Spurs trade ideas

[Joseph Kony]

If Beal waives his NTC, is that the end of it? Or would it still be applied to the next team as well for remainder of his deal?

Didn't he have to waive it to be traded from WAS in the first place? if he still has it, i would imagine it's there regardless of what team agrees to be traded to

[scott]

I didnt say Barnes was not a rotation player? I said Collins/Branham/Blake weren’t

Gotcha. I'd argue Barnes is significantly more useful to the team than the delta of Beal over the next best alternative.

[scott]

If Beal waives his NTC, is that the end of it? Or would it still be applied to the next team as well for remainder of his deal?

The waiving is temporary for that deal, then it goes back into effect

[baseline bum]

Wouldn’t Beal waiving his NTC to get to SA negate that NTC? And when it comes to money, the year that’s different than Collins/Branham/Barnes etc…he would be a fully expiring 57M deal at least. Could you attach a pick or something to get a team to take him on as an expiring then (might not be able to offset all his salary but maybe half?)

I meant being unable to trade him because he's dog being paid like a superstar.

[DPG21920]

Gotcha. I'd argue Barnes is significantly more useful to the team than the delta of Beal over the next best alternative.

And that’s fair….I think Lavine is a massive upgrade in talent over Barnes but yeah, it may not be enough either way.

[DPG21920]

And to reiterate lol: This is not something Im dying for it to happen. Just looking at reality of guys who may be available, that may end being low cost (meaning outgoing talent and picks) that could conceivably (for the risk of taking on a huge third year) help upgrade talent and open up the roster spots for all the incoming draft picks etc…

But ya, its not clean and theres risks abound

[DPG21920]

Although if you swap Keldon in these deals for Barnes, you now negate some of that third year money from Beal or Lavine since Keldon was making 17.5M in that third year anyways that you now shed.

[Bruno]

For the no-trade clause,

A player don't need to waive it to be traded. A no-trade clause is a right to veto a trade. When Beal was traded to Suns, he simply gave his agreement to be traded there.

If Suns want to trade him somewhere, Beal will need to agree at that.

Beal and Suns can also amend his contract to remove the no-trade clause. In that case, Beal won't be able to veto a trade for the rest of his contract.

[RC_Drunkford]

Damn people are so desperate that they talk about trading for Beal and Nurkic?

[DPG21920]

For the no-trade clause,

A player don't need to waive it to be traded. A no-trade clause is a right to veto a trade. When Beal was traded to Suns, he simply gave his agreement to be traded there.

If Suns want to trade him somewhere, Beal will need to agree at that.

Beal and Suns can also amend his contract to remove the no-trade clause. In that case, Beal won't be able to veto a trade for the rest of his contract.

Gotcha - Im guessing no way Beal gives that up so he would likely just not veto a deal that hes fine with. Would be great if he agreed to remove the NTC for a trade though but doesn’t seem likely

[DPG21920]

For the no-trade clause,

A player don't need to waive it to be traded. A no-trade clause is a right to veto a trade. When Beal was traded to Suns, he simply gave his agreement to be traded there.

If Suns want to trade him somewhere, Beal will need to agree at that.

Beal and Suns can also amend his contract to remove the no-trade clause. In that case, Beal won't be able to veto a trade for the rest of his contract.

Im seeing conflicting data on Hoopshype vs other salary sites:

Are Branham and Blake deals this next season team options or are they guaranteed and then the following year its qualifying offers?

[mo7888]

If Beal waives his NTC, is that the end of it? Or would it still be applied to the next team as well for remainder of his deal?

It's applied to the next team, just like it was when WAS traded him.

[mo7888]

Im seeing conflicting data on Hoopshype vs other salary sites:

Are Branham and Blake deals this next season team options or are they guaranteed and then the following year its qualifying offers?

I'm pretty sure we guaranteed them for some reason.

[DPG21920]

I'm pretty sure we guaranteed them for some reason.

I thought so too (which is what Hoopshype has reflected) but a few other sites are still showing team option

[DPG21920]

Thats 9M in salary for Branham + Blake that SA guaranteed for them not to play. Collins with 19M.

[Bruno]

Im seeing conflicting data on Hoopshype vs other salary sites:

Are Branham and Blake deals this next season team options or are they guaranteed and then the following year its qualifying offers?

They're guaranteed.

3rd and 4th seasons of first round pick contracts are team options but the deadline to pick them is the end of October of the previous season.

In October 2024, Spurs picked up options for the 4th season of Branham, Wesley and Sochan. They also picked up the third year of Wembanayama.

[DPG21920]

They're guaranteed.

3rd and 4th seasons of first round pick contracts are team options but the deadline to pick them is the end of October of the previous season.

In October 2024, Spurs picked up options for the 4th season of Branham, Wesley and Sochan. They also picked up the third year of Wembanayama.

Ugh. I thought I remembered that (just found the press release as well: https://www.nba.com/spurs/news/spurs...tor-wembanyama)

[scott]

And to reiterate lol: This is not something Im dying for it to happen. Just looking at reality of guys who may be available, that may end being low cost (meaning outgoing talent and picks) that could conceivably (for the risk of taking on a huge third year) help upgrade talent and open up the roster spots for all the incoming draft picks etc…

But ya, its not clean and theres risks abound

If PHX was willing to heavily compensate us with picks, then it gets more interesting... but PHX doesn't really have the picks to make such compensation, and it would push our timeline even further back. This would have been a good move in the Pre-Wemby era, but I just can't see how it would make sense now.

[scott]

Gotcha - Im guessing no way Beal gives that up so he would likely just not veto a deal that hes fine with. Would be great if he agreed to remove the NTC for a trade though but doesn’t seem likely

The thing here is there is nothing left to offer Beal to agree to remove his NTC. He's already at the max, so no team can give him anymore money to remove the NTC (or even to agree to a trade at any point in time). Kind of just a unique situation with a Max and a NTC. Beal has literally nothing to gain from letting go of his NTC.

[scott]

I thought so too (which is what Hoopshype has reflected) but a few other sites are still showing team option

Spotrac is the best site to use for contracts. You'll see there that it was a Club Option, but the checkmark indicates the club picked it up: https://www.spotrac.com/nba/player/_...malaki-branham

Compare that to Jalen Hood-Schifino's page, where they show the options that were not picked up: https://www.spotrac.com/nba/player/_...-hood-schifino

[DPG21920]

If PHX was willing to heavily compensate us with picks, then it gets more interesting... but PHX doesn't really have the picks to make such compensation, and it would push our timeline even further back. This would have been a good move in the Pre-Wemby era, but I just can't see how it would make sense now.

I think it makes sense if you think you can move Beals extra year (since he will be an expiring) to some degree. Because for this season and next I dont see a big deal paying all the money to Beal (or Lavine) vs having it spread out with Collins/Branham/Blake/Barnes etc…But Im not sure SA could move that third year.

I really am intrigued to see if SA can snag Ingram for something like Keldon + Tre + Blake + 3-4 2nds. Clear rest of Keldon and Blakes money and get a look at Ingram with a lineup like: CP/Vassell/Ingram/Sochan/Wemby

Not sure NO would prefer that vs just letting Ingram walk, but they may like Keldon enough and idea of getting a lot of 2nds vs just losing Ingram

[DPG21920]

The thing here is there is nothing left to offer Beal to agree to remove his NTC. He's already at the max, so no team can give him anymore money to remove the NTC (or even to agree to a trade at any point in time). Kind of just a unique situation with a Max and a NTC. Beal has literally nothing to gain from letting go of his NTC.

Maybe a scenario where he really wants out and a new team will take him if he agrees to waive the NTC clause entirely?

[baseline bum]

I think it makes sense if you think you can move Beals extra year (since he will be an expiring) to some degree. Because for this season and next I dont see a big deal paying all the money to Beal (or Lavine) vs having it spread out with Collins/Branham/Blake/Barnes etc…But Im not sure SA could move that third year.

I really am intrigued to see if SA can snag Ingram for something like Keldon + Tre + Blake + 3-4 2nds. Clear rest of Keldon and Blakes money and get a look at Ingram with a lineup like: CP/Vassell/Ingram/Sochan/Wemby

Not sure NO would prefer that vs just letting Ingram walk, but they may like Keldon enough and idea of getting a lot of 2nds vs just losing Ingram

Only makes sense if you think Beal has two good years to give you. Which he doesn't, he's pretty meh at best with Durant and Booker taking a ton of the defensive heat off of him. If Phoenix wants out of their salary plus lack of future nightmare they have to be offering Durant or Booker.

[scott]

I think it makes sense if you think you can move Beals extra year (since he will be an expiring) to some degree. Because for this season and next I dont see a big deal paying all the money to Beal (or Lavine) vs having it spread out with Collins/Branham/Blake/Barnes etc…But Im not sure SA could move that third year.

I really am intrigued to see if SA can snag Ingram for something like Keldon + Tre + Blake + 3-4 2nds. Clear rest of Keldon and Blakes money and get a look at Ingram with a lineup like: CP/Vassell/Ingram/Sochan/Wemby

Not sure NO would prefer that vs just letting Ingram walk, but they may like Keldon enough and idea of getting a lot of 2nds vs just losing Ingram

I think the NTC makes Beal radioactive. WAS got lucky to find PHX to take him off their hands, and Vecenie is reporting that he's basically immovable at this point (he's said he's willing to go to MIA, but MIA doesn't want him).

I think Lavine would be fine, an upgrade over Devin and the money wouldn't be bad like you said... but it would seem like kind of a let down, IDK. I'm not totally against it, because it lines up with Wemby's deal, but I think we can do better.

I like the Ingram idea. Even if Ingram is just a rental, if it allowed us to get off Keldon two years early it would be a win. I think the Spurs could even possibly flip Ingram in a S&T this offseason if he plays well but isn't in the Spurs plans beyond that.

[DPG21920]

I think the NTC makes Beal radioactive. WAS got lucky to find PHX to take him off their hands, and Vecenie is reporting that he's basically immovable at this point (he's said he's willing to go to MIA, but MIA doesn't want him).

I think Lavine would be fine, an upgrade over Devin and the money wouldn't be bad like you said... but it would seem like kind of a let down, IDK. I'm not totally against it, because it lines up with Wemby's deal, but I think we can do better.

I like the Ingram idea. Even if Ingram is just a rental, if it allowed us to get off Keldon two years early it would be a win. I think the Spurs could even possibly flip Ingram in a S&T this offseason if he plays well but isn't in the Spurs plans beyond that.

Ya - these are more trades of last resort where SA can try to get lucky on talent without giving up much in terms of players or picks. I would only do Beal if he waives his NTC completely otherwise it’s a nonstarter.

Would Beal do that for a role as a starter with high usage vs being on bench in PHX? Not sure. But he cant be happy in PHX right now and will get paid either way so you’d think he would want to play and a bigger role

Ingram is the perfect player IMO for the “shed salary but improve talent” strategy. Just not sure what NO would want vs just letting him walk. But if IM NO and I dont have salary cap space really even in Ingram walks, getting Keldon + picks has to be at least a conversation