Odin

I just don't see a huge market for him. He is basically the same player he has been since his 3rd season in the league, but with an improved 3 point shot. A good but not great player. I think that extension was definitely a fair offer. However, he might get a big contract next year merely because there is supposed to be a lot of cap space available.

I think we would need to hedge a little more with the salary we’d be taking on in this scenario. I am not a Powell believer, but also not not a Powell believer. I don’t think last year necessarily reflects his actual ability, but I also think that he is most likely an ok backup type player, and that it could be detrimental to our team to have 10 million a year for 4 years locked up in an ok player.

It's successful: http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yat246dj Weird that the trade machine thinks this would make Toronto better, but us worse. I would be more concerned about the impact this could have on our cap 2 years from now.

Hmmm. Is Delon Wright a better Jerian Grant, at least when it comes to scheme? I haven't really seen either of them play, but they have similar size and similar stats. Also, Powell's contract would really tie us down for the next 4 years. While we'd be getting the best player in the deal, I think Toronto would have to throw in a pick as well- a very protected 1st or even a second, but something a little extra as we are basically hurting our cap space especially 2 years from now when we could possibly be going after a max guy. Plus Simmons and Kawhi seem to be friends- so bringing Simmons over to Toronto could be beneficial to them in that way.

Hmm. There is a possibility that Porter is actually Washington's best, or at least most important, player though.

It might happen, but I think you should judge a team based upon how they are currently constituted, not on how the team potentially will be constituted.

I think it all depends upon Love. If Love can play like he use to in Minnesota instead of as an ancillary piece, then I think they are somewhere around a 35 win team. Their pieces are bad in comparison to their price, but I think it has been exaggerated how bad they in just pure basketball talent.

Just using the word may does that for you already.

How much does Leonard hurt his value if he truly decides not to play in Toronto? I feel he is really killing his reputation around the league and with fans with his current behavior. Its probably somewhat recoverable but the whole situation is just a bad look.

My quick and lazy math says about $400,000 after taxes.

The thing is, their main scorers have middling efficiencies. Our players generally match or exceed their efficiency while also, generally again, being able to play defense.

He received more than one offer this off season, so there were multiple teams interested.

You do know that they are most likely starting Dunn who is at best about equivalent to Augustin. And there is a decent chance Lopez gets a decent amount of minutes at center for them. And that they have minus defenders all over their line-up. I don't think the talent level is necessarily huge (we will have to see what Gordon and Isaac look like when the season starts. I think their potential improvements will have the greatest effect upon the team), but I think we clearly have the better team as currently constituted.

I was being a bit surly and tongue in cheek. I generally like their moves and like that they have a philosophy that they are trying to stick to. I think you should almost always pick up the rookie option though, especially at a high pick unless the player is absolutely unplayable- which he wasn't. The pick thing isn't necessarily about trading the draft picks. It is the return on the draft picks. Think about trading the draft picks as an investment. If you are going to delay your pick- not getting value for it now- you should be getting more value for it later. It is basically a similar idea as the time-value of money in finance. A pick now is worth more than a pick years from now- as you can draft a player who (hopefully) can immediately help your team. Just as a monetary example. Say you lend someone $100, with the expectation that they pay you back one year from now. If they merely pay you back $100, you actually lost value as you could have invested that money and earned a return, and even inflation would have reduced the buying power of that $100. So you instead expect to get at least $102, just to break even on inflation. NFL execs have this idea down. Every pick in the future is basically valued as one round lower for the current draft. So a future second is generally valued as a current 3rd round pick, and etc. Obviously, we do not have as many rounds, and the value of a pick in the NBA is different, especially a top pick. None the less, if you trade a current pick, you should have a chance at getting a higher pick in the future as compensation. So, if we take the first rounder as an example. It was the 21st pick in the draft. In return, we got a top 20 protected pick in 2020, 2021, or 2022- which changes to two seconds in 2022 and 2023 if it doesn't confer. So, at best, we get the 20th pick (one whole spot up from where we were) 3 years after we picked, with a good chance to only get 2 second rounders. That is just a bad return. That is loaning someone $100, with a 5% chance at getting $105 in three years, but more likely getting between $80-90 3,4, or 5 years in the future or getting $25 and $30 dollars two subsequent years after.

In a vacuum, good trade for Sacramento (poor McLemore going back there). Why is Memphis doing this? I don't think Temple is that good, and I still think Davis has potential still to be a good back up big. Am I too high on Davis here? I get that Memphis is pretty solid at the center position, but why not keep the young cheap guy here, or find a better deal for him?

What player on Chicago do you think is clearly better than their counterpart on the Magic?

So, I might be wrong, but I think ?4thewin meant the Bulls are more talented than they were last year- not necessarily that they should be better than us. That defense is most likely going to be bad.

Sorry, forgot that the Weltham plan is to not pick up the rookie options on talented but struggling players who have shown flashes of talent- only to watch the player improve as the year goes on and lose the player for nothing. Or to trade away current draft picks for future, likely worse, draft picks.

But I thought the plan was to trade away talented youth for low picks, one-year declining vets, and cap space?

On Grant: I think that if anyone is expecting Grant to be more than a decent 2nd-3rd string point guard, they are setting themselves up to be disappointed. I think we should hope that he plays well enough to not hurt the team and allows us to see if the strategy of getting a bunch of long guys that are at least mediocre at defense on the floor together works. He has basically been mediocre at best at everything besides having good size. Really, he is most likely just going to help us see if the strategy of size, length, and defense at every position will work. Obviously, if he shows improvement, then great. But don't hold your breath for anything more than an adequate back-up.

I don't think the difference will end up being as big as we hope, but if we break it down, who is their best player? Parker? Lavine? Carter? Augustin (If we have last year's Augustin) is fairly equivalent to Dunn. He was better last year, but Dunn likely has some room for improvement, so I would call it a wash. Fournier is fairly equivalent to Lavine. Lavine is young, so again has more room for improvement, and is more athletic, but Fournier is at least a mediocre defender. Isaac and Parker are the wild cards. Parker is the better offensive player- but honestly, kind of mediocre when it comes to efficiency and seems to be more of a ball stopping scorer then a guy that works within the offense. He is also a minus defender. Isaac on the other hand projects as an elite defender with an okay offensive move-set. I think it goes to Isaac, as a player who is elite on one end and okay on the other should be more valuable than a player who is good to very good on one end but bad on the other. (Is it bad that I think of Jabari as the tweener version of Vucevic? That is probably not fair, right?) Gordon vs Markkanen is a definite win for us. I think Gordon is clearly better than any player on the Bulls, though I am sure that someone would try to argue with me. Bamba/Vuch vs Carter/Lopez. As Bamba and Carter are both rookies, I cannot really predict which will be better this year. Vuch is more talented than Lopez, but I kind of feel like Lopez has a more positive effect on team play. Our bench is probably slightly better than theirs. Over all though, I think the Magic should just do better based on identity and team fit. The Magic are potentially an elite defensive team, if enough things go right, with enough offensive talent to be able to grind out some games. The Bulls, on the other hand, are filled with offensive players of mostly mediocre efficiency who are generally poor at defense. Both teams are young, but I also think we have a lot more potential hiding in our team then they do.

I'd like that. Butler is a competitor. It seems like he is upset with the lack of professionalism on the Wolves- he seems to like players who work hard and are serious about the game. Do you think he would have the same issues here? After all, our core is young- though I think also full of hard workers. I just would be worried that he'd have some of the same feelings about our guys as he seems to have about his current teammates (especially KAT it seems).

If we get enough wingspan, will our team be able to fly?

You can find a way to make everything an exception if you want to. Tanking doesn't necessarily guarantee success any more than any other option does. But that does not mean it doesn't work. Do you know how many winning seasons Golden State had in the 10 years before drafting Curry? 2. And while curry wasn't a top 3 pick, 7 is still pretty high. Name off the best players ever. How many were #1 draft picks? How many were top 3? You want to be a good team? You have to have a good player. Best way to get a good player if you are bad? Through the draft.

Apologies. I missed that. Anyway, if you aren’t already good, there are 4 basic ways to get good. 1. Tank. Almost all of the best players are high draft picks- and for good reason. Get one or two (or more) good prospects to build your team around on the cheap. 2. Get lots of cap space and sign multiple all-star type players. If already mediocre, you can open up space for only one star if you already have another. (T-Mac and Grant Hill to Orlando, the Heatles) 3. Stockpile assets to trade for a star. (The Houston) 4. Be the Lakers.