Call Your Ideal Off-Season

[TD 21]

That shouldn't take any credit away from OKC, they may not have known just how good SGA (and JDubb) would become, but neither did Denver with Jokic, Milwaukee with Giannis, or even the Spurs with Manu. But they hit on the best players on the board, and from that point on you just develop and hope for the best.

The obvious comparisons for the Spurs current situation are Dallas post Doncid, and Cleveland post LeBron. Both tried to speed it up too much, both got burnt. Clearly the Spurs have to do SOMETHING, but they better think twice before they pull the trigger on any blockbuster, because a couple bad moves may be all it takes and it's all downhill from there.

They get no credit for Gilgeous-Alexander. That was a no brainer trade that they were basically forced into (not technically, but by the politics of that NBA).

I've never advocated for "blowing their load" at all costs. All I've essentially said is the typical Spurs off season isn't going to cut it either. They need to (minimally) find a middle ground.

[SpursBills]

This embarrassing showing by the Pelicans this year has me wondering if they're going to consider a major move this offseason. In theory a Pelicans-Hawks trade with the Pels giving up Ingram for Dejounte Murray/OO potentially works.

Pelicans roll out
Dejounte-TMIII-Herb-Zion-OO for lots of length and switchability around Zion

Hawks get a second star forward to pair with Trae and Jalen Johnson

Add a few picks each way to grease the wheels, makes a lot of sense for both teams

If they end up doing that, our Hawks picks get a lot worse but I wonder if it'd be worth it to try and get CJ McCollum for cheap (maybe Hornets pick or something) - he'd provide shooting and some playmaking at the PG spot. I don't expect him to be in our long term plans, but he may be a cheap addition as a bridge PG for the future.

[TD 21]

McCollum is overrated, but he'd be a good fit as a stop gap . . .

Hawks receive: Ingram, Graham, moderate draft capital from Pelicans
Pelicans receive: Murray, Okongwu, minor draft capital from Spurs
Spurs receive: McCollum

[scott]

The only problem I see with that above plan for NOP is that is all hinges upon the thought that they will continue to want to build around Zion. This is the third straight season NOP has been in the play-offs or play-in and Zion has yet to appear in a single one of those games. At some point you’d have to start thinking that this ain’t the guy. Of course, every other team knows this as well - so who is going to take him off their hands? No matter what NOP does, they might be stuck in this play-in purgatory unless they truly blow it up - which might mean moving of Zion while getting relatively little in return.

[mo7888]

As long as we're talking about other teams making moves and trying to get in on the fringe to gease wheels, I'm kinda hoping NY tries to add a major piece and that we can facilitate and get McBride out of the deal.

[SpursBills]

The only problem I see with that above plan for NOP is that is all hinges upon the thought that they will continue to want to build around Zion. This is the third straight season NOP has been in the play-offs or play-in and Zion has yet to appear in a single one of those games. At some point you’d have to start thinking that this ain’t the guy. Of course, every other team knows this as well - so who is going to take him off their hands? No matter what NOP does, they might be stuck in this play-in purgatory unless they truly blow it up - which might mean moving of Zion while getting relatively little in return.

I see your point, but as it pertains to this offseason in particular I think it's most likely that NOP wants to continue to build around Zion. This year in particular in the regular season Zion showed a renewed commitment on the defensive end and showed improved playmaking chops. He also played 70 games this year which is a career high.

Now, I personally agree with you that Zion's probably never going to stay healthy enough to be a major contributor in the postseason, but if you're the Pelicans what choice do they have? They can't straddle this no-man's land where they both keep Zion and don't fully commit to building around him. They have too much talent to fully tank. As you said, if they trade Zion they're probably not getting great value and a healthy Zion is enough of a talent where they don't want to see him go on to have an Embiid-like career later on with another team. Give it a couple more years of Zion being fat and injured and I think they may think differently, but after this particular season I don't think they have the stomach to hedge on Zion yet.

From their standpoint, Ingram's a good player but he's going to be overpaid soon and they have an abundance of talented wings that need more playing time. A trade like this shores up a lot of their weaknesses and gives them an iden y. Us helping them by taking CJ off their hands potentially allows them to stomach paying their wings more in the future. The drawback of this is trade is it definitely decreases the value of our Hawks picks, but if both the Hawks and Pels decide to move forward with this we may as well try and get something out of it.

[CGD]

The only problem I see with that above plan for NOP is that is all hinges upon the thought that they will continue to want to build around Zion. This is the third straight season NOP has been in the play-offs or play-in and Zion has yet to appear in a single one of those games. At some point you’d have to start thinking that this ain’t the guy. Of course, every other team knows this as well - so who is going to take him off their hands? No matter what NOP does, they might be stuck in this play-in purgatory unless they truly blow it up - which might mean moving of Zion while getting relatively little in return.

Agree on Zion, but I think they desperately want to keep him for non-basketball reasons.

Honestly, their best line up is Jones-Murphy-Ingram at the 2-3-4. And then a mobile C and PG. Move CJ to the bench.

But they’ll end up moving Ingram.

[Ariel]

Problem with McCollum is that his contract runs 2 more years at 33.3M and 30.7M, so he likely takes you out of '25 free agency (unless you have Zach Collins and Keldon going out in the same deal, for instance). For me that takes away the appeal for any deal that has the Spurs taking salary beyond next season, unless you're getting back a building block, which McCollum isn't. The '25 FA class includes names such as Donovan Mitc , Markkanen, Derrick White, Alex Caruso, etc, and the Spurs could be big time players, I know people are often dismissive of free agency because of negative historic precedents, but these Wemby led Spurs could be the exception.

Beyond next season, the Spurs have a few guaranteed contracts: Wemby, Vassell, Keldon, Zach Collins. You'd probably want to add Sochan plus this year's picks. Other than that, every contract is expiring this season (Mamu, Osman, Barlow) or next (Tre, Graham), non guaranteed (Cissoko, Champagnie, Bassey) or team option (Branham and Wesley, team has to decide on 4th year -25/26- options by October).

Assuming Wemby, Vassell and Sochan plus 1-3 '24 draft picks are keepers (lets say, 5th and 7th picks, assuming 20% over rookie scale 2nd year salary would be roughly 8.7M and 7.2M respectively), then if the Spurs move Collins and Keldon for expirings by the trade deadline they could be looking at about 63.4M in guaranteed salary beyond '25 (Wemby + Vassell + Sochan + 5th pick in '24 + 7th pick in '24 = 13,4 + 27 + 7,1 + 8,7 +7,2 = 63.4) which with a salary cap at about 155M would give you 92M in cap space, not quite 2 max slots but close, which would be more than enough for 1 max player plus a couple elite role players (say, Markkanen/Donovan Mitc , Caruso and Naz Reid).

For that, the Spurs would have to move from Keldon (probably neutral value at this point or slightly positive for the right team) and Zach Collins (clearly negative) by the trade deadline at the latest. Assuming you take back 1 year of dead salary then the receiving team would have to pay for 1 extra year for Zach Collins ('25, at about 18M, it'd probably take 2/3 SRPs), and some team would probably take a gamble on Keldon if needed but you could also keep him lowering just 17.5M the available cap figure.

A rough framework could look something like this:
Spurs send: Zach Collins + Devontae Graham + 4 SRPs and receive Malcom Brogdon
Portland sends Malcom Brogdon and receives 2 SRPs + equivalent expirings
Third team sends 20M expiring and receives Zach Collins + Graham + 2 SRPs

Obviously Zach Collins can't go back to Portland directly, which why the proposed deal accounts for that. Third team could be the Wizards sending Richaun Holmes, Johnny Davis and/or Patrick Baldwin Jr or something like that.

In short, every move should consider not only immediate basketball aspects, but long term financial implications, and I'd hesitate to add salary beyond '25 in anticipation of free agency. We'd likely get a preview of how the Spurs feel about his in the way they approach this offseason (picks and long term signings, whether they pick up the options for Branham and Wesley, etc).

[TD 21]

I don't see how this would hurt the value of the Hawks picks. This would at best probably allow them to maintain.

The only problem I see with that above plan for NOP is that is all hinges upon the thought that they will continue to want to build around Zion.

It's not so much a want as it is there's no practical reason not to or better alternative. He's more valuable to them (once projected MVP caliber ship has sailed, but All-NBA caliber hasn't) than anything they could receive, still young and finally seems to have his priorities in order.

As long as we're talking about other teams making moves and trying to get in on the fringe to gease wheels, I'm kinda hoping NY tries to add a major piece and that we can facilitate and get McBride out of the deal.

Dirt cheap and more of a 3 and D type than creator, so no incentive for the Knicks to move him or the Spurs to give up anything of value for him.

Problem with McCollum is that his contract runs 2 more years at 33.3M and 30.7M, so he likely takes you out of '25 free agency (unless you have Zach Collins and Keldon going out in the same deal, for instance). For me that takes away the appeal for any deal that has the Spurs taking salary beyond next season, unless you're getting back a building block, which McCollum isn't. The '25 FA class includes names such as Donovan Mitc , Markkanen, Derrick White, Alex Caruso, etc, and the Spurs could be big time players, I know people are often dismissive of free agency because of negative historic precedents, but these Wemby led Spurs could be the exception.

Free agency has changed. It's highly unlikely any of the players you mentioned even make it to it and only Mitc would be of the caliber where you don't make a trade like this to wait on an off chance.

I'm not a McCollum fan, but he's about the best fit all around for this situation and two years is perfect because they probably won't even have a potential heir apparent in place for at least another season.

[scott]

Markkanen will likely make it to FA, just because of the nature of his current deal - he can’t extend for what he is worth, so he is best off waiting for FA. If he was extendable, he’d be my #1 trade target.

[LeBowen]

Markkanen will likely make it to FA, just because of the nature of his current deal - he can’t extend for what he is worth, so he is best off waiting for FA. If he was extendable, he’d be my #1 trade target.

There's no way he makes it past the deadline without an extension or a trade, Ainge isn't that stupid.

They'll either offer him the max or trade him, depending on their future plans. I'm sure Ainge would like to blow it up and start over, but Jazz never tanks. The only franchise in the league that never lost 60 games.

[TD 21]

No, he won't. He'll either extend (fellow fringe All-Stars such as Randle, Sabonis, Murray, Holiday have done so recently) or if the Jazz aren't all but certain he'll re-sign in free agency, he'll be traded to a team that's confident he will, like Anunoby, Siakam, etc.

Only the Craptors (Van Vleet) have been dumb enough to lose a significant player in free agency in recent years.

The value of cap space now is to either take dead money (which there's less of) for draft capital or if you're past that stage, like the Spurs now are, to make a lopsided trade like this where a team is forced to dump a starter for little.

[Ariel]

Free agency has changed. It's highly unlikely any of the players you mentioned even make it to it and only Mitc would be of the caliber where you don't make a trade like this to wait on an off chance.

I'm not a McCollum fan, but he's about the best fit all around for this situation and two years is perfect because they probably won't even have a potential heir apparent in place for at least another season.

There's reasons to believe each and every player I mentioned could get to free agency:
Donovan Mitc 's future in Cleveland looks murky as he might not want to remain there long term and signing an extension gives him much less control over where he lands.
Markkanen's max extension is less than what he could get in free agency (roughly 4 years 200M vs 5 years 250M),
Boston's tax bill will be huge if they give Derrick White a big contract
Caruso is underpaid so his max extension is below his market value.

Surely some won't make it to free agency but others might and the Spurs wouldn't be smart to put themselves out of the race before it even starts. And in any case, the Spurs aren't in any rush to make a decision, they could wait and see how this offseason goes (who signs and extension and who doesn't, whether there's turmoil concerning any of those players future, etc). They have until october to make a decision on 4th year rookie contracts, and until the February trade deadline to shed salary, so by then they should have a much clearer picture of what is possible and what isn't, and make decisions accordingly. Say they all sign extensions, then you can add salary for '25/'26 without much worry. Otherwise, the scenario I laid out makes a lot more sense than going for a marginal improvement over other much cheaper and more flexible options (like Brogdon).

[TD 21]

There's reasons to believe each and every player I mentioned could get to free agency:
Donovan Mitc 's future in Cleveland looks murky as he might not want to remain there long term and signing an extension gives him much less control over where he lands.
Markkanen's max extension is less than what he could get in free agency (roughly 4 years 200M vs 5 years 250M),
Boston's tax bill will be huge if they give Derrick White a big contract
Caruso is underpaid so his max extension is below his market value.

Surely some won't make it to free agency but others might and the Spurs wouldn't be smart to put themselves out of the race before it even starts. And in any case, the Spurs aren't in any rush to make a decision, they could wait and see how this offseason goes (who signs and extension and who doesn't, whether there's turmoil concerning any of those players future, etc). They have until october to make a decision on 4th year rookie contracts, and until the February trade deadline to shed salary, so by then they should have a much clearer picture of what is possible and what isn't, and make decisions accordingly. Say they all sign extensions, then you can add salary for '25/'26 without much worry. Otherwise, the scenario I laid out makes a lot more sense than going for a marginal improvement over other much cheaper and more flexible options (like Brogdon).

Mitc is an All-NBA player and what the cool kids nowadays do if they can't get where they want to immediately, is take the money, give the in bent team an opportunity to reorient the team so that it fits better and in a few years when it fails to yield the results he seeks, force a trade to a preferred destination then.

Again, recent history suggests fringe All-Stars like Markkanen take the extension and either way, it gets sorted out before he goes to market.

They'll figure it out later. Anyone but Tatum might come available if they fail to get at least one championship out of this core.

Caruso might get to free agency, but he's also 30 and unlikely to last long guarding up a position(s) and playing the style he does, so he'll likely be eager to lock in money ASAP too. Either way, as good as he is, he's not worth not doing something a year in advance for.

This is the kind of overly cautions approach the Spurs need to avoid.

[mo7888]

I don't see how this would hurt the value of the Hawks picks. This would at best probably allow them to maintain.



It's not so much a want as it is there's no practical reason not to or better alternative. He's more valuable to them (once projected MVP caliber ship has sailed, but All-NBA caliber hasn't) than anything they could receive, still young and finally seems to have his priorities in order.



Dirt cheap and more of a 3 and D type than creator, so no incentive for the Knicks to move him or the Spurs to give up anything of value for him.



Free agency has changed. It's highly unlikely any of the players you mentioned even make it to it and only Mitc would be of the caliber where you don't make a trade like this to wait on an off chance.

I'm not a McCollum fan, but he's about the best fit all around for this situation and two years is perfect because they probably won't even have a potential heir apparent in place for at least another season.

Sure, but I'm not talking about a straight up deal for him. I'm talking about a 3 team deal where we have to provide something for a deal to get done and it gives us leverage.

As for Mcbride himself, a 3D PG would fit nicely if we bring in a SF that can facilitate. I'm not saying he's a long term answer, but he'd be a nice situational piece, at worst.

[Ariel]

Mitc is an All-NBA player and what the cool kids nowadays do if they can't get where they want to immediately, is take the money, give the in bent team an opportunity to reorient the team so that it fits better and in a few years when it fails to yield the results he seeks, force a trade to a preferred destination then.

And that's how the "cool kids" end up freezing in Milwaukee rather than sipping margaritas in Miami, maybe Donovan learned a lesson (already got burned when he was sent to Cleveland rather than NY).

Again, recent history suggests fringe All-Stars like Markkanen take the extension and either way, it gets sorted out before he goes to market.

Randle, Sabonis, Murray, Holiday wanted to remain in their teams long term at the time of their extensions, Lauri might not

Caruso might get to free agency, but he's also 30 and unlikely to last long guarding up a position(s) and playing the style he does, so he'll likely be eager to lock in money ASAP too. Either way, as good as he is, he's not worth not doing something a year in advance for.

I'm not advocating the Spurs hold off on all their plans for him, I'm saying he's one in a list that the Spurs could find interesting.

This is the kind of overly cautions approach the Spurs need to avoid.

Overly cautious out of fear of losing CJ McCallum?? As in you can't wait until the offseason progresses to find out whether they signed extensions or not and THEN pick a path? As in there's no players in his tier or close that could be available later on? What you call "overly cautious" I call "not jumping the gun". We're not agreeing on this one.

[TD 21]

And that's how the "cool kids" end up freezing in Milwaukee rather than sipping margaritas in Miami, maybe Donovan learned a lesson (already got burned when he was sent to Cleveland rather than NY).

Randle, Sabonis, Murray, Holiday wanted to remain in their teams long term at the time of their extensions, Lauri might not

I'm not advocating the Spurs hold off on all their plans for him, I'm saying he's one in a list that the Spurs could find interesting.

Overly cautious out of fear of losing CJ McCallum?? As in you can't wait until the offseason progresses to find out whether they signed extensions or not and THEN pick a path? As in there's no players in his tier or close that could be available later on? What you call "overly cautious" I call "not jumping the gun". We're not agreeing on this one.

I'm not saying Mitc will re-sign, I'm saying one way or another it'll be sorted out this off season.

Markkanen supposedly does too, which is not surprising. It's the first time he's got to be "the man", a role he wouldn't play on many other teams.

No, as in not making a no brainer trade because of delusions of grandeur. Brogdon is at best equivalent, but more injury prone and there's no other alternative that checks this many boxes without having to expend any of the "good" draft capital.

[scott]

Lauri won’t sign an extension because he only makes $18MM next year, which means an extension would start at $25.2MM/year (140% of the final year of his previous deal). There is always room for players to sign dumb deals, but I can’t see any cir stance in which Lauri Markkenen signs a deal that starts at only $25.2MM/year.

Yes, a team could always acquire him with a handshake deal that he’ll resign, but there is risk inherent in that as well. A team would need to understand that acquiring Lauri may end up being only be a one-year rental. Ainge might get better value by assisting Lauri in a S&T.

[scott]

Markkenen’s situation (extension would start at $25.2MM) is nothing like Sabonis (extension starts at $39MM). Randle’s deal is more comparable, but happened a few years ago when the cap was in a different space.

Murray’s is the most comparable, and if you recall there was thought that the Spurs would not be able to extend DJM because of the exact same situation Lauri’s contract creates. A lot of people were surprised when Dejounte signed that extension with Atlanta for that reason (starting at $25MM).

Is it possible that Lauri takes an extension starting at $25MM? Sure… but again I think it’s highly highly unlikely (for starters, because it starts a year later’s than DJM, it would actually be a lower relative starting point that Dejounte’s extension). Thus, regardless of whether Lauri gets traded or not… it is still likely he hits FA (whether his existing team will have a firm leg up in resigning him, is another question)

[Ariel]

Markkenen’s situation (extension would start at $25.2MM) is nothing like Sabonis (extension starts at $39MM). Randle’s deal is more comparable, but happened a few years ago when the cap was in a different space.

Murray’s is the most comparable, and if you recall there was thought that the Spurs would not be able to extend DJM because of the exact same situation Lauri’s contract creates. A lot of people were surprised when Dejounte signed that extension with Atlanta for that reason (starting at $25MM).

Is it possible that Lauri takes an extension starting at $25MM? Sure… but again I think it’s highly highly unlikely (for starters, because it starts a year later’s than DJM, it would actually be a lower relative starting point that Dejounte’s extension). Thus, regardless of whether Lauri gets traded or not… it is still likely he hits FA (whether his existing team will have a firm leg up in resigning him, is another question)

That's usually true, but Utah will have cap space so they can renegotiate Markkanen's salary and then offer an extension of 140% over the renegotiated value, so they can offer significantly more than that. I think it will come down to whether he feels confortable in Utah or going to a third team of their choice, or he is willing to wait the year to get some more money but fundamentally total control over his career. In any case, any renegotiation and extension is surely to happen as soon as allowed, so we'll find out early into the offseason which way he'll go.

[scott]

That's usually true, but Utah will have cap space so they can renegotiate Markkanen's salary and then offer an extension of 140% over the renegotiated value, so they can offer significantly more than that. I think it will come down to whether he feels confortable in Utah or going to a third team of their choice, or he is willing to wait the year to get some more money but fundamentally total control over his career. In any case, any renegotiation and extension is surely to happen as soon as allowed, so we'll find out early into the offseason which way he'll go.

Thanks for that info - I was unaware of the renegotiate and extend capability.

I presume that if that gets done early in the offseason, then he could be tradable around Dec 15? If that is the case and he extends, I’d be on the horn immediately to see if there is a possible deal. However, based on the value Ainge likes to (and is successful at) extracting in trades, I’d almost prefer to try to acquire him on an expiring or just wait until he hits FA.

[Ariel]

Thanks for that info - I was unaware of the renegotiate and extend capability.

Yup, basically in contracts of at least 4 years and starting in the 3rd year, the team can renegotiate to increase the salary of the player by a number up to the available cap space. Not used a lot but it happens, most recent examples are Myles Turner and Sabonis. In the first case it was used to move forward some of the extension money and not let the available cap space go to waste (they had to spend it on something), while in the latter it was used to raise the number of the last year of the contract so that they could offer a richer extension and avoid free agency, which otherwise would not have been possible. This is exactly Markkanen's case.
https://cbabreakdown.com/contract-types/
https://kings-beat.beehiiv.com/p/kin...mantas-sabonis
https://theathletic.com/4134410/2023...im-and-pacers/

I presume that if that gets done early in the offseason, then he could be tradable around Dec 15? If that is the case and he extends, I’d be on the horn immediately to see if there is a possible deal. However, based on the value Ainge likes to (and is successful at) extracting in trades, I’d almost prefer to try to acquire him on an expiring or just wait until he hits FA.

Yeah, I agree, which is why I didn't bring up that possibility. Ainge is savage when he has leverage, so I'd even feel more confident in trading for Donovan Mitc if Markkanen agrees to an extension. I'd say it's likely he signs, but there may be a 30% chance he doesn't and that is enough to be vigilant.

[TD 21]

Yes, a team could always acquire him with a handshake deal that he’ll resign, but there is risk inherent in that as well. A team would need to understand that acquiring Lauri may end up being only be a one-year rental. Ainge might get better value by assisting Lauri in a S&T.

This is not how business is conducted within' the league. Teams don't just go into advanced trade discussions for superstar or star players blind. There's rampant tampering, so if it gets to that stage, it'll do so because the inquiring team knows the player is all but certain to re-sign.