Reply With Quote
jesus. you are so obsessed with peeing on every tree in a forest, that you kill any discussion whenever you show up. just read. a big man, who shoots 50/40/90 is in Dirk territory by definition. noone said he is the player like Dirk.
yeah, let's not sanctify these 25 pîcks either. They're appetizing with a few potential stars on top (and let's insist on potential) but that doesn't make the whole draft gold, and with Wemby around you have to evaluate the pertinence of keeping them (and maybe not getting a better player or anyway one who would take a few years to develop) versus using them to ger that proven better player now to help Vic.
My personal perception is that with your generational talent in, you shouldn't play and gamble too much on drafts (speciailly with your track record) and prioritize proven talent.
Last edited by JPB; 07-03-2024 at 11:13 AM.
jesus. you are so obsessed with peeing on every tree in a forest, that you kill any discussion whenever you show up. just read. a big man, who shoots 50/40/90 is in Dirk territory by definition. noone said he is the player like Dirk.
Okay, so I did actually look through the real CBA: https://imgix.cosmicjs.com/25da5eb0-...nt-6-28-23.pdf
I'm not a cap lawyer, but it does seem to suggest that renegotiations do trigger six month bans and that trades trigger six-month negotiation bans.
That's pretty dense, but it implies most extensions and all renegotiations have this double-ban situation.) (f) (i) In the event a player enters into (A) an Extension pursuantto Section 7(a) above (other than a Designated VeteranPlayer Extension governed by Section (f)(ii) below) thatcovers five (5) Seasons (or, for Extensions entered intoprior to the first day of the 2024-25 Salary Cap Year,four (4) or more Seasons) and/or provides for Salary andUnlikely Bonuses or annual increases or decreases in theplayer’s Salary and Unlikely Bonuses in excess of theamounts that, at the time such Extension was entered into, were permissible in Extensions entered into in connectionwith an agreement to trade the Contract pursuant toSection 8(e)(2) above, or (B) a Renegotiation pursuant toSection 7(c) above, then the player may not be tradedbefore six (6) months following the date on which suchExtension or Renegotiation was signed. If a team acquiresa player in a trade, then, for a period of six (6) monthsfollowing the date of the trade, the team may not enter into(X) an Extension with the player pursuant to Section 7(a)above that covers five (5) Seasons (or, if the trade occurredprior to the first day of the 2024-25 Salary Cap Year,four (4) or more Seasons) and/or provides for Salary andUnlikely Bonuses or annual increases or decreases in theplayer’s Salary and/or Unlikely Bonuses in excess of theamounts that, at the time such trade occurred, werepermissible in Extensions entered into in connection withan agreement to trade the Contract pursuant toSection 8(e)(2) above, or (Y) a Renegotiation pursuant toSection 7(c) above.
Thanks to rankingtear for pointing this out. It basically means the Jazz don't have a ton of leverage to force a Markkanen trade this summer. If Mark wants to leave, he may well put Utah in a bind, but since they can't add value to the deal by extending or renegotiating, other teams might drag Utah into the season.
He’s actually not a first rate player. He never made an All NBA team, and only one ASG. He’s Dejounte level, and DJ was just traded for two FRPs, and scraps.
Please other than his career season two years ago DJM is a 20/5/5 guy with questionable shooting efficiency with declining defense. Lauri is a diet Dirk the past two seasons and just turned 27.
I don't want to offend anymore, but I feel like most people who post about waiting for a better opportunity don't actually follow the situation around the league.
We went over all the possibilites multiple times and the chances of another all-star forward who fits the timeline becoming available over the next few years are slim. Especially a forward who's such a good fit with Wemby.
And even if they become available, they're not going to cost less than 4 FRPs and they won't be on anything less than a max deal.
I said forward because I don't really think giving max deals to guards is the way to go in today's league, with just a few exceptions.
That leaves us with either finding our version of Brunson, a player who's struggling to showcase his talents on his current team, or we have to build through draft.
Since we won't be getting another generational talent, any player we draft, even if he has all-star potential, will take at least a couple of years to develop into a high level starter.
I don't want to waste any more of Wemby's seasons on not competing.
Don't get me wrong, we can't blow our load too early, but as of now we've got 13 FRPs in the next 7 drafts, with Charlotte '25 looking like the only one that won't convey.
We have three more swaps in years when we should be compe ive.
We also have 20 SRPs in those 7 drafts, meaning it should be fairly easy to move up in some drafts.
I'd rather get Markkanen than watch PATFO sell those for cash considerations and punt them down a decade.
Let's say we trade four FRPs for Lauri, we'd still have 9 in 7 years and a truckload of SRPs.
That's more than enough to make another trade or two.
We've been too spoiled over more than two decades with big3 and then also got nephew for cheap.
Sorry, but that won't happen again. The league has caught up and there are good executives all over.
You won't be drafting another Tony at the end of first round or another Manu in the second round.
Two unprotected FRPs and a swap. And was also up for an extension.
They might be in the same tier, but all-star forwards are always more valuable than all-star guards in trades.
Especially elite shooters.
So, why no All NBA teams, then? If he is as good as you say, he’d have squeeked onto one 3 rd team, right? Or made another ASG?
Because players on bad teams rarely make all-NBA teams and because he got shut down in both this and the last season in order for Jazz to get a better pick?
If Markannen is truly being shopped by Utah so they can tank into the lottery, will someone explain to me why Utah would insist on receiving a high caliber player in return. Doesn’t that defeat the tankathon approach? Seems they’d want high quality draft picks & lower level players in return. Also, seems to me Markannen has maximum control over this process since only he can agree to sign an extension.
They'd want a young piece because they already have 15 FRPs in the next 6 drafts.
I don't think they'd insist if picks they're offered are good enough.
I think Warriors' offer is nowhere near Ainge's valuation because it would just be dumb to trade unprotected FRPs after Steph is gone and that he's just trying to get some more value from the Spurs.
Like what are Warriors going to if they give up Kuminga and three FRPs?
Have one, maybe two more seasons of play-in struggles and then be irrelevant for a decade without Steph, young players and picks?
He does. He can literally pick his team by refusing to extend with anyone else. He can also force the trade by telling Utah that he will not extend with THEM.
I always compared Lauri to Rashard Lewis as a player
Only 15 guys make all NBA and most all defensive selections are role players who are not top 2 options in the offense.
By your standards a top 18-22 player isn’t first rate.
I think Lauri is definitely a Top 30 player and inching close to being a Top 20 player. That would leave him outside of the 15 players making the all NBA teams. I don't think anyone is arguing that he's top 10 or top 15... at least I'm not. But I think adding the guy who might be the 25th best player in his prime to Wemby isn't an unwise move.
Yep. This board thinks we're going to be able to get prime assets with our scraps. It's not realistic. Like others have pointed out, making these big moves will involve a little bit of pain. The rest of the league is also trying to win trades, they aren't here to simply placate the Spurs.
A lot of folks here go ga-ga over acquiring all of these assets for some, unknown, big future move... but get cold feet and want to haggle when it's game time. A lot of folks here would be massive failures in any sort of real world negotiation if that's how they approached things.
Its impossible to know how this FO real views and approaches things, but hopefully they aren't like fans who think we're going to be able to sit around and wait for the perfect superstar player magically on a 4-year MLE deal who we can get for scrap like Wesley + CHA pick. No one has suggested this for Lauri and I'm exaggerating, but a lot of the scenarios thrown out are just as unrealistic. At that point, you're really just saying you don't like Lauri, which is fine... just say that. Saying "yeah, I'd do Trae Young for Branham and a 2028 SRP" isn't a real proposal, it's just saying that you don't want Trae Young (insert the name of your choosing here).
They’re not!
I won’t argue any of that. To me, first rate is All NBA. Your mileage may vary.
Man, you're just absolutely nailing the bullseye on these. Bravo.
This is why I wish the Spurs would just pick a rebuilding lane and stick with it (maybe they have, but the dumb local Spurs media is schizophrenic in covering this team. And of course the team is under no obligation to broadcast what the lane is). Are we building through the draft? Sweet, let's do it. That involves actually using the draft picks though. Are we acquiring more draft assets so we can make a big trade? Okay, sweet. But the local media, who should supposedly have the best insight into this team and be the conduit for the fans, went from telling us we are building through the draft to "there is certainly something coming this summer, otherwise they wouldn't trade 8 for 2031 picks".
If we are building through the draft, then trading 8 for 2030/31 picks makes no sense. Yes, there is logic in loading the draft cupboard for "when we are good in Wemby's prime" - but that is skipping the step (ha, see what I did there?) of getting good first. That's the baffling thing. Certainly there will be someone who was taken between 8-36 this year who we will look back on and say "would be nice to have that player", and it's not like that player would have hurt our 2025 draft by taking them now. But we passed on that...
Passing on 8 like that makes sense if we've decided to improve the team by other means in the short run. Maybe the FO doesn't want a lot more young guys and wants to go in a veteran direction to bring some structure to the team... okay, cool, let's do that! That actually fits nicely with Lauri!
Lastly, the Spurs have apparently communicated (at least it is being reported) that they want to leave flexibility for 2025... which would still align with a Lauri acquisition, since he's a FA in 2025, and we'll have the financial room to resign him without blowing up our (apparently) scant resources.
Alright... diatribe over. Thanks for the great thoughts as always, JPB.
The absolute max amount of picks that spurs should consider is 3 FRP. No more than that. 2 picks and one young talent which would have to be one of (Castle, Vassell, Keldon, Sochan). That's what is probably being pressed by Utah.
I don't think it is worth it if Vassell or Castle are included. Keldon or Sochan on the other hand that is something to consider.
I'd like to get some clarity on how the extend-and-trade would work. My understanding is that if he extends, then he can't be traded until after the deadline... and if he is traded, the acquiring team can't renegotiate and thus he'll be unable to extend. Kind of a catch-22 there.
Couldn't Utah renegotiate with him at any time, and then trade him, and then the acquiring team could extend using 140% raise? Wouldn't that be the best mechanism?
I also wonder if Lauri's preference would be to do a short extension to take him to 10-years of service window, or just get his 5-year deal done next offseason for that long-term "set-for-life" deal secured. Not all players like to roll the dice on the shorter term deals to get to 10-years. I think the Siakam and OG deals show that the market is willing to do deals with expiring players with the confidence that they'll be able to resign them. I don't think the fact Lauri is expiring is a big a deal as being suggested, and Lauri will likely have some input on his trade destination. I don't think he'll do a Dame and limit it to one team, but he and Ainge probably have a conversation with Lauri green-lights a handful of potential destinations.
Edit: apologies, I see you addressed above. Wasnt caught up yet when I responded.
Last edited by scott; 07-03-2024 at 01:42 PM.
I wonder which of these two players are more similar.
PPG RPG APG FG% 3P% TS% USG% OBPM DBPM BPM VORP WS Player 1 21.4 5.2 1.8 .448 .345 .533 28.2 1.2 -2.6 -1.4 0.4 2.5 Player 2 24.6 8.9 3.4 .502 .416 .605 28.9 7.2 1.2 8.3 7.4 16.3 Player 3 25.6 8.6 1.9 .499 .391 .640 26.6 4.9 -1.0 3.8 3.3 8.2
To me it's not only about player's ability in a vacuum, but his fit with the team.
To make an obvous example, someone like peak Demar was a better first option than Lauri, no contest.
But that's not the player Wemby needs.
He needs mobile forwards with legit shooting ability. Markkanen is as good as it gets at being a great scorer at elite efficency without ever stopping the ball.
Teams that are a good fit are greater than a sum of their parts.
I think they're really high on Castle and see him as Jrue 2.0, as we talked about already. He's supposed to become a core member of the squad.
Devin's development is also up in the air. Will he take the next step and continue developing on Middleton's trajectory or he'll stagnate and stay a solid third option.
Wemby is obviously going to be the best player in the league in no time that can do literally everything, just needs spacing, perimeter defense and solid playmaking around him to maximize his talent.
Trading Minnesota pick and swap, Chicago pick and one Hawks pick while having the core of those four players and good cap situation (even after Markkanen's max), while having a lot of picks left is the way to go and noone can convince me otherwise.
Best case scenario we'd need just one more solid starter and rotation pieces. With the entire league lining up to play with Wemby and Spurs still owning almost all their picks to go for solid players, whether it be via draft or smaller trades.
Worst case scenario Castle doesn't develop and we need to find a solid point guard. Still easily doable with all the assets.
Just stop quoting him.
The only way he'll stop embarrassing himself is if everyone stops paying attention to his nonsense.
Legit ruins every topic with his horrible takes.
Any ing news today? Come on!!
It's possible that by the time you read this, you'll be caught up. But another poster said that the CBA prohibits renegotiations in conjunctions with trades and has a six-month double-ban where you can't trade a recently renegotiated player and can't renegotiate a player recently acquired via trade. So the Jazz can really only trade Mark as is or give him an extend-and-trade offer, which is 5-percent raises with no jump and for two seasons max. A team could acquire Mark, wait six months and offer a vet extension that includes the jump and 8-percent raises.
Even after reading through the CBA, there doesn't seem to be an issue with the Spurs renegotiating and extending Mark while including the 40-percent jump, other than the obvious issue of them not being able to carry significant cap space into the season. Like if they were to carry max cap space into the season (about $14 Million), they could trade for Mark, wait six months, then do a renegotiation to bump up his salary to about $32 Million, then use the 40-percent jump to give him an even bigger extension. What isn't possible is for the Jazz to extend-and-trade Mark to the Spurs and then having them renegotiate his salary using their cap space, or for Utah to renegotiate, send him on his one year renegotiated deal to SA, have the Spurs wait six months and then give him the extension.
Renegotiations and extensions both reset the clocks back to three years, and you can only do both if they're done together. Trades have a six-month double-ban with both renegotiations and non-E&T extensions. What I said originally was just me spit-balling based on the CBA FAQ. After that other poster pointed out a blurb from Hoops Rumors saying my understanding was wrong, I then looked at the actual current CBA. After doing so, the above represents my belief in the current state of things. I'm not an expert and can be reading it wrong, but the language is pretty straight-forward, even considering the legalese
So then the incentive to get a trade done now is that Lauri would want the more lucrative offer at 8% increases as opposed to 5%? I'm just trying to figure out why there hasn't been any movement on this front.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions