Moderators: pacers33granger, Grang33r, pacerfan, Jake0890, boomershadow
SUPERBALLMAN wrote:Wizards fan here....
There have been rumblings of the Pacers having interest in Kuzma.
Do you think a trade of Walker + 36 for Kuzma is feasible?
SUPERBALLMAN wrote:Do you think a trade of Walker + 36 for Kuzma is feasible?
SUPERBALLMAN wrote:Wizards fan here....
There have been rumblings of the Pacers having interest in Kuzma.
Do you think a trade of Walker + 36 for Kuzma is feasible?
Scoot McGroot wrote:SUPERBALLMAN wrote:Wizards fan here....
There have been rumblings of the Pacers having interest in Kuzma.
Do you have links? Because there haven’t been any rumblings at all. There was some reporters ( fire Indy acquired Siakam) supposing Indy would make sense for Kuzma because we needed a PF at the time, but they all (guys like Zach Lowe and Marc Stein) pointed out that Kuzma himself was a terrible fit in Indy because he’s decent offense and bad defense, while Indy needed good defense more than anything.Do you think a trade of Walker + 36 for Kuzma is feasible?
To be polite, absolutely not. We’d still value Walker as worth a top lotto pick, and Kuzma is NOWHERE near that value. Kuzma is cheap for Washington, but he has a 15% trade kicker and salary bonuses that are more likely on a winning team, so he gets awful expensive awful quick if he’s traded to a team that’s winning games. And he’s still not a SF.
SUPERBALLMAN wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:SUPERBALLMAN wrote:Wizards fan here....
There have been rumblings of the Pacers having interest in Kuzma.
Do you have links? Because there haven’t been any rumblings at all. There was some reporters ( fire Indy acquired Siakam) supposing Indy would make sense for Kuzma because we needed a PF at the time, but they all (guys like Zach Lowe and Marc Stein) pointed out that Kuzma himself was a terrible fit in Indy because he’s decent offense and bad defense, while Indy needed good defense more than anything.Do you think a trade of Walker + 36 for Kuzma is feasible?
To be polite, absolutely not. We’d still value Walker as worth a top lotto pick, and Kuzma is NOWHERE near that value. Kuzma is cheap for Washington, but he has a 15% trade kicker and salary bonuses that are more likely on a winning team, so he gets awful expensive awful quick if he’s traded to a team that’s winning games. And he’s still not a SF.
Ok, thanks for the feedback...
I don't have links, its been discussed on various podcasts. Kuzma is an underrated defender, and certainly can play the 3. Kuzma really is pretty versatile. But I get you're not interested, wasn't sure how highly you all regarded Walker, he didn't play much for you. Thanks!
But agree with the other posters. Not interested in Kuzma. Like him as a player & there are a number of teams that would probably want him. But, after getting Pascal, Kuzma would be redundant, but also redundant that doesn't fit the scheme on offense or defense. SUPERBALLMAN wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:SUPERBALLMAN wrote:Wizards fan here....
There have been rumblings of the Pacers having interest in Kuzma.
Do you have links? Because there haven’t been any rumblings at all. There was some reporters ( fire Indy acquired Siakam) supposing Indy would make sense for Kuzma because we needed a PF at the time, but they all (guys like Zach Lowe and Marc Stein) pointed out that Kuzma himself was a terrible fit in Indy because he’s decent offense and bad defense, while Indy needed good defense more than anything.Do you think a trade of Walker + 36 for Kuzma is feasible?
To be polite, absolutely not. We’d still value Walker as worth a top lotto pick, and Kuzma is NOWHERE near that value. Kuzma is cheap for Washington, but he has a 15% trade kicker and salary bonuses that are more likely on a winning team, so he gets awful expensive awful quick if he’s traded to a team that’s winning games. And he’s still not a SF.
Ok, thanks for the feedback...
I don't have links, its been discussed on various podcasts. Kuzma is an underrated defender, and certainly can play the 3. Kuzma really is pretty versatile. But I get you're not interested, wasn't sure how highly you all regarded Walker, he didn't play much for you. Thanks!
Wizop wrote:I have had a scary thought. In not too many years there will be an expansion draft and we're going to lose someone.
Tom White wrote:Wizop wrote:I have had a scary thought. In not too many years there will be an expansion draft and we're going to lose someone.
The last expansion draft I remember had rules to allow teams to "protect" a certain number of players. Don't remember how many per team. Any talk of a similar rule this time?
Wizop wrote:Tom White wrote:Wizop wrote:I have had a scary thought. In not too many years there will be an expansion draft and we're going to lose someone.
The last expansion draft I remember had rules to allow teams to "protect" a certain number of players. Don't remember how many per team. Any talk of a similar rule this time?
I sort of remember it was 8 and if you lost someone you could protect another player. perhaps it was more but I bet it won't be 12 and just think where we'd be if it were happening now and you could only protect 10.
Scoot McGroot wrote:A team can protect up to 8, . . .
Scoot McGroot wrote:Wizop wrote:Tom White wrote:
The last expansion draft I remember had rules to allow teams to "protect" a certain number of players. Don't remember how many per team. Any talk of a similar rule this time?
I sort of remember it was 8 and if you lost someone you could protect another player. perhaps it was more but I bet it won't be 12 and just think where we'd be if it were happening now and you could only protect 10.
A team can protect up to 8, but must have one player protected. Pending unrestricted free agents are excluded.p and can’t be protected or selected. Pending restricted free agents are immediately declared unrestricted free agents, so the team basically just gets bird rights, but no right to match offers, and that player cannot then re sign with the team that left them unprotected. If a player is selected from a team, the remaining players exposed are ineligible to be drafted. You can also arrange a trade with an expansion team to select a player, or not select a player.
Wizop wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:A team can protect up to 8, . . .
nitpicking - that's how it worked last time. it might be different next time.
but if it is 8 again, we're going to have to expose players we don't want to lose. the protected 8 might be the 5 who started in the playoffs plus Mathurin, Walker, and Obi. losing TJ wouldn't be terrible but Sheppard and Jackson and pick 36 this year and next year's first might all be hard to lose.
Wizop wrote:I have had a scary thought. In not too many years there will be an expansion draft and we're going to lose someone.
Pacers Forever wrote:Wizop wrote:I have had a scary thought. In not too many years there will be an expansion draft and we're going to lose someone.
Hopefully by that point in time the Pacers youthful depth strategy will have matured and morphed into just 8 strong players (ie Celtics roster). The rest of the roster would be low cost vets and a few rookies making it easier to protect the core of strong players.
basketballwacko2 wrote:Does anyone think that the Pacers will make any trades or just try to run it back and maybe a small signing? There is still a need for a bigger small forward.
basketballwacko2 wrote:Does anyone think that the Pacers will make any trades or just try to run it back and maybe a small signing? There is still a need for a bigger small forward.