "most" of the FRPs HOU got from BKN in the Harden trade... but what is "most" and what protections?
My guess is that these offers were in reality a lot less than we assume. But even so, Bridges value has only gone down since then. If you are BKN... what is your plan with Bridges? He's got two years left on very good contract. Does BKN really think they can compete? I'd say the Nets are in a worse position than the Derozan Spurs, when it was obvious to most of us here that the Spurs should look to offload Demar (we turned out getting decent value for Demar in the end, but maybe could have done better if we moved earlier).
Marks may have some other plan or idea, who knows... but I think Bridges might be more available than it is commonly thought.
And lastly, I disagree that the LA offer isn't better than a Keldon + CHA + CHI package. Reeves is a better asset than Keldon, and a 2028 Lakers FRP is far better than CHI25 + CHA25. Hachimura's contract is essentially the same as Collins from here out, but Rui is a more useful player, as well.
How do we see Devin's value around the league? For instance, is it more or less than Dejounte?
I fully expect the 4 1sts for Bridges were lottery protected, but that's still about the same as the Anthony Black + 3 picks expected to be outside the lottery. Seriously, if that's the package they'd take we should just go get Bridges ourselves and use 4 & 8 on two guards.
We'll have to disagree on the LA package. I don't think anyone outside of LA and the Press (but I repeat myself) values Reaves that high right now. I also think that the evaluation undervalues Keldon. Reaves and Keldon are both 6th men types with flaws and good contracts. Hachimura has a little value but not more than they would get by flipping our picks.
To be clear, I think that version of the Spurs package IS inferior to a LAL one. I was suggesting a package built Keldon + #8, a young player (Malaki/Blake), and the CHA FRP. If you have to add they can play with the #35 or the CHI FRP. But, beyond that I get off the bus.
Having 8 and maybe 35, givens them something concrete to along with Keldon and Malaki/Blake.
Great question. I assume you mean Dejounte now and not the Dejounte we traded (when he was at the peak of his value, not because he's gotten "worse" but because there was still much more to be determined upside a team could bet on. At this point, everyone should know what DJM is).
I'd still say DJM is a more valuable player, and pretty considerably so. His 3ball has come around pretty considerably (.363 last year compared to Devin's .372). I think Dejounte is a lot more multi-dimensional. Their contracts are pretty equal. I could see a team giving up multiple FRPs for DJM this summer, I'm not sure Vassell would pull the same (but he might). I think Vassell is also a much more common archetype. 20pt scorers on bad teams who don't do much defensively should be fairly easy to come by.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote