Mike1989

There only two reasons for the Lakers trading that pick: 1. After Fultz, the rest of the players are on the same level. Let's say the Kings offer 5 and 10, perhaps their second round pick as well, or they throw in a player like Malachi Richardson. At that point if the Lakers have Ball, Fox, Smith, Monk, Jackson, Tatum, and Isaac in the same tier, then trading back for an extra pick or picks plus another prospect might be of interest to them. 2. They get offered a star player for their second overall pick. Let's say the Bulls pick up the phone and offer Butler, or the Pacers offer George, then at that point maybe they get tempted and do a deal. With that said, I don't see them trading the pick. The big question for them is whether they go Ball or Jackson. I'd like to see them go for Jackson since maybe Ball falls to us at six (doubtful but I can dream!), but I suspect Ball to the Lakers is the pick they'll make.

Well we would control the first eight/nine years of his career. Four years as a rookie, then the extension he would receive as a restricted free agent. So unless he becomes a problem and refuses to play, which I don't see being the case since he could still be a star with us and be the main man, then I don't see the issue in drafting him unless we believe someone else has a better chance of being special (e.g. we think Smith, Tatum, Isaac, Fox etc will be better). With that said here's something to think about. Let's say we draft Ball and we have eight good years like Dwight (6 play off appearances and 1 finals appearance), then he opts out and bolts for LA. Would we take eight seasons like we had with Dwight (ideally though we'd win a championship!)? I'll be honest. I'd take eight years like we had under Dwight. I'd rather see the player stay for longer and retire a one team guy, but if drafting Ball sees us get better and compete for championships again and this time win one, then I'd be happy to take eight good years and see him bolt if that's what it takes.

If Fox's shooting doesn't develop, but brings top tier defense and play making to the table, then that can be enough for some teams to warrant picking that player and giving them the keys at the PG position. It's what we've done by going to Payton. Accept that he might never be a great shooter but bet on his defense and play making to become a Rondo like player. The other issue with that mock is them selecting Smith and Ntilikina. They might need a PG but drafting two of them? I'm not sure I'd be on board with that if it was us. I think the Lakers could pass on Ball if the rumors are true and they have seen someone else that they think can be special. Josh Jackson could be a really good player, Fox is well regarded by some, and there's always the potential of them adding a scorer like Tatum if felt they wanted to go down that route. Personally i think Ball gets picked by the Lakers, but if they don't Jackson is certainly a decent alternative though it would create an issue over who they start out of him, Ingram and Randle. Unless Jackson plays SG?

Interesting mock to see Fox fall all the way to the Knicks at eight. I think they would be very happy if that scenario played out. I'd be happy to see Tatum fall to us at six, though I suspect he's going to be gone along with Fox.

Let's say the top five players off the board are Fultz, Ball, Fox, Jackson and Tatum - in whatever order - and we draft Isaac at six. The Timberwolves are hard to project but I doubt they go for a point guard due to them having Rubio and Dunn, I think they could have use for a player like Monk or Markkanen. The Knicks and Mavericks at eight and nine could draft point guards because it is arguably their main need, so that could see Smith and Ntilikina off the board, though I could see one of them deciding to draft Monk. So potentially we might not get a point guard at ten, and if that option is Ntilikina or Monk, then I don't see either of them being an upgrade over Payton because neither of them strike me as point guards at the next level. For me, I would rather keep Payton and 25.

To be fair in the 2014 draft Noah Vonleh did receive a certain amount of hype as a potential top five pick. He is one of those high upside players that has the length and attributes that teams look for. The problem for him is that he hasn't come close to reaching his potential at this time. He's still young so he has time on his side, but currently he's not lived up to the draft hype. However, it is not surprising to see that some team would have had Vonleh high on their draft board because he was one of those risk-reward guys. This year we have Jonathan Isaac. He's another one of those high upside players that has the length and attributes that teams look for, but it does comes with some risk if the offensive side of his game doesn't develop, he doesn't get bigger, and he doesn't add more consistency to his game. But that's the risk-reward factor with a player like Isaac. So in a sense it wouldn't surprise me if our new front office hold Isaac and that he's likely the top target at six if Fultz, Ball, Fox, Jackson and Tatum go in the top five.

I'm going to be honest, the three players at the top of my list for the 6th spot all come with risks: Jonathan Isaac is a heck of a prospect. He's got good ball handling skills, a nice jump shot, the athleticism and size that teams look for, and plays good defense. He could fit in at SF or PF, perhaps even play some C if he adds some weight and size to his frame. I see three problems with Issaac: his rail thin frame, his consistency, and the offensive side of his game. If he doesn't add weight he's going to get pushed around. Likewise he doesn't really project to be a number one guy on a team, he will likely slide into a support role in a starting line up on a good team and we arguably have enough of those on this team. His floor should be pretty safe as a defensive player, but the other areas of his game concern me enough to make me pass on him. Malik Monk strikes me as a Lou Williams like player. The fact that he's undersized doesn't concern me. The kid can shoot and as long as that translates into his game in the NBA, then he can have success much like CJ McCollum has developed into a borderline all star in Portland. I like the fact that he is a pretty versatile player that could become a 20 night guy in the right system. However, he doesn't make much of a contribution on the defensive end, there were occasions in college when he was shutdown on the offensive end, and tends to be streaky. I see Monk becoming a pretty solid player in the NBA, but the issue I am having is that I see more of Lou Williams or Eric Gordon in his game than the game that will translate to him becoming the next elite shooting guard. So that brings me to Dennis Smith. Yes drafting this kid will mean moving on from Payton but that is not necessarily a bad thing. What Smith brings to the table is elite athleticism, he score off the dribble, and he's a capable play maker. I know some people question his shooting, but he did knock down a third of his three point attempts and his shooting form is pretty solid, so that side of his game should continue to get better. As a player he has a ton of upside because he can be a really dangerous player on the offensive end. Do I see him becoming the next John Wall? Probably not, but I think he can become a similar player to Kemba Walker or Eric Bledsoe. They have proven that they can be 20 a night guys and put up half a dozen or so assists. If Smith's offensive game translates to the NBA and continues to improve, and he can continue to get better as a play maker, then obviously his upside gets nearer to John Wall. But I would say that Dennis Smith does offer a pretty high floor whilst also having a pretty high ceiling. Who would I draft? It's tough, but I would go for Dennis Smith. Don't get me wrong I like Payton but I don't see him developing into a scoring point guard, and I don't see him becoming a Rondo like point guard either with elite passing and defense. I think we have probably seen what we are going to get from Payton and if we have aspirations of returning to title contention then I don't see him being a starting point guard on such a team. With Dennis Smith I think we would have a scoring point guard, and he should be able to put up assist numbers not to dissimilar to Payton, and that can get better if he becomes better as a play maker. Like I said, he offers a good floor and a high ceiling and would slot nicely into our starting line up and potentially give us that scoring punch we lack.

The issue with adopting a hard cap is that it would either result in players needing to accept less money in order to keep teams intact [i.e. if Curry, Thompson, Durant and Green want to play on the same team then they would have to take less than they would be worth on the open market to make it happen], or teams could lose a key player (or players) to another team that can pay them what they are worth. So if players take less money to keep teams to keep their team intact, then you will still get situations where players like Chandler Parsons get paid more than Curry, Thompson, Durant and Green because those four players have taken less money in order to pay on the same team. The big thing to consider here is the money these players can earn off the court when compared to someone like Andy Dalton. It is unlikely that Andy Dalton would be able to earn the same cash off the field as Kevin Durant or Steph Curry, so it stands to reason that someone like Andy Dalton would want to renegotiate his contract to get paid what he is worth while he is still playing at a high enough level to warrant it, whereas Durant or Curry could get paid less than they are worth by their NBA but make up for that with the money they earn off the court from their other sponsors and endorsements. The flip side if players do leave to get paid what they are worth, then that is either a good or bad thing depending on your team's situation. For a team like the Warriors that drafted Curry, Thompson, Green and Barnes - we already saw them have to sacrifice Barnes in order to sign Durant, but under a hard cap they probably wouldn't be able to pay their existing or previous quartet what they are worth. In fact if Curry, Thompson and Green were all getting paid what they are worth, then they wouldn't have been able to extend Barnes or sign Durant in free agency. So for a team that drafts well or gets lucky in the draft like the Warriors (Curry, Thompson, Green, Barnes etc) or OKC (Westbrook, Durant, Ibaka, Harden etc), a hard cap situation could almost be a punishment unless they can stagger their cap hits in order to stay under the cap while paying all their top talent what they are worth and maintaining a well balanced roster. But at the same time a hard cap could prevent super teams, and also when those players leave they can help other teams get better. So I guess a scenario where more players might hit free agency and move around might be a benefit to the league, but it might not be for those teams that actually draft well and hit on a number of star talent.

It would be a good choice for them, but it could lead to Saric heading to the bench if Simmons goes in at PF, which would be a shame after his rookie year. I suppose Simmons could always start at PG, or heck use Jackson at SG, but for me the pick that makes most sense for them would be Smith or Monk. Offensively minded guard that doesn't need to be the primary ball handler, but I suppose Jackson is arguably the BPA at 3.

The Kings also need a small forward. They could think that drafting Jackson or Tatum makes the most sense, then hope that someone like Ntilikina is available at ten with their second pick, or better yet if Smith falls to them they'll be jumping for joy (unlikely but stranger things have happened). They might even decide to bring back Collison or Lawson to give them a veteran in young lineup. So I wouldn't bet on them passing on Jackson or Tatum because both could fit what they want from a small forward. I guess drafting a guard at five might make sense for them, but that would restrict their options at ten since they already have a number of bigs which makes guys like Collins questionable fits for them. So I think they might take a risk on a forward and hope a guard is available at ten, or perhaps even try moving up by combining that second first round pick and something else to get above Dallas and New York. I'm not sure what they could offer the Timberwolves, but if they can do a deal they could get their forward and point guard.

Currently NBAdraft.net has us taking: #6 Isaac SF/PF #25 DJ Wilson PF (Ivan Rabb off the board at 22) #33 Frank Jackson PG/SG #35 Tony Bradley C (Caleb Swanigan off the board at 31) Draftexpress: #6 Monk SG (Isaac goes 7) #25 Terrance Ferguson SG (Rabb goes 28) #33 Jordan Bell PF (Jackson goes 38) #35 Thomas Bryant C (Swanigan goes 40) If the draft falls the way that draftexpress thinks it will, then all four players that xtremenole wants would be available for us. However, if it falls the way NBAdraft.net thinks it will, then we would only get two of the players xtremenole suggests. So it is possible we could come out of the draft with the haul that xtremenole suggests, or something not to dissimilar.

To be fair the last two finals were fairly entertaining and I suspect this year's final between the Cavs and Warriors will also be entertaining. Would it be ideal to see the same teams play the final six years straight? Probably not, but at the same time if they remain elite teams and play really entertaining and competitive finals - like the last two - then I have no major issue other than the fact that the Magic aren't in the finals! The problem for the NBA is not necessarily that the Cavs and Warriors will make a third straight final because that should be entertaining and competitive. I feel the biggest problem for the NBA this year is that the play offs haven't been that interesting or competitive. Aside from the Cavs and Warriors blowing most teams away, the closest series were the Clippers/Jazz and Celtics/Wizards, but I wouldn't class either series as a great series. For the most part the play offs haven't really interested me, and that's not usually the case because I watch a lot of play off basketball even when the Magic aren't in them, but this year I have not watched as much because there's just been no real intrigue to it and in most series teams just rotate one sided wins rather than play every or most games close.

So how would you stop Dallas from turning to their young players? It was pretty evident by the trade deadline that the Mavericks were not going to be a play off team. So at that point they have two choices: one, stick with players like Deron Williams and Andrew Bogut, continue to struggle at both ends of the court, and essentially go nowhere; or two, turn to younger players like Yogi Ferrell (PG) and Nerlens Noel ©, players that might be part of the next era in Mavericks basketball. I'll be honest, I don't agree with losing for the sake of it, but in this instance the Mavericks made the right choice by handing the keys over to the younger players. It gave them an opportunity to see if Ferrell could be a starting point guard for them. It let them see if Barnes can really be that go to scorer and leader. It also gave them the chance to see whether Noel can be that elite defensive center they have craved for so many years. They got to see whether Curry was worth that contract they gave him. Basically they as a team got more out of that season by turning to the younger players than they would have done had they stuck with the ageing regressing veterans. Same goes for a team like Sacramento when they traded Cousins. They turned the keys over to Skal Labissiere, Willie Cauley-Stein, Buddy Heild, and Papagiannis. Giving those younger players more minutes ended up with them playing some positive basketball and showing that they have some talented young players to build around. Now they could have stuck it out with Cousins and won 30-odd games, used their veteran fillers and finished out the season that way. But would that have been a positive for them? Not really. By moving on from Cousins, the Kings have possibly taken the first steps towards building a brighter and more positive team, rather than the downbeat team they had become with Cousins on board. So sometimes when teams turn to the young players it is actually a positive thing, even if the end result of that is more defeats and a better chance of winning the draft lottery. I think the best way to fix the draft system and get rid of tanking is to give every non-play off team one ball in the hat. Working under that system all fourteen teams would have the same chance of winning the first overall pick. That would mean that the Miami Heat and Boston Celtics (via Brooklyn Nets) would have the same chance of picking first overall, just like we would. Under this system it means no one team can guarantee where they will pick, thus the reward for having the worst record no longer counts, and I think that could lead to teams trying to adopt the 2016-17 Miami Heat model and actually trying to win games and make the play offs. Now I guess this system could meet opposition because the worst teams could end up consistently picking outside the top ten and never getting the difference making players. So perhaps adopting the NFL system of fixed picks and go by record is the best way forwards for the NBA, since at least then the worst teams would get the best players and the chance to get better. But if a lottery system remains, I would honestly prefer to see every single team given the same chance of winning via one ball, one name in the hat. Would that stop people speculating that it is rigged? Nope, but it could stop tanking, or at least reduce it because teams would no longer be able to predict their draft pick and might as well try to win.

Jackson or Tatum could start at SF over Ross. Monk is talented and could start at SG, which could see Fournier slide back over to SF.

It wasn't a great night for us. Lakers retain their draft pick (and move up!) and that costs us a future first round pick from them, and then to top it off we fall one spot. All in all, not a great night but I suppose it could have been worse! With that said, the sixth pick should still get us a good player. I think it's likely we'll see Fultz and Ball go first and second, in whatever order. After that it can get a bit murky... 76ers have a front court of Simmons, Saric and Embiid. Could they decide to go for a guard like Smith or Monk? Both could add offense to their team, while not requiring to be the primary ball handler. It's possible they could pass on Jackson and Tatum for that reason, unless of course they want to move Saric to the bench and play Simmons at PF with Jackson/Tatum at SF; or even go with Simmons at PG, with Jackson/Tatum at SF, Saric at PF, and Embiid at C. I'm not sure which is most likely, it's the 76ers after all. Suns could go for a new starting point guard in Fox if they give up on Bledsoe and/or Knight. It would make sense to pair Fox and Booker together. Though if they stick with their existing guards they'll go for Jackson/Tatum. Now if Smith/Monk and Fox have gone third and fourth, that leaves the Kings and us with Jackson and Tatum. It would be a nice scenario to occur since we'll get a potential solution for our small forward position. However, if the 76ers and Suns grab the forwards, the Kings grab Fox, then I'd say go for Smith or Monk. If Fox is available, grab Fox. It's going to be tough to project who goes where at this point, though I'd be happy with any of the players I've mentioned. I just hope we avoid Isaac and Markkanen. They are decent talents, but not good fits.

I do like Monk as a prospect, and I am not against adding new players at the expense of existing players if we are getting an upgrade, but is adding a shooting guard in the draft the best option when we have Fournier on the roster and under contract? I suppose Monk can handle sixth man duties while Fournier starts at SG, but I am not sure I would want to see Fournier slide back to SF. I think his skill set is better suited to the guard position if I'm being honest. Also, if the plan is for us to trade Ibaka and move Gordon back to PF, then we could use the draft to address the hole at small forward with Josh Jackson, Jayson Tatum or Jonathan Isaac if one of them (or all of them) are available when we are on the clock. That said, I can see the appeal of adding someone with Monk's shooting ability, and at this point in the rebuild we arguably just need to pick the BPA regardless of position to add quality and depth to the roster.

Payton, Gordon and Biyombo have potential defensively as a trio, but boy would the offense take a hit, none of them are particularly good shooters or capable of spacing the court consistently. I suppose Fournier can help with scoring and spacing, but we'd need to hope the wing could score and be a knock down shooter as well, otherwise we'll need to improve significantly on the defensive end if we do trade away two of our more capable shooting and scoring outlets in Ibaka and Vuc. I'm not surprised the Ibaka and Vuc trade rumours have emerged. Be interesting to see if we do pull off a trade or two, and if we do, what we'll get in return for them.

Agreed, this could very well be the draft where we end up getting that potential star. I would have no issue with keeping Hennigan as our GM if there is a belief that he has done a good job with evaluating the young talent and will pick the right player in this year's draft. I do believe he has been unlucky in regards to the draft and it is unlikely he could have done any better with his selections. However, there have been some questionable moves he has made in his time here (e.g. trading Tobias, signing Biyombo etc). As fans we might be willing to accept he has been unlucky and give him another year, but ownership might see things differently because this team has yet to truly develop an identity and competitive/winning culture. That is as much on Hennigan as it is the coaches he's hired. Look at Miami, you can still see that competitive culture in their roster this year even though they are fielding guys Willie Reed, Rodney McGruder, James Johnson, Wayne Ellington, Luke Babbitt, and Okaro White. Those guys have all bounced around the league, yet they have bought into what the Heat do on the court and have all played a role to some extent in their seven game winning run. Likewise, Dion Waiters looks a revived player in their team and has bought into what the Heat do. As a team they are not necessarily more talented than we are, but what they have is an identity and competitive/winning culture. Things have clicked for them and they look like a team that could make a run for the play offs if they continue as they are, but even if they end up in the 30 win region, then they will have a strong foundation to build on and continue to build around. So while I agree that we need to be careful about replacing our GM, what we also need to be careful about is continuing to persist with people that have not helped build an identity and competitive/winning culture. This team can be painful to watch and at times there appears to be little fight. There also appears to be no real direction. This doesn't look to be a team trending upwards, it appears to be trending downwards, and the blame for that falls on Hennigan's shoulders. There is no doubt he has been unlucky compared to other GMs, but if a team like Miami can get talent that have bounced around the league playing like first round draft picks, and can get guys like Waiters playing like borderline all stars, then something has gone wrong with our rebuild. For me, Hennigan is on shaky ground. I wouldn't be against him having another year, but at the same time, I am also hesitant because I don't want to see this team continue to remain stuck in a losing culture playing the brand of basketball is has in recent weeks and months.

Steph Curry coming out of college was an excellent shooter. Even in his early days in Golden State he was still putting up decent numbers as a shoot first point guard, where he has improved is his play making ability, but overall he did make a greater impact in his early days than our youngsters have done. Klay Thompson was another good shooter coming out of college. Granted he has gone from a rotational role to a starting role but he did that pretty quickly. Likewise, he started to find his feet as a shooter pretty quickly as well. DeMar DeRozan broke out in his second year and showed that he could become a scorer. Granted as time has gone on he's become a better and more consistent scorer and shooter, but the signs of a potential all star or borderline all star were apparent in his second year. Paul George broke out in his third year, but there were flashes that he could become a go to player for Indiana in his second year. IT has certainly improved significant in Boston, but he was putting up 20 ppg and 6 apg in his third year in the league in Sacramento. The problem is the Kings didn't believe he was a starting point guard or a player that could become part of their future. Of those players the best example is C.J. McCollum, but in his second year in the league he broke out in the play offs. After that he's not looked back and become a key part of that team. ~~~ As for us, the problem we have is that our young players haven't really shown they are on the brink of breaking out... Gordon is in his third year and has yet to really show which forward position he is suited to. I still have doubts that he is ever going to develop as a scorer in this league, and for me, I think he's going to be a defensively minded forward like a MKG is for the Hornets. If he can become that guy for us, then we have one of the forward spots filled. But to date he has not really showed that he is on the brink of a breakout that's going to put him into the tier that the guys above are in. Likewise, Payton has yet to really breakout. He has become a fairly average point guard. He's not a scoring option, and he's not close to becoming an elite play maker. It is still early for him and perhaps he will breakout, but I think an argument can be made that Payton's development has plateaued. Hezonja is the most interesting of our prospects because he could breakout if given a greater role, but if he is struggling to crack the rotation, that might be a sign that he is not going to get that opportunity here or that the coaching staff simply don't see him as deserving of a greater role. Don't get me wrong, you are right that players develop at different speeds. Problem for us is that our youngsters are not developing into the potential franchise calibre players we hoped for when we drafted them. They still have upside, but potentially they might not be the answer to this team's next great team.

Agreed, though he has been a bit unlucky in regards to the draft classes he's had to pick from... - 2013: he got Oladipo with the second overall pick. Hindsight says that CJ McCollum (#10) or Giannis Antetokounmpo (#15) would have been better draft picks, but neither were talked about or considered at the time for the second overall pick. - 2014: we ended up with the fourth overall pick and the three potential stars were all off the board, leaving our GM with the choice of some raw upside players. Gordon was probably the best of a bad bunch, and while he's shown flashes, I am not convinced he is ever going to develop into a scorer or a good shooter. To be honest there wasn't really a legitimate alternative with the fourth overall pick. Could we have done something different with our other pick? Perhaps, I did like Zach LaVine as a prospect but we went with Saric and traded him for Payton. Fine, but Payton is another distinctly average prospect because he's not likely to become a scoring point guard and he isn't really making moves towards becoming a Rondo like point guard either - 2015: again not a great class to end up with the fifth overall pick. The best four players were all off the board leaving our GM choosing from a fairly lacklustre group of players. - 2016: I know you don't like the trade that resulted in us getting Ibaka, but last year's options at #11 were pretty poor. So while I don't want to sound like I am making excuses for Hennigan, what I do think is that we haven't been lucky when it comes to the draft in this rebuild. We have either ended up with the next draft pick after the best prospects were already select (i.e. 2014 and 2015), or we have been left picking from a fairly lacklustre group of players to begin with when we did end up with the second best pick (i.e. 2013). It is hard to build a contender when the draft is not kind. Hennigan hasn't had a star player fall to him to date in the draft. He's had a lot of raw, upside players that just haven't developed towards their respective projected ceilings. Will guys like Payton and Gordon become all stars? I'm not convinced. Will they become key parts of this team's future? Again, I'm not convinced. They have talent and are likeable, but both are flawed players that will require star talent by their side to make up for those flaws. What should we do about Hennigan? Personally I think if we fail to make the play offs this season, which is likely, then I think he is gone. Now that might not be the fairest of decisions, but ultimately he's onto his third permanent head coach and we haven't made significant progress. As it stands we are trending down and teams like the Heat and 76ers are trending up. If Hennigan doesn't make moves before the trade deadline, this team will likely end up as the second worst in the east again. It could end up being the second worst in the east again if he doesn't make any moves. But essentially if this team doesn't improve asap, it is difficult to make a case for him to get another year. For me, Hennigan should go if we fail to improve this season and be replaced with someone else. Will that mean another rebuild? Maybe, maybe not. But the one thing that I do think is that a fresh set of eyes could be beneficial for this team if they can sort this flawed roster out.

According to this article some might not have the sponsor on them, but others will have the sponsor on them. It will depend on the team. I think the 76ers have already confirmed their jerseys sold at their store will have them on. As a compromise, jerseys sold to fans will not include the corporate logo, although teams will have the option of selling a version that includes the logo. http://www.espn.co.uk/nba/story/_/id/15210151/nba-jerseys-carry-advertisements-beginning-2017-18

Not a fan of the idea of putting ads on the jerseys, but I guess it's a move they were going to make eventually. It won't be long before other major league sports do the same. All the reason to get the jerseys before they happen!

Bledsoe has had injury issues which are a concern, but he's also a good scorer and play maker. Whereas Knight has always been a chucker with limited play making ability. Of the two, I'd take the risk on Bledsoe staying healthy because he's the better PG. Unless we have a secondary ball handler to alleviate some of the pressure (eg Charotte having Kemba and Batum).

Eric Bledsoe is under contract for $14m, $14.5m, and $15m over the next three seasons. He plays PG. Brandon Knight is under contract for $12.6m, $13.6m, $14.6m, $15.6m over the next four seasons. He plays PG/SG. In last year's draft they have found a potential future all star SG in Devin Booker, or at least a borderline all star SG if he continues to develop and get better. Before drafting him they did try a Bledsoe and Knight backcourt, though with Booker being a find and their starting SG, they ideally need to trade one of their highly paid PGs because apparently neither are happy to come off the bench. Would Payton and Vuc make sense? I'm not sure. Payton gives them a young PG to use behind Brandon Knight. Vucevic could give them a solid starting center who can score, though they do have Chandler and Len under contract, so unless they trade one of their existing centers it might be a bit of overkill. However, Len does have one year left on his rookie contract and Chandler is an ageing regressing center, so they could feasibly trade one of them for picks or players in a different position if they like Vucevic. But a Vucevic and Payton combination would give them two talented young players, one that would likely accept a back up PG role, and one that could do a solid job under a bargain contract for the next few years at C leaving them options with signing Len long term and moving Chandler. I would rather us go for Bledsoe of the two.

True, but we also have to account for Vucevic (unless he's traded), Biyombo (teams don't tend to spend this amount of cash on limited minutes), and Ibaka (if he's re-signed). If that trio is of bigs are still on our roster for the entire season, then the amount of time that Fournier, Hezonja and Gordon play on the court at the same time would be fairly limited(?). Likewise if that trio of bigs are still on our roster for the entire season, then I suspect 32+ minutes for Fournier, Hezonja, and Gordon may be unrealistic(?). I suspect for that trio to play a lot of time together, we will need to trade Vucevic and rotate Biyombo and Ibaka around the center position.