Reply With Quote
That lineup would never work now that Durant has lost a step or two. Way too stiff and slow. Not sure it would work with prime Durant either.
I'd have no interest but I wouldn't put it past the Spurs if the price were as relatively low as something like Poeltl, Langford and one of the lesser 1sts.I’d effing take Simmons. I doubt he wants to be in a rebuilding team though. But that should expedite Spurs rebuilding. Now to convince Chip to stay longer
The appeal for the Jazz would be tanking and generating significantly more financial flexibility to act as a dumping ground for dead money to extract even more draft capital.
The Nets are in a tough spot. Right now, there doesn't appear to be a young star available and Mitc , flaws and all, is better than any they could realistically hope to acquire anyway. Young, signed long term, local and easily marketable to casuals checks a lot of boxes. Plus, they'd obviously get other quality players and picks.
They would be an ideal fit together though.
That lineup would never work now that Durant has lost a step or two. Way too stiff and slow. Not sure it would work with prime Durant either.
I read up on it. Apparently you can't trade ranges directly, but that ends up happening if you trade an unprotected pick and the team receiving it further trades it but adds a protection, like NO did when they traded the unprotected they got from Davis to Memphis, but with an added top 10 protection, which basically went to one team or the other depending and for practical purposes was equivalent to trading ranges. But that's usually not the case with your own picks, so in this case it seems the most Charlotte could do is offer:
1) 2027 & 2029 unprotected 1sts + 2026 & 2028 unprotected swaps
2) 3 unprotected firsts 2 years apart, starting from the date the Spurs get the pick. That could mean 2025 + 2027 + 2029 unprotected firsts (if we get the pick in 2023), or 2026 + 2028 unprotected first (if we get the pick in 2024) or 2027 + 2029 unprotected firsts (if we get the pick in 2025). I think it would be possible to trade the right swaps in the years in between, in that case that'd be a Dejounte like package.
But yes, the pick the Spurs own really mess up the offer they can make, so they'd be better off offering the Spurs some compensation to freely dispose of their remaining picks.
I think the point is that the Hornets can't trade their 2023 pick to another team because it's possible for it to convey to the Spurs (if it falls outside 1-16). The same is true in 2024 and 2025 (protected 1-14 each of those years). My understanding of the Stepien Rule is that a team cannot make a trade that could possibly leave them in a situation where they have no first round pick in two future consecutive years, so Charlotte can't trade their 2026 first at all because they don't know yet that it won't convey in 2025, and won't know that until either the pick actually conveys to the Spurs (in 2023 or 2024) or the conclusion of the 2024-2025 season.
That means the earliest first Charlotte can trade at all is 2027. I don't know why Chinook said they can't trade the 2027 or 2029 picks. Maybe I'm missing something.
Prime Durant could and did 100 percent play SF. I think he's more of a PF now, but his perimeter defense wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal with two mobile bigs behind him. If Holmgren can't play PF in the modern game, it's going to hurt his stock a lot. SGA and Giddy can obviously play their positions. .
It's not. Charlotte cannot directly trade the 2023 pick at all, because then they wouldn't be able to convey at 2024 pick to the Spurs. It's completely off limits, as is the 2024 pick. The 2025 pick is technically tradeable, but they can't guarantee it because the Spurs would still have the rights to it if the Hornets somehow don't convey a pick until then. So the only picks the Hornets could guarantee are the 2027 and 2029 firsts and the 2026 and 2028 swaps. Every other pick is currently en bered. There's no backroom deal that Charlotte and Utah can have to give the Jazz the 2023 pick. The best they could do is agree to swap any of the picks they have in that range with picks Utah has, after the Spurs obligation is taken into account. So the Hornets can agree to swap their reverse-protected pick in 2023, provided they get a guaranteed first back, but if the pick falls into the Spurs' range, the Jazz can't swap, because the Spurs didn't agree to let them.
To say it again, Charlotte does not have their unprotected 2023 pick. They only have their (reverse) protected 2023 pick to swap. Then they can trade protected swap rights for their 2024 pick. They can trade their 2025 pick, but that pick has to be protected to basically not convey if the Spurs are owed it. So if for example, the Hornets' pick is not conveyed in 2023 and 2024, the Jazz wouldn't be able to get either of those picks, or the 2025 or 2026 picks. They could get swaps for the picks that aren't 2025, but even though the Hornets 2023 pick wasn't in a consecutive year from a pick that conveyed, the Stepien rule prevented them from trading it, since they don't know the future.
Yeah, didn't need to type that, I already answered myself half an hour ago two posts above yours:
I said it a bit weirdly. I was responding to Ariel suggesting that if the 2023 unprotected first was on the table that Utah would demand it. Utah has no claim to the 2023 pick, because it's already owed (in part) by the Spurs. Not only can the Hornets not trade it, but they can't even make it unprotected to trade the 2025, 2027 and 2029 picks without consulting the Spurs, even though it's very arguably a pure benefit for the Spurs that they do so. If they work a deal out with the Spurs to unprotect the pick, Charlotte can offer Utah three unprotected firsts and unprotected three swaps. If they don't get the Spurs to agree, they can only offer two unprotected firsts and two unprotected swaps (and one protected first in 2025 that would immediately extinguish if the Spurs' obligations haven't been met and swap options in 2023 and 2024 that would be en bered by the Spurs owning their pick). It's a significantly weaker package. The only way the Jazz get that 2023 unprotected pick from Charlotte is if they compensate the Spurs and Hornets for it, though for Charlotte, it would just be part of their payment for Mitc .
But that's still not right. Protection isn't just a matter of being positive or negative. You totally can trade picks in ranges. You can have a second-round pick that conveys to one of six teams depending on which range it falls in. Unprotected means there's no en brance on the pick at all, not that it doesn't "work against you". There are a couple of "reverse-protected" picks still out there. That's a legitimate form of protection where a team holds off on receiving a bad pick in hopes that a good pick falls later. That's fallen out of favor in lieu of giving deference options (like NOP has with LAL).
What this means is that if the Spurs had a one-and-done protected shot at the Hornets pick, Charlotte totally could trade their 2023 pick, protected for the range the Spurs already own it, to the Jazz. It's because they can't actually trade that pick, even if they protected it for the range the Spurs have, and still trade the Spurs their 2024 pick that the Stepien rule comes into play. As far as the 2025 pick is concerned, it might be possible that the Hornets could agree to trade their en bered and reverse-protected pick -- that basically if the Spurs didn't get the pick in 2023 or 2024, then the pick is protected for selections 1-14 for the Spurs and 16-30 for the Hornets and becomes 2026 and 2027 seconds for the team that doesn't get the pick. But I don't know if the league would let them do that. The Chicago first the Spurs own is actually a decent precedent for that, since both the 2023 and 2025 picks are protected two different teams. We know the 2025 en bered first is 100-percent tradeable. It's just in the typical understanding, the pick would be en bered in 2025 and would convey in either 2025 or 2026, and the 2027 pick would convey in 2027 or 2028. That's completely doable, but then the 2029 pick would be en bered and then expire if not conveyable. It would be the same effect as trading the 2027 and 2029 picks, but the swaps would be replaced by the guarantee of getting the picks earlier.
Really hating the lack of editing.
I just wanted to clarify that I use "en brance" to mean anything that would prevent a pick from conveying, be it protections or the Stepien rule. You can have en bered unprotected picks. While I don't know that you can have unen bered protected picks, you can have guaranteed protected picks. The Jazz, as far as I know, have a guaranteed pick from Brooklyn thanks to the O'Neal deal. They can trade all of their remaining 2023 and 2024 firsts and not violate the Stepien rule. But they don't know which pick they'll get because Houston and Brooklyn get the best and second-best picks. Since Utah has unprotected rights to their pick and Minny's pick for that year, they can actually offer the worst of all five picks AND the second-worst of all five picks to separate teams, meaning five teams could all have guaranteed 2023 first but still have no idea whose pick they're getting. Bonkers.
Which is why I said:
Precisely by shortening the time window for it to convey by offering a reduction in the protection range.in this case it seems the most Charlotte could do is offer:
1) 2027 & 2029 unprotected 1sts + 2026 & 2028 unprotected swaps
2) 3 unprotected firsts 2 years apart, starting from the date the Spurs get the pick. That could mean 2025 + 2027 + 2029 unprotected firsts (if we get the pick in 2023), or 2026 + 2028 unprotected first (if we get the pick in 2024) or 2027 + 2029 unprotected firsts (if we get the pick in 2025). I think it would be possible to trade the right swaps in the years in between, in that case that'd be a Dejounte like package.
But yes, the pick the Spurs own really mess up the offer they can make, so they'd be better off offering the Spurs some compensation to freely dispose of their remaining picks.
F____ Simmons, and Chip is no god or miracle worker.I’d effing take Simmons. I doubt he wants to be in a rebuilding team though. But that should expedite Spurs rebuilding. Now to convince Chip to stay longer
The Nets do not need to be in any kind of desperation mode. They need to get rid of Kyrie first and get what they can for him. Durant has a long term contract and must play if they do not get a deal to their liking . Now if they can get the second generation Kawhi in Simmons to actually play they would be decent. This is a test of the size of their nut sacks and the whole league.
You clearly have spent way more time reading up on it, but I think it can be stated in simpler terms:
When you trade a 1st round pick with a protection that would cause it to defer to a 1st the following year, you're not free to include in a second trade even the range you still hold the rights to, because doing so would interfere with the rights of the team to whom you first traded the pick (because of the Stepien rule that stipulates you can't miss a 1st on consecutive years).
So the Spurs own Charlotte's first next year (protected 1-16 in 2023, 1-14 in 2024 and 1-14 in 2025). If Charlotte traded the range they kept (1-16) to a third team and the 2023 pick went to that other team, that would prevent the Spurs from getting the 2024 pick because of the Stepien rule.
That's the point in a nuts . But thanks for the clarification.
A couple predictions:
1. Indiana gets Ayton in a sign and trade. Sends Miles Turner to Suns.
2. Durant either gets stuck with Nets or gets traded to Toronto in a package that does not include Scottie Barnes.
3. Miami works a trade to get Mitc that includes a ton of draft picks and Tyler Herro and Duncan Robinson.
4. Kyrie stays with Nets because there is no way to work a trade to the Lakers.
5. Spurs don't use any meaningful portion of their salary cap during the offseason, including to facilitate a trade, but will keep cap space open and see if something happens during the season.
All quite plausible.
Keeping at least some of the cap space into the season isn't a bad idea. A team with playoff hopes could lose an important player to injury and decide to become a seller, perhaps giving up assets to dump a bad contract.
I don't think it's a good idea to go into the season below the salary floor, though. At least not by an appreciable amount. Doing so and using the cap space in a later trade would amount to a pay cut for every player on the roster, probably pissing them off.
Minny is beyond dumb for not trading Towns for KD. KD is the way better player and they actually have a rim protector so it covers up his main weakness. I get that Towns is younger but man that’s a argument. Towns is an empty stats guy. KD could actually lead them to the WCF next year. Imagine the streamers going off for that. It would be epic
That Duncan Robinson contract is a nightmare. Deal breakingly bad.
Mitchel will stay in Utah.
It's also important to note that cap space can be used all the way through the next year's draft. So they could use it to complete trades in June rather than waiting until after the moratorium. It could matter if they're looking at a Johnson extension eating into their cap space. A team wouldn't be able to make a trade then to dodge the tax for this season (I think that cutoff is in April), but they could get a jump on the off-season or create an TE to use on another deal without having to worry about finding a team with 2023-2024 cap space.
Cap space does have a shelf life as guys get extensions and contracts increase year by year, but it's certainly not in a "use it or lose it" window this summer.
Pretty sure he will play C almost exclusively, and that's the position he should play in today's NBA.
If he can play the four, I don't see why he shouldn't. For all the talk about how GS is doing things, the Celtics showed you can get to the Finals by playing two centers. Holmgren should be able to play that role better than Horford. The actual reason I brought that up was to contrast that with the Thunder paying so much for Mitc instead. Mitc wouldn't be a better player for them in a vacuum, and him being way more expensive to acquire than Ayton makes it an obvious choice.
Chet’s gonna get busted on his ass if he plays 4 with guys crossing him up daily
then again
he’s gonna get busted on his ass at the 5 too when players like Lofton are straight up too physical for him
embiid, the joker, AD, and the freak are going to eat him up. zion too, if he can stay on the court for more than five minutes (same goes for AD).
I'd bet that Chets defensive shortcomings are being overstated. Yeah he's skinny as now but he's still extremely young. Giannis was a stick too when he was first drafted. He'll bulk up in time. Not like we have tons of physical bigs these days except for a few teams
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions