2022 NBA Offseason Thread — Trades, Free Agency, Firings, Sacramento doing dumb things, etc

[ChickenSandwich 9852]

It should be a hard cap anyways. All of the exceptions and work arounds are bullshit.

If you are worried about the cap fluctuations year to year, pay them a percentage of the cap and not a dollar amount. Lebron gets 51% of the cap, fill the roster with the other 49% etc etc. Also, no max salary  if you want to give someone 86% so be it  

 

*hard cap with a salary floor no less than 20% of max. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by ChickenSandwich

[Fastbreak 3992]

It should be a hard cap anyways. All of the exceptions and work arounds are bullshit.
If you are worried about the cap fluctuations year to year, pay them a percentage of the cap and not a dollar amount. Lebron gets 51% of the cap, fill the roster with the other 49% etc etc. Also, no max salary  if you want to give someone 86% so be it  
 
*hard cap with a salary floor no less than 20% of max. 

How does it work then if teams draft really well? For example let’s say Wiseman blows up this year. Have to pay him. Poole is due. Then next year Moody and Kuminga need to be paid. Do you penalize the team for drafting these guys? Make them trade then for nothing or release them?

[d2o 1602]

Honestly, I feel more and more that those teams that are tanking should be relegated to the G League.   There would be some pay things for the players and some other stuff to work out but take away their shared revenue.     Let a G-league team come up and get that money and see if they can make it.

If you win less than 25 gms 3 yrs straight, bye.  Finish last in your division for 5 yrs straight, bye    If you win less than 10 in ANY season, bye.   I think that would do more for tanking than anything. 

 

Owners would never sign off on it though.  They would be forced to actually try not just being farm teams for the other teams.

[ChickenSandwich 9852]

1 hour ago, Fastbreak said:

How does it work then if teams draft really well? For example let’s say Wiseman blows up this year. Have to pay him. Poole is due. Then next year Moody and Kuminga need to be paid. Do you penalize the team for drafting these guys? Make them trade then for nothing or release them?

Yes, and they could plan and trade their picks accordingly. 

GS is perfect. They would have to make hard decisions and plan their present and future at the same time. Talent would then naturally spread out more through the league as guys chase a higher percentage. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by ChickenSandwich

[aggie08 21531]

1 hour ago, Fastbreak said:

How does it work then if teams draft really well? For example let’s say Wiseman blows up this year. Have to pay him. Poole is due. Then next year Moody and Kuminga need to be paid. Do you penalize the team for drafting these guys? Make them trade then for nothing or release them?

Exactly. You shouldn't be penalized for drafting and developing well. Homegrown guys shouldn't count against the luxury tax. The luxury tax was meant for big market teams trying to buy championships with a super team of mercenaries.

[aggie08 21531]

16 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Yes, and they could plan and trade their picks accordingly. 

GS is perfect. They would have to make hard decisions and plan their present and future at the same time. Talent would then naturally spread out more through the league as guys chase a higher percentage. 

That's fucking dumb.

"Sorry guys, you did your jobs too well and drafted and developed too many good players. You need to give some of them up to the incompetent teams in the league just to be fair." 

[ChickenSandwich 9852]

6 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

That's fucking dumb.

"Sorry guys, you did your jobs too well and drafted and developed too many good players. You need to give some of them up to the incompetent teams in the league just to be fair." 

They can keep every player, just has to be within the cap. Allowing them to blow past it to keep all of their players at the highest salaries possible makes having a salary cap worthless. It’s dumb to allow them to spend well over the cap for a simple fine. If there were a competitive disadvantage like loss of a draft pick or roster spot it would make sense. 
 

allowing the richest markets to circumvent the cap with a “tax” is dumb. 
 

The NFL seems to make a salary cap work. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by ChickenSandwich

[Mitch Cumsteen 18575]

2 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

How does it work then if teams draft really well? For example let’s say Wiseman blows up this year. Have to pay him. Poole is due. Then next year Moody and Kuminga need to be paid. Do you penalize the team for drafting these guys? Make them trade then for nothing or release them?

They don't have to extend them until after their fourth year. They have team options and qualifying offers to prevent them from leaving. Jordan Poole still has one year left on his rookie deal. They can offer him a qualifying offer after next season and he will become a restricted free agent, and they can match any offer for him. 

55 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

That's fucking dumb.

"Sorry guys, you did your jobs too well and drafted and developed too many good players. You need to give some of them up to the incompetent teams in the league just to be fair." 

Cry me a fucking river. Nobody would touch Andrew Wiggins and his max deal except the d-bag VC assholes that own the Warriors. They knew the tax implications going in, but didn't give a fuck. And it got them another ring. Those rookie home grown deals for Poole, Wiseman, Moody and Kuminga aren't what's pushing them over the cap. It's the supermax $50M for Steph, $40M for Klay, $25M for Draymond and $33M for Wiggins. Every team in the league has to make these types of decisions. Tim Duncan took less money later in his career to compete for championships. The Spurs traded Luis Scola (drafted by them, i.e., home grown talent) for garbage to get under the cap. That for sure cost them at least one ring.

The thing that they really need to do away with is the supermax. The whole supermax idea was to incentivize players to stay with the team that drafted them, and all it does is pay those guys astronomical salaries when they can just ask for a trade whenever they want. In the meantime, it fucks everybody's cap up. That has got to go next CBA.

I don't know how you fix tanking. They jacked with the lottery odds to make it more difficult to get top picks, but it's still broken. 

[aggie08 21531]

1 hour ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

Cry me a fucking river. Nobody would touch Andrew Wiggins and his max deal except the d-bag VC assholes that own the Warriors. They knew the tax implications going in, but didn't give a fuck. And it got them another ring. Those rookie home grown deals for Poole, Wiseman, Moody and Kuminga aren't what's pushing them over the cap. It's the supermax $50M for Steph, $40M for Klay, $25M for Draymond and $33M for Wiggins. Every team in the league has to make these types of decisions. Tim Duncan took less money later in his career to compete for championships. The Spurs traded Luis Scola (drafted by them, i.e., home grown talent) for garbage to get under the cap. That for sure cost them at least one ring.

And I think it's bullshit that Spurs players had to take "loyalty deals" just to stay on the team that was smart enough to draft them. My opinion on this has never changed. Luis Scola taking the money to go somewhere that he doesn't fit hurts the league.

I agree with you on Wiggins: he should--and does--cost them a fortune in luxury tax. A team paying Steph, Klay, and Dray shouldn't be able to acquire someone else's significantly overpaid role player just because they're rolling in money and can without being severely penalized.

But going over the cap to pay your own guys shouldn't accrue nearly as much in luxury tax. Is 50% more agreeable to you than zero luxury tax?

The whole point of the last CBA was trying to keep players on the team that drafted them.

[ocugolf 1214]

Bill Simmons had an interesting idea for the draft.  IIRC he proposed a draft "wheel" that told you which pick you would get that year, and then the next year, the "wheel" would rotate once to what pick you get the coming year.  So the teams would know beforehand what pick in the draft they have for future years.  Like if you got the 1st pick one year, the next year you get 30, then 15, then 16, then 2, then 29, etc.  A. It would eliminate tanking, B. First round draft picks could increase or decrease in value depending on the year and what number you had. C. It would incentivize teams to build from within.  It's not perfect by any means, but it is an interesting idea.  It couldn't be put into effect until the last conveyed picks are selected, so like 2030.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8819]

You could fix tanking by making revenue sharing in the league’s TV deals structured so that you get a bigger piece of the pie the more you win.  They’d never approve that, of course.  But some sort of financial penalty for being shitty is the only thing that would motivate teams not to tank.

What about 1 year contracts only?

[MNLonghornFUKM 8819]

Bill Simmons had an interesting idea for the draft.  IIRC he proposed a draft "wheel" that told you which pick you would get that year, and then the next year, the "wheel" would rotate once to what pick you get the coming year.  So the teams would know beforehand what pick in the draft they have for future years.  Like if you got the 1st pick one year, the next year you get 30, then 15, then 16, then 2, then 29, etc.  A. It would eliminate tanking, B. First round draft picks could increase or decrease in value depending on the year and what number you had. C. It would incentivize teams to build from within.  It's not perfect by any means, but it is an interesting idea.  It couldn't be put into effect until the last conveyed picks are selected, so like 2030.

That is interesting. Unfortunately the nba would do the spinning behind closed doors and mark Tatum would get to read to us the order

[closetohumping 17470]

Who wouldn’t want to play with this guy?

 

[closetohumping 17470]

Dp

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by closetohumping

[Mitch Cumsteen 18575]

18 hours ago, aggie08 said:

And I think it's bullshit that Spurs players had to take "loyalty deals" just to stay on the team that was smart enough to draft them. My opinion on this has never changed. Luis Scola taking the money to go somewhere that he doesn't fit hurts the league.

I agree with you on Wiggins: he should--and does--cost them a fortune in luxury tax. A team paying Steph, Klay, and Dray shouldn't be able to acquire someone else's significantly overpaid role player just because they're rolling in money and can without being severely penalized.

But going over the cap to pay your own guys shouldn't accrue nearly as much in luxury tax. Is 50% more agreeable to you than zero luxury tax?

The whole point of the last CBA was trying to keep players on the team that drafted them.

That wasn't the purpose of that CBA, at all. I think the purpose of the last CBA was about making sure that the small market teams could still compete by: (1) making it more advantageous for smaller market teams to keep their stars via supermax (what a joke that turned out to be) AND (2) imposing a bigger, way more punitive, repeater tax on the teams that continue to violate the cap year after year.

Again, I don't feel sorry for the Warriors for one fucking second. They lucked into Durant at the perfect time when the cap ballooned with the new TV deal and Curry was still on a team friendly contract that he signed when injured. They did that knowing that they were going to have to eventually pay Steph, Klay and Draymond on top of Durant. So they knew what they were getting into, and still said fuck it. And I would argue that it was terrible for the competitive balance of the league for them to be able to spend that way. Then when shit went south with KD, they could have let him walk for nothing and had some cap relief, but instead took a ton back in salary for Russell who they flipped into Wiggins (plus first round pick).

They wouldn't have been able to do any of that without having extremely deep front office pockets. Why should they be able to exploit that advantage over small market teams? They are just buying titles at that point. Fuck that noise. They aren't light years ahead of the league. They are light years ahead of everybody else in cash.

[Dutchrudder 11151]

KD took a paycut to sign with Golden State, and continued to take less than max to stay with them. He declined 30m in 2017 to take 25m and save the owner a bunch of money. 

The Warriors were paying oodles of luxury tax the whole time, and it didn't seem to deter them. They sent Iguodala off to Memphis with a FRP to dump him and save money, but that didn't really matter.

This is the other side of the Max/Supermax reality, something Lebron figured out when he went to Miami. If a team can get a few superstars to play for less than the max, the team will have a significant advantage over others paying full price for similar (or lesser) quality players. Lebron, Bosh and Wade all took several million less so they could team up in Miami and build a good team. Durant took a paycut for 3 years with the Warriors. Both of those teams were overwhelming favorites every year, and it was bad for league parity and competition. But how do you address that in the CBA? I don't think they can penalize players for  taking less to build a better team.

 

[aggie08 21531]

3 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

That wasn't the purpose of that CBA, at all. I think the purpose of the last CBA was about making sure that the small market teams could still compete by: (1) making it more advantageous for smaller market teams to keep their stars via supermax (what a joke that turned out to be) AND (2) imposing a bigger, way more punitive, repeater tax on the teams that continue to violate the cap year after year.

Again, I don't feel sorry for the Warriors for one fucking second. They lucked into Durant at the perfect time when the cap ballooned with the new TV deal and Curry was still on a team friendly contract that he signed when injured. They did that knowing that they were going to have to eventually pay Steph, Klay and Draymond on top of Durant. So they knew what they were getting into, and still said fuck it. And I would argue that it was terrible for the competitive balance of the league for them to be able to spend that way. Then when shit went south with KD, they could have let him walk for nothing and had some cap relief, but instead took a ton back in salary for Russell who they flipped into Wiggins (plus first round pick).

They wouldn't have been able to do any of that without having extremely deep front office pockets. Why should they be able to exploit that advantage over small market teams? They are just buying titles at that point. Fuck that noise. They aren't light years ahead of the league. They are light years ahead of everybody else in cash.

Buying titles by building around a core of players that they drafted and developed while continuing to draft well the rare times they're in the lottery...and then having the audacity to pay them? Okay.

Any team in the league could have traded for Andrew Wiggins if they thought for a second that he could be a key contributor on a championship-contending team. Minnesota would have given him away for a bag of potato chips if someone wanted him. They couldn't even swap the burden of paying Russell the max straight up for Wiggins; they had to throw in the Kuminga pick just to dump him. Golden State didn't acquire him because no one else could afford him; they acquired him because they were perhaps the only team who still saw untapped potential there. Most people, including myself, thought it was a stupid, shit deal that was going to hamstring them in the future. It's revisionist history to go back and say that acquiring Wiggins was "exploiting their advantage over small market teams." No one wanted the dude. So maybe not light years, but a fair margin ahead, to be sure. (Technically, Lacobs' light years comment WAS about their ability to rake in money in the first place.)

Again, this isn't about Golden State though. Of course no one should feel sorry for them. I just think it's stupid that the luxury tax accrues the same for players that teams draft as it is for those that they acquire. Always have.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18575]

3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Buying titles by building around a core of players that they drafted and developed while continuing to draft well the rare times they're in the lottery...and then having the audacity to pay them? Okay.

Any team in the league could have traded for Andrew Wiggins if they thought for a second that he could be a key contributor on a championship-contending team. Minnesota would have given him away for a bag of potato chips if someone wanted him. They couldn't even swap the burden of paying Russell the max straight up for Wiggins; they had to throw in the Kuminga pick just to dump him. Golden State didn't acquire him because no one else could afford him; they acquired him because they were perhaps the only team who still saw untapped potential there. Most people, including myself, thought it was a stupid, shit deal that was going to hamstring them in the future. It's revisionist history to go back and say that acquiring Wiggins was "exploiting their advantage over small market teams." No one wanted the dude. So maybe not light years, but a fair margin ahead, to be sure. (Technically, Lacobs' light years comment WAS about their ability to rake in money in the first place.)

Again, this isn't about Golden State though. Of course no one should feel sorry for them. I just think it's stupid that the luxury tax accrues the same for players that teams draft as it is for those that they acquire. Always have.

You missed my point or maybe I didn't make it clearly enough. They don't even make the Russell deal for Durant if they didn't have the cash to pay the tax. They knew they were on the hook for two max salaries for Curry and Thompson, plus another huge number with Draymond.  I don't know anybody else in the league who would have taken on those extra dollars for Russell. Maybe the Lakers? The Knicks probably would do it for a 3 seed in the East. But certainly Utah or Indiana or New Orleans or any other small market team couldn't or wouldn't do it. But they did it for the asset, damn the tax implications.

And there's a lot of revisionist history about the Wiggins/Russell trade. It's not that they had this amazing foresight that Wiggins would be anything but a salary cap hit; they were tanking after Steph got hurt (Klay was already out) and figured Russell -- who was playing at an all-star level -- might actually win them some games. That they got anything out of him besides that pick (Kuminga) was gravy. 

[Reynolds Woodcock 4801]

2 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

 

And there's a lot of revisionist history about the Wiggins/Russell trade. It's not that they had this amazing foresight that Wiggins would be anything but a salary cap hit; they were tanking after Steph got hurt (Klay was already out) and figured Russell -- who was playing at an all-star level -- might actually win them some games. That they got anything out of him besides that pick (Kuminga) was gravy. 

Lol. D’Angelo Russell is a losing player and always has been. Once they saw Russell up close and personal and found a team dumb enough to attach an actual asset (the draft pick), he was always going to be gone. And they would have done the exact same thing with Wiggins before his excellent playoff run. 

[aggie08 21531]

51 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Lol. D’Angelo Russell is a losing player and always has been. Once they saw Russell up close and personal and found a team dumb enough to attach an actual asset (the draft pick), he was always going to be gone. And they would have done the exact same thing with Wiggins before his excellent playoff run. 

Yeah, D'Angelo Russell was never going to be a Warrior for longer than a year. They never wanted him; but trading KD for him was the only realistic way to hopefully obtain another star without breaking up the core. They didn't trade him because he was winning too many games for them...he definitely was not. Shit, they hoped that he would play a little better for them in that lost season to increase his value. I bet they thought that they could do better than Wiggins and a first had Russell played well in San Fran. But, they always knew that they had Minnesota in their back pocket because their brain trust loved them some D'Angelo for whatever dumb fuck reason.

Had Wiggins not panned out as a Warrior, I'm not sure what they would/could have done. I don't think think they would have gotten a great package back for Wiggins+Kuminga/Wiseman last season, even after Wiggins became an "All-Star." His deal+tax would be an absolute albatross had he cemented his legacy as a bust, rather than working so hard to find a role that suits him. He wouldn't have been Russ untouchable, but not terribly far off.

[Kermit 3158]

Fuck JJ Redick.

 

[Fastbreak 3992]

Nets get Brown and Smart and 3 picks for KD.

Then trade Kyrie and those 3 picks to the Jazz for Mitchell.

Then they could run out

Smart
Mitchell
Brown
Simmons
Claxton

Harris
Curry
O’Neale
Thomas
Warren
Mills
Sharpe

That’s a playoff team

[SilasCoade 2622]

1 hour ago, Fastbreak said:

Nets get Brown and Smart and 3 picks for KD.

Then trade Kyrie and those 3 picks to the Jazz for Mitchell.

Then they could run out

Smart
Mitchell
Brown
Simmons
Claxton

Harris
Curry
O’Neale
Thomas
Warren
Mills
Sharpe

That’s a playoff team

Brown, Smart, and Simmons theoretically could be the best defensive backcourt in the league. 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8819]

A net neutral. Andre Roberson could avg 20 a game when defended by Mitchell

[HookEm 2467]

20 hours ago, Llogg said:

Brown, Smart, and Simmons theoretically could be the best defensive backcourt in the league. 

 

21 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

Nets get Brown and Smart and 3 picks for KD.

Then trade Kyrie and those 3 picks to the Jazz for Mitchell.

That’s a playoff team

That is a hell of a team.  That's beyond a playoff team. 

You would have 3 all-stars / borderline all-NBA guys in Mitchell, Jaylen Brown and Ben Simmons.  Plus DPOY in Smart. Plus some of the best shooters in the NBA in Joe Harris and Seth Curry.  

I think Boston would be dumb to go that direction.  If anything, they should be looking to trade Jayson Tatum for Durant.  The Nets might even be compelled to throw some other assets into the mix in that case.  They would be getting a 23 yr-old all-NBA franchise cornerstone.

Then Boston could basically run it back with a more clutch upgrade in Durant while keeping their core in place.  Tatum is never going to get it done there, and he isn't a good fit to share the spotlight with Durant.  Jaylen Brown would be a much better 2nd option.

 

[SilasCoade 2622]

31 minutes ago, HookEm said:

 

That is a hell of a team.  That's beyond a playoff team. 

You would have 3 all-stars / borderline all-NBA guys in Mitchell, Jaylen Brown and Ben Simmons.  Plus DPOY in Smart. Plus some of the best shooters in the NBA in Joe Harris and Seth Curry.  

I think Boston would be dumb to go that direction.  If anything, they should be looking to trade Jayson Tatum for Durant.  The Nets might even be compelled to throw some other assets into the mix in that case.  They would be getting a 23 yr-old all-NBA franchise cornerstone.

Then Boston could basically run it back with a more clutch upgrade in Durant while keeping their core in place.  Tatum is never going to get it done there, and he isn't a good fit to share the spotlight with Durant.  Jaylen Brown would be a much better 2nd option.

 

Tatum, Pritchard, 2 picks for Durant and Curry?

[HookEm 2467]

Yeah, I'd take that if I was either side.  

The problem with trading for any of those Boston assets is that the Nets are then FORCED to trade Kyrie Irving since they all hate each other.  I guess they are already sort of stuck in having to trade him, but this would amplify it.

[conVINCEd 21469]

5 hours ago, HookEm said:

Yeah, I'd take that if I was either side.  

The problem with trading for any of those Boston assets is that the Nets are then FORCED to trade Kyrie Irving since they all hate each other.  I guess they are already sort of stuck in having to trade him, but this would amplify it.

Does picking Kyrie up with the owner’s plane, diverting the flight to Moscow, and shoving a vape pen in his pocket right before you shove him out the door solve any of these problems? Because I’d like to see that happen.

[Vic Mackey 47151]

Just a reminder

[Dutchrudder 11151]

Wow, what is Draymonds value on the open market?  4 years and 138m is insane at his age.

[Vic Mackey 47151]

...

[billfromlaketravis 11522]

I love Zion’s game. I hope he stays healthy. That said, I’m glad my team isn’t on the hook for his contract. 

[ztejas 43537]

J'Covan is playing down the stretch on ESPN 2 and they're doing the Elam ending for The Basketball Tournament. Down to the last 8 teams - winners split a million. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by ztejas

[SilasCoade 2622]

4 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Wow, what is Draymonds value on the open market?  4 years and 138m is insane at his age.

No one is going to pay him close to that if the Warriors don't. 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8819]

Wow, what is Draymonds value on the open market?  4 years and 138m is insane at his age.

Good question. Playing along side 2 of the greatest shooters ever clearly has increased his value. The warriors are just above average if Steph plays and klays out. Average to below average and extremely beatable if stephs out and klays in.

I’d wager he’s probably worth half of a max to any other team. Paying someone who’s 37 40 million or whatever isn’t a recipe for success.

The kings or wizards will probably back up the brinks truck for him tho.

[d2o 1602]

I love what Dray brings to the Warriors.   He is a HUGE part of the success they've had.    That said when Steph/Klay were out what he brings is far less pronounced and didnt help them win much.    Especially given his age and being undersized in the first place its hard to imagine anyone giving him a max deal.

[PittsburghTiger 6196]

On 7/2/2022 at 5:10 PM, Message Board User said:

 

 

On 7/2/2022 at 5:28 PM, shadow_operative said:

 

man i hope that guys is fit and healthy going forward. he's like a mix of young shaq and young chuck or something, i don't even know. i just want to see him play 75-80 games a season. 

 

On 7/2/2022 at 5:31 PM, Rockethorn1978 said:

That’s a ton of money for a guy never healthy. That’s NO just swinging for the fences knowing its a huge gamble. Can’t blame them though.

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2022/07/zion-williamsons-new-extension-includes-conditioning-clause.html

 

So this story says the new deal includes a conditioning clause. Says he reported at over 300 pounds last year. That's crazy.

 

edit: didn't see Vic's post from yesterday.

Edited July 29, 2022 by PittsburghTiger

[SilasCoade 2622]

Watching some Chet highlights from the Crawsover event and he looks so much more fluid than I expected. I don't know that he's built to last but at this moment he looks like a potential problem. I also think he looks better than the French kid for next year.

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

8 hours ago, Llogg said:

Watching some Chet highlights from the Crawsover event and he looks so much more fluid than I expected. I don't know that he's built to last but at this moment he looks like a potential problem. I also think he looks better than the French kid for next year.

I love Chet. If he doesn’t break I think he can be the best player on a title team someday- first team all nba and mvp candidate type guy. If his body doesn’t break he has an extremely high floor and high ceiling. That’s a big if. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

 

 

 

 

[Fastbreak 3992]

How about:

Spurs get: Ben Simmons

Lakers get: Kyrie, Duncan Robinson

Heat get: KD

Nets get: Bam, THT, westrbrick, 2 Spurs picks, 2 lakers picks, 3 heat picks

The nets get rid of all of their problems. Get an all-star back and 7 firsts.

The spurs take a flyer on fixing Simmons

The lakers add Kyrie and some shooting.

Would be the biggest trade in NBA history.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18575]

2 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

How about:

Spurs get: Ben Simmons

Lakers get: Kyrie, Duncan Robinson

Heat get: KD

Nets get: Bam, THT, westrbrick, 2 Spurs picks, 2 lakers picks, 3 heat picks

The nets get rid of all of their problems. Get an all-star back and 7 firsts.

The spurs take a flyer on fixing Simmons

The lakers add Kyrie and some shooting.

Would be the biggest trade in NBA history.

Wait a minute. You want the Spurs to take the most mentally broken player in the league who also has a bad back and is owed $110 million AND give up 2 first round picks for the honor of trying to rehab him? Are you out of your fucking mind? It wouldn't be the biggest trade in NBA history. It would be the dumbest.

[SilasCoade 2622]

Yeah that's dumb for the spurs and the heat. 

[ztejas 43537]

On 8/4/2022 at 4:20 AM, shadow_operative said:

 

 

 

 

"NBA player"

[Fastbreak 3992]

The hawks picks are probably going to be in the 20s. If you look at the last few #21 picks it would be, Christian Braun and Keon Johnson. Would you trade Simmons for those 2?

[Kermit 3158]

2 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

The hawks picks are probably going to be in the 20s. If you look at the last few #21 picks it would be, Christian Braun and Keon Johnson. Would you trade Simmons for those 2?

No. Who the fuck actually wants Ben Simmons? 

[Braff Zacklin 13662]

4 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

Spurs get: Ben Simmons

Nets get: Bam, THT, westrbrick, 2 Spurs picks, 2 lakers picks, 3 heat picks

The nets get rid of all of their problems. Get an all-star back and 7 firsts.

The spurs take a flyer on fixing Simmons

The fuck the Spurs ever do to you to wish this on them?

PATFO are fucking up enough as it is ...

[Dutchrudder 11151]

Some very early predictions for W/L. Kind of interesting, I can see some good picks for Over/under on this.  

Boston Celtics 55.5
Milwaukee Bucks 52.5
Phoenix Suns 52.5
Los Angeles Clippers 52.5
Golden State Warriors 51.5
Denver Nuggets 49.5
Philadelphia 76ers 49.5
Memphis Grizzlies 48.5
Dallas Mavericks 48.5
Miami Heat 48.5
Minnesota Timberwolves 47.5
Atlanta Hawks 46.5
Los Angeles Lakers 45.5
Brooklyn Nets 45.5
New Orleans Pelicans 44.5
Toronto Raptors 44.5
Chicago Bulls 43.5
Cleveland Cavaliers 42.5
Portland Trail Blazers 40.5
New York Knicks 39.5
Charlotte Hornets 36.5
Washington Wizards 35.5
Utah Jazz 32.5
Sacramento Kings 32.5
Detroit Pistons 28.5
Oklahoma City Thunder 26.5
Orlando Magic 25.5
Indiana Pacers 24.5
Houston Rockets 23.5
San Antonio Spurs 23.5

https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/win-totals/

[closetohumping 17470]

[Pimphand 5887]

16 hours ago, ztejas said:

"NBA player"