NBA 2018-2019

[OttoinGrotto]

OKC has a 10 million dollar trade exception from the Carmelo trade and Miami has a 6.27 million dollar trade exception from Wayne Ellington

View attachment 167575

I don't think the trade exception helps Miami when it comes to the hard cap.

As it is right now, when they sign Herro they're only a million under the hard cap. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.mi...mns-blogs/barry-jackson/article231882803.html

 

[Day2]

Ballmer has to hope he will not get nailed for the more than likely illegal payments he is funnelling to Uncle Dennis. What will he do when Uncle Dennis has a whole new set of demands in 2 years?

If things go wrong, the implications could be for a long time.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Knicks411]

Isn't Miami dangerously close to being hardcapped? I think they need to send out a lot more salary than that.

This is from a few days ago, but obviously still stands

 

[MSOrange]

Grizzlies' Allen ejected after 2 flagrants, tech

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Houston was apparently his 1st choice and they wanted to play together again. They likely play 24 mins together a game and 12 mins each solo. Its not a horrible trade by any means given the protections. Certainly makes them more interesting. Picks are a huge deal until you actually get to the draft and have to turn them into players. Value of non-lotto picks is basically nothing on draft night. They all get swapped for about 50% of the value they'd go for in a trade a few months earlier at the deadline.

Finally someone is echoing what I've been thinking. Same deal as the Clippers trade to OKC. Those picks aren't going to be good, other than perhaps the Miami owned picks. Now OKC has too many picks. You cannot possibly keep them all. They should deal a few of them for a younger asset with a reasonable contract. Problem with NBA picks, is, unlike the NFL, its much harder to package multiple picks to move way up in the draft, cause the talent level so often drops off the table quickly.

As far as Houston goes, I think a potential big deal is the trade allows the Rockets to load balance Harden alot more aggressively. He can sit for 15 game now and reduce his minutes in the games he plays. Paul wasn't the type of player that could carry the load alone for extended periods. Westbrook can. They in fact should load balance both these guys and we'll see come playoff time how much difference it makes.

I do know this, they weren't going anywhere with CP3 on Houston. They gave up two first rounders, two pick swaps, and they have an extra year of a bad contract (4 years vs 3), however this does extend their window by a couple years. Still probably won't work, but its the best they could really do.

And remember, the fourth year of the deal, you can dump him as an expiring if it goes to hell.

 

[Newhouser]

The more I analyze this trade the more I can’t believe Houston was that dumb.
This is just an atrocious fit.

Harden had to say get rid of Paul or I'm out - no other explanation for the deal that makes any sense.

 

[Newhouser]

True, but that was a while ago.

For next year, and next year only... I think a lineup of Westbrook, Harden, Gordon, Tucker and whoever at the 5 could work.

It’s worth a shot instead of begrudgingly making it rain on an aging CP3 and early round exits.

I agree that they weren't going anywhere with CP3 so that swap I am okay with but the rest of the haul seems steep. We shall see

 

[Cusefan0307]

Pretty risky trade if you ask me. I know CP3 is aging and he and Harden hate each other, but a lot of projections had them with the most wins in the west next year. I'd see what they could get for Capela if they can. He was completely exposed at the end of the Warrior series.

 

[chugg21]

Pretty risky trade if you ask me. I know CP3 is aging and he and Harden hate each other, but a lot of projections had them with the most wins in the west next year. I'd see what they could get for Capela if they can. He was completely exposed at the end of the Warrior series.

I don't know how applicable that is anymore in a non Steph/Klay/KD world. Bigs probably aren't disasters in the same way with only 2 top 5 shooters instead of 3. Heck, if the Warriors are forced to play Steph, Russell and Klay all together, you might be able to bludgeon them a bit.

 

[chugg21]

Finally someone is echoing what I've been thinking. Same deal as the Clippers trade to OKC. Those picks aren't going to be good, other than perhaps the Miami owned picks. Now OKC has too many picks. You cannot possibly keep them all. They should deal a few of them for a younger asset with a reasonable contract. Problem with NBA picks, is, unlike the NFL, its much harder to package multiple picks to move way up in the draft, cause the talent level so often drops off the table quickly.

As far as Houston goes, I think a potential big deal is the trade allows the Rockets to load balance Harden alot more aggressively. He can sit for 15 game now and reduce his minutes in the games he plays. Paul wasn't the type of player that could carry the load alone for extended periods. Westbrook can. They in fact should load balance both these guys and we'll see come playoff time how much difference it makes.

I do know this, they weren't going anywhere with CP3 on Houston. They gave up two first rounders, two pick swaps, and they have an extra year of a bad contract (4 years vs 3), however this does extend their window by a couple years. Still probably won't work, but its the best they could really do.

And remember, the fourth year of the deal, you can dump him as an expiring if it goes to hell.

The people saying this is a terrible deal for the Rockets are crazy people. We can just erase the pick swaps. The Thunder aren't going to be better than the Rockets by 2021 and the one in 2025 is top 20 protected. So those have just about 0 chance of mattering. Then add in 2 future 1sts that are currently 5 and 7 years down the line and are both top 4 protected. Sure there is some downside with those since Russ and Harden are likely gone but what would have been the cost to dump CP3s contract to begin with? At minimum they have to attach a 1st and take on a toxic contract. So according to my math they just extended their window a bit and it cost them maybe a 2026 1st rd pick to do so. No brainer.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I don't know how applicable that is anymore in a non Steph/Klay/KD world. Bigs probably aren't disasters in the same way with only 2 top 5 shooters instead of 3. Heck, if the Warriors are forced to play Steph, Russell and Klay all together, you might be able to bludgeon them a bit.

The math nerds still value the Warriors a bunch though. A lot more than the talking heads and Capela was getting killed after Durant got injured. You may be right that he is more playable now especially against teams like the Lakers who have Davis and the PG position has come back to earth a bit, but I am still not sure he's effective enough against teams like the Clippers or Golden State moving forward.

 

[Day2]

Finally someone is echoing what I've been thinking. Same deal as the Clippers trade to OKC. Those picks aren't going to be good, other than perhaps the Miami owned picks. Now OKC has too many picks. You cannot possibly keep them all. They should deal a few of them for a younger asset with a reasonable contract. Problem with NBA picks, is, unlike the NFL, its much harder to package multiple picks to move way up in the draft, cause the talent level so often drops off the table quickly.

As far as Houston goes, I think a potential big deal is the trade allows the Rockets to load balance Harden alot more aggressively. He can sit for 15 game now and reduce his minutes in the games he plays. Paul wasn't the type of player that could carry the load alone for extended periods. Westbrook can. They in fact should load balance both these guys and we'll see come playoff time how much difference it makes.

I do know this, they weren't going anywhere with CP3 on Houston. They gave up two first rounders, two pick swaps, and they have an extra year of a bad contract (4 years vs 3), however this does extend their window by a couple years. Still probably won't work, but its the best they could really do.

And remember, the fourth year of the deal, you can dump him as an expiring if it goes to hell.

Exactly. As far as the Clippers are concerned, this is exactly what you use draft capital for. The choice between a bunch of future picks and a duo of Kawhi Leonard and Paul George is an easy one.

Why would people assume that any of these picks would amount to Leonard, George, or Westbrook? And why would people assume that the Clippers and Rockets are going to suck in three years?

 

[Alsacs]

Exactly. As far as the Clippers are concerned, this is exactly what you use draft capital for. The choice between a bunch of future picks and a duo of Kawhi Leonard and Paul George is an easy one.

Why would people assume that any of these picks would amount to Leonard, George, or Westbrook? And why would people assume that the Clippers and Rockets are going to suck in three years?

It’s because the Nets traded 3 picks and a draft swap with the Celtics and they ended up with 2 playoff runs but zero championships and the Celtics got the 16th pick, 3rd pick, 1st pick which they traded for the 3rd pick and 14th pick, and 8th pick they traded for Kyrie.
The Nets gave up 3 top 8 picks and the 16th pick.

Those unprotected picks could become really good if the franchise doesn’t look out but it’s a deal you make as any championship is worth it.

 

[MikeSU02]

The people saying this is a terrible deal for the Rockets are crazy people. We can just erase the pick swaps. The Thunder aren't going to be better than the Rockets by 2021 and the one in 2025 is top 20 protected. So those have just about 0 chance of mattering. Then add in 2 future 1sts that are currently 5 and 7 years down the line and are both top 4 protected. Sure there is some downside with those since Russ and Harden are likely gone but what would have been the cost to dump CP3s contract to begin with? At minimum they have to attach a 1st and take on a toxic contract. So according to my math they just extended their window a bit and it cost them maybe a 2026 1st rd pick to do so. No brainer.

Agreed. The picks are being way, way overvalued.

And Hou could not play Harden as much as they did again (and Harden, I believe, has stated that he has no interest in repeating last year). On top of not being able to keep two stars that argue.

I think it's a solid move.

 

[Newhouser]

Exactly. As far as the Clippers are concerned, this is exactly what you use draft capital for. The choice between a bunch of future picks and a duo of Kawhi Leonard and Paul George is an easy one.

Why would people assume that any of these picks would amount to Leonard, George, or Westbrook? And why would people assume that the Clippers and Rockets are going to suck in three years?

why would you assume they won't? More them stinking than the picks turning out? I like what the Clippers did but Leonard and George don't strike me as guys who are going to be durable enough to play at a high rate for 5 years. Clip show has to win now.

 

[chugg21]

It’s because the Nets traded 3 picks and a draft swap with the Celtics and they ended up with 2 playoff runs but zero championships and the Celtics got the 16th pick, 3rd pick, 1st pick which they traded for the 3rd pick and 14th pick, and 8th pick they traded for Kyrie.
The Nets gave up 3 top 8 picks and the 16th pick.

Those unprotected picks could become really good if the franchise doesn’t look out but it’s a deal you make as any championship is worth it.

Sure, if you just ignore that the Nets were morons and gave it up for 36 year old Pierce and 37 year old KG then you have a point. These are nothing like that.

 

[chugg21]

why would you assume they won't? More them stinking than the picks turning out? I like what the Clippers did but Leonard and George don't strike me as guys who are going to be durable enough to play at a high rate for 5 years. Clip show has to win now.

I think the issue is that some folks are treating NBA 1st rounders like they are NFL 1st rounders or something. Just look at these teams that come into the draft with 3 1st rounders like Boston this year. They are this big cache for years and then it ends up that they are desperate to try to dump them come draft night. Anything outside of the top 10 has little value. Sure you have a 10% chance of hitting on a star player but the picks are incredibly devalued at draft time.

 

[Day2]

why would you assume they won't? More them stinking than the picks turning out? I like what the Clippers did but Leonard and George don't strike me as guys who are going to be durable enough to play at a high rate for 5 years. Clip show has to win now.

Because the Clippers have one of the best coaches in the league, one of the best front offices in the league, and the wealthiest owner. Look at how they transformed Lob City into a legit title contender in two years. Even if it doesn’t work out with Leonard and George, the organization can and will pivot.

 

[chugg21]

Because the Clippers have one of the best coaches in the league, one of the best front offices in the league, and the wealthiest owner. Look at how they transformed Lob City into a legit title contender in two years. Even if it doesn’t work out with Leonard and George, the organization can and will pivot.

I agree. The only way the picks really hurt is if they truly bottom out to where they are one of the 10 worst teams in the league. It seems like their floor barring something catastrophic is above that going forward. It's almost impossible to be that bad nowadays without doing it purposefully.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This idea that draft picks don't have value is dumb.

The truer statement is that draft picks are more valuable to certain organizations at certain time.

Each first round pick provides some kind of probability of having a roster spot occupied by a player on a contract for multiple years that is much lower than the value of their production.

There's a sweet spot when a franchise becomes competitive where having one or more of those players is the difference between just how good their overall roster and flexibility to improve can be.

There's also a time when adding draft picks to a roster doesn't help much, or the probability of snagging an impact player is so low that taking the dice roll just isn't a priority.

There's also an element of market. Some markets will always have an advantage improving through free agency. Other markets without those advantages can't break through without leveraging the draft and player development effectively.

 

[Alsacs]

This idea that draft picks don't have value is dumb.

The truer statement is that draft picks are more valuable to certain organizations at certain time.

Each first round pick provides some kind of probability of having a roster spot occupied by a player on a contract for multiple years that is much lower than the value of their production.

There's a sweet spot when a franchise becomes competitive where having one or more of those players is the difference between just how good their overall roster and flexibility to improve can be.

There's also a time when adding draft picks to a roster doesn't help much, or the probability of snagging an impact player is so low that taking the dice roll just isn't a priority.

There's also an element of market. Some markets will always have an advantage improving through free agency. Other markets without those advantages can't break through without leveraging the draft and player development effectively.

Even if the picks aren’t at the top of the draft.
They have a lot of equity.
They are cheap money for 4 years of control.
Plus once you use them you can’t use them for other deals. The Stepen rule needs to be changed.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Even if the picks aren’t at the top of the draft.
They have a lot of equity.
They are cheap money for 4 years of control.
Plus once you use them you can’t use them for other deals. The Stepen rule needs to be changed.

Yup, the odds aren't great, but if you can hit on a guy in the teens or twenties that plays above his draft slot that's franchise altering.

I go back and forth on the Stepien rule.

To me it's dumb it was ever needed.

On the other hand, I think the NBA as a product is better because player development has emerged as a greater priority. Removing the rule could put that at risk because some teams would be tempted to never value development.

Used to be, a team had a lotto pick and expected all-star production right away. If they didn't get it, the problem was the player.

Nowadays I think teams and the Association as a whole have become much more bought in that they control their destiny a bit more when it comes to player production. Skill building is real. I look at how many power forwards have become competent and even good three point shooters of late. Not long ago that seemed ridiculous, now it's a normal part of the game. I take this as one bit of evidence that organizations can foster development to become more competitive.

Personally, I would like to see the NBA put measures in place that encourage low performing franchises to improve through development. One idea I have is to give the teams with the worst records in the league an additional roster spot/two-way contract, as well as a sandwich pick between the 1st and 2nd rounds. This would place a higher emphasis on scouting and player development within those franchises. Or, if they don't want to go that route, it gives them another tradeable asset for a franchise that does value those things.

 

[jncuse]

Cool story, bro.

Ballmer and the Clippers have been tampering all year.

 

[chugg21]

Ballmer and the Clippers have been tampering all year.

So has the entire league.

 

[Day2]

Ballmer and the Clippers have been tampering all year.

Raptors fan, right? Just enjoy the ‘ship. Your GM is trying to save face.