Wow, Isiah Thomas taking a role in Suns front office. Danger, danger, danger dear Sun fan.
Meanwhile spurs should be trying to get a FRP for Langford or Roby from them right about now.
Thank god Golden State whiffed on Wiseman tbh
Wow, Isiah Thomas taking a role in Suns front office. Danger, danger, danger dear Sun fan.
Meanwhile spurs should be trying to get a FRP for Langford or Roby from them right about now.
Sochan?
haha I’ll give you that tbh. Nice to be in a position as a market make to buy, sell
or hold. I suspect they are opportunistic sellers of atleast one of FVV, GTJ or OG.
haha that was sarcasm.
The whole NBA knows GS has 131M reasons to get rid of Wiseman. That's not a very good hand for the Dubs.
This isn't the quip you think it is. We know that the Warriors can save money by ditching salary. But for that salary to be Wiseman would have to show the Warriors value him less than random role-players, and the gap between them picking like seven guys over him and the Spurs taking on a huge financial burden for him is really thin. If he's meh enough for the Warriors to not care if they ditch him, then the Spurs likely wouldn't want to pay him when they have cheaper and more promising bigs. If he has enough potential to where the Spurs are confident he can become somebody, the Warriors would likely keep him and not get rid of their best prospect. The Spurs wouldn't just be committing to the rest of his rookie deal. They aren't going to be able to re-sign Wiseman for a cheap flier deal if they are the teams that just paid him huge bucks. That's one of the reasons why top-pick busts tend to make a ton of money. If he's awful, they can let him go, and if he's great they can back up the truck. But if he's just meh or shows just enough to stay interested, he'll cost the Spurs even more money down the line. It's like how Bagley managed to get a pay raise on his new deal with Detroit.
To put it into perspective, if you project a Bagley-type arc with Wiseman, we could be looking at something close to $55 Million spent over the next four years for a guy who's below-average. Folks are balking at paying Poeltl $80 Million over the same period even though Jakob is a proven center. It's not the cheap looksie it's being pitched as. The chances he either becomes a star or busts out completely to where he is allowed to walk are much less likely than the Spurs keeping him on a deal like above.
Phoenix has a boatload of FRPs to swindle IT out of.
i was not going for a quip. was a legitimate response to the question posed
not including iggy who has only played 3 games, wiseman is 13th on the team in average minutes per game. he is uniquely burdensome because he's getting paid 10 mil a year and isnt valued by them at all. the other "random role-players" they have actually contribute, so they wouldnt be nearly as motivated to just jettison another combination of actual role players who would combine for 10 mil off their books (and by extension, the monster tax bill).We know that the Warriors can save money by ditching salary. But for that salary to be Wiseman would have to show the Warriors value him less than random role-players
basically, the warriors could dump wiseman and be literally no worse on the floor. there arent really other random role players combining for that amount of money that they could say the same for
obviously the spurs wouldnt just want to pay him. thats why the warriors would be expected to part ways with some draft capital to make it meaningful to SA. worst case it would be another case of selling cap space (though this time extending into the 23-24 season). best case the spurs get something out of wiseman and then you could worry later about retaining him, but at that point would just be house money anyway
Was Isiah Thomas that bad with the Knicks? Honestly don't remember. Was it Phil Jackson who dealt out the bad Joakim Noah deals and stuff (but drafted Porzingis)? Part of the Knicks problem is the owner is terrible. But I remember Thomas drafting pretty well, way back to that year he picked Channing Frye, David Lee, and Nate Robinson.
I really don't think the Warriors can trade Wiseman without getting something decent back (which isn't happening). They can't acknowledge the L just yet and he's honestly still in 'development.' There's still a chance that he shows. They're in an awkward place where saving face and the inkling of advancement have them paralyzed.
well yeah i cant speak for that
to be clear, if there are assets going in a particular direction in a wiseman-spurs deal... the assets would be going SA's way, not the other way around
I think the Bagley hype is apt, but for a different reason. Sacramento ended up trading him to Detroit in his last year, gots some value back (including our buddy Tre Lyles who has been good for them), and avoided paying him his next contract. If he doesnt pan out Spurs can do the same this time next year, if he blows up thats good problem to have, and if hes somewhere in the middle Spurs can let the market set the price of his next contract and match if they so desire or pull his QO.
I'm not giving up Jakob for him or anything, but Richardson and a future 45th pick? Sure.
We aren't talking about the likely scenario where Wiseman is a bust and the Spurs take on his salary for compensation. We're talking about the scenario where Wiseman is worth multiple second-rounders to the Spurs. The Warriors aren't valuing him at all, so why should they get paid for him like he's valuable? Wiseman for Dedmon is about as highly as I'm willing to go, since GS could use Dedmon while also saving a ton this year with the option of completely saving next year. The Spurs would basically be getting Wiseman and a second in the three-way trade, which at least feels better, though I'd prefer for the Warriors to kick in some minor asset as well. Then they could trade Richardson for whatever and end up plus-three in assets rather than minus-one like in GCD's scenario.
Any team that's going to value Wiseman and has the means to give positive value is likely going to be right with the Spurs for bidding in your scenario. The Spurs aren't the Kings in your analogy; they're very much the Pistons. The most times he's traded, the worse his value gets. I'm not giving up positive value for him assuming some other team that wasn't even bidding is going to give up the same or more later.
Oh, I definitely wouldn't go in into this thinking that he has to be flipped to recover assets. The opposite. He's, big picture, an inexpensive flier in a rising cap environment, which, in my view, is the type of swing the small market Spurs should be taking. If it flop it flops, and even then Spurs are left with their next expiring contract to flip next year for a Davis Bertans + pick, or whatever, or let the market set his price and match or not.
all i know is the knicks were trash while isiah was there.
lol, but that's how the knicks were before and after.
Sunk cost fallacy. Dean on Draft goes into it in detail on his website. If a shirt’s dirty, it’s dirty. He’s worse in his 3rd season than he was as a rookie. If they follow your path, they’ll be into a 4/$120M extension before you know it, for like a 10/5 guy, best case. I really admired and respected Sacto for dumping Bagley before getting to that point.
The return GS would get is $150M in salary and tax savings this year, and next. That ain’t nuthin. You don’t learn from your successes, you learn from your failures. Maybe Lacob slowly pushes his son out of the draft process going forward, after Wiseman and Kuminga in consecutive drafts.
For pure basketball reasons, try to trade him for another damaged prospect. For financial reasons, trade him just because. But this is a pride thing and I dont see the Lakob nepotistic braintrust trading him just yet without a return of... something.
Digging in, he was bad at roster construction, no disputing. But he was pretty strong as a drafter. If Suns keep his remit pretty clear he could work well, esp for a franchise that's been pretty bad in July.
Turns out Isiah Thomas Was Sort of a Good GM, According to New Study:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...%20he%20picked.
The worst thing they could do is get a contract back, especially another damaged prospect. Kinda throws that $150M right out the window.
As I said a couple of times, Wiseman's only an expiring (next year, not this year. This year still matters) if he's a complete bust. Most likely he'll remain intriguing enough to where the Spurs will want to retain him, like basically every high-lotto bust does. He's far more likely to be a long-term overpayment for a disappointing prospect than he is to be a one- (or rather two-) and-done guy. The Bagley situation shows that teams will fall into the trap of overpaying meh prospects even if they didn't draft them. The Spurs would be like, "Meh, we have a ton of cap so we may as well use some of it to see if Wiseman can develop by year six or seven". If the Spurs thinks there's a real chance that Wiseman is so bad that they won't want to retain him, he's not worth a flier. He's a suitcase full of burning money. The Spurs in that scenario should be compensated for disposing of it safely, not hoping they can put the fire out in time to make their money back.
This has some merit. Raptors might not even exist if it wasn’t for his drafting in those early years.
How good of a drafter could he have been when I don't think the Knicks ever signed one of his picks to a 2nd contract?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)