RealGM

This can be done two ways. It started smaller..

I like spending Lacob’s money, but you can simplify it down if you want and take out Paul, send THJ/Maxi to GSW. The salaries work to avoid aggregating..

Washington: Kuzma and Kispert
Washington: Paul, Dallas and GS 2025 firsts (both top 6 protected), 2025 Toronto 2nd, 2028 Miami 2nd, 2028 Atlanta 2nd

Washington gets two firsts and a few seconds and give the wings to Zacc/Deni/Bilal

Dallas: THJ, Maxi, 2025 first (top 6 protected), 2025 Toronto 2nd, 2028 Miami 2nd
Dallas Wiggins and Kispert

Dallas gets a bench shooter and a starting wing that hopefully bounces back.

GSW: Paul, Wiggins, 2025 first top 6 protected, 2028 Atlanta 2nd
GSW: Maxi, THJ, and Kuzma

Golden State matches without aggregating. Can keep Klay and stay over the second apron if they want.

“Dray”/TJD/Maxi
Kuzma/Dray
Kuminga/THJ
Klay/Moody
Curry/Podz

(Or however)

It's not unreasonable from the Wizards' standpoint. I'd wait until after the draft before pulling the trigger though. If the Wizards draft another wing, then Kispert certainly becomes expendable, but if they don't, then the Wizards might be a little hesitant to trade Kispert and would probably look to do a more scaled down version with just Kuzma and fewer picks.

Just not interested in Kuzma for the Warriors unless it’s an unreasonably favorable deal for us.

Despite pushing an extremely high payroll and giving up a 1st the Warriors don't really solve any issues.

GSW offseason needs (IMO obviously)

1) Credible 2nd offensive option.
2) Starting 5 with at least some 3-point range
3) Backup PG
4) Backup PF

This does fill need 4, but that's the most minor and might even be filled by a vet min guy. By adding the extra payroll it takes away the option of using MLE money on either 2 or 3. I know some might say Kuzma could be the 2nd option but I don't see that as any better than hoping for Kunminga (+ Wiggins and/or Klay bounce backs or some Podz).

In general I really doubt that GS is going to be a crazy high payroll team next season (under the 1st apron most likely, possibly out of the tax). if they do spend big it will be for more than Kuzma and fillers.

If Warriors exercise Paul's contract, that means Warriors would likely be over the 2nd apron, and Lacob definitely won't go over the 2nd apron unless the team is a serious contender. Kuzma for Wiggins barely moves a needle, they are taking a sizable two years dead weight, and they are also losing a first rounder? Don't see a good reason for Warriors.

I have this as Dallas clearly overpaying. I don't think Wiggins + Kispert is positive value. Arguably neutral, arguably negative.

DrModesty wrote:I have this as Dallas clearly overpaying. I don't think Wiggins + Kispert is positive value. Arguably neutral, arguably negative.

Very much this! Kispert sucks, Ive seen almost every Wiz game; he's the epitome of JAG, and thats when his shot happens to be falling. Wiggins is all about the money holmes, and thats fine at the end of the day, but not a guy I'd sacrifice a pick for.

daoneandonly wrote:

DrModesty wrote:I have this as Dallas clearly overpaying. I don't think Wiggins + Kispert is positive value. Arguably neutral, arguably negative.

Very much this! Kispert sucks, Ive seen almost every Wiz game; he's the epitome of JAG, and thats when his shot happens to be falling. Wiggins is all about the money holmes, and thats fine at the end of the day, but not a guy I'd sacrifice a pick for.

I'm glad you think that. I don't want to include Kispert in any trade anyhow.

Interesting. I went from the lowest on Kuzma to the high end… and I think Kispert is a JAG. But a JAG who does things Dallas needs and might look amazing with Luka/Kyrie versus Poole/Kuzma..

giberish wrote:Despite pushing an extremely high payroll and giving up a 1st the Warriors don't really solve any issues.

GSW offseason needs (IMO obviously)

1) Credible 2nd offensive option.
2) Starting 5 with at least some 3-point range
3) Backup PG
4) Backup PF

This does fill need 4, but that's the most minor and might even be filled by a vet min guy. By adding the extra payroll it takes away the option of using MLE money on either 2 or 3. I know some might say Kuzma could be the 2nd option but I don't see that as any better than hoping for Kunminga (+ Wiggins and/or Klay bounce backs or some Podz).

In general I really doubt that GS is going to be a crazy high payroll team next season (under the 1st apron most likely, possibly out of the tax). if they do spend big it will be for more than Kuzma and fillers.

Agree with all of this but especially this last bit. Ownership has openly talked about cutting payroll and getting under the apron/tax line. I don't see them signing off on giving up pure cap space (which is what CP3's nonguaranteed contract represents to us) and a pick for Kyle Kuzma.

I could see Washington being a team that rolls the dice on Wiggins. I wouldn't use Kuzma to get him as Kuz should bring back draft assets on his own. But if I'm swapping out say the Holmes/Bagley contracts and loosening the protections on the 2030 1st, or even getting back Moody, why not.

If Wiggins bounces back, he's good value on that contract. And if not, WAS picked up draft/young assets in the process.

R-DAWG wrote:I could see Washington being a team that rolls the dice on Wiggins. I wouldn't use Kuzma to get him as Kuz should bring back draft assets on his own. But if I'm swapping out say the Holmes/Bagley contracts and loosening the protections on the 2030 1st, or even getting back Moody, why not.

If Wiggins bounces back, he's good value on that contract. And if not, WAS picked up draft/young assets in the process.

I don't really see a universe where we trade Wiggins for useless players and pay for the privilege.

gswhoops wrote:

R-DAWG wrote:I could see Washington being a team that rolls the dice on Wiggins. I wouldn't use Kuzma to get him as Kuz should bring back draft assets on his own. But if I'm swapping out say the Holmes/Bagley contracts and loosening the protections on the 2030 1st, or even getting back Moody, why not.

If Wiggins bounces back, he's good value on that contract. And if not, WAS picked up draft/young assets in the process.

I don't really see a universe where we trade Wiggins for useless players and pay for the privilege.

Nor do I see a universe where the Wizards give up any assets whatsoever for 29-year-old locked into a $28M-a-year contract for the next 3 years. What on Earth would be the rationale for this? To try and win 28 games instead of 25?

nate33 wrote:

gswhoops wrote:

R-DAWG wrote:I could see Washington being a team that rolls the dice on Wiggins. I wouldn't use Kuzma to get him as Kuz should bring back draft assets on his own. But if I'm swapping out say the Holmes/Bagley contracts and loosening the protections on the 2030 1st, or even getting back Moody, why not.

If Wiggins bounces back, he's good value on that contract. And if not, WAS picked up draft/young assets in the process.

I don't really see a universe where we trade Wiggins for useless players and pay for the privilege.

Nor do I see a universe where the Wizards give up any assets whatsoever for 29-year-old locked into a $28M-a-year contract for the next 3 years. What on Earth would be the rationale for this? To try and win 28 games instead of 25?

Pretty sure he isn't suggesting the Wizards do so considering he's talking about the Warriors not attaching assets to Wiggins to send to Washington....

He's simply responding to the notion of the Warriors attaching assets to swap him for dead Wizards salary as something that makes no sense for Golden State considering the age of Steph and Draymond and if money is the primary concern let Paul and Klay go and they are well clear of the tax.

Saying a deal is bad for one team is not saying its good for the other team. It can frequently make sense for neither. Though if I was Washington and GSW was going to add value to swap Wiggins for Holmes/Bagley I would say yes very quickly personally.

Texas Chuck wrote:

nate33 wrote:

gswhoops wrote:I don't really see a universe where we trade Wiggins for useless players and pay for the privilege.

Nor do I see a universe where the Wizards give up any assets whatsoever for 29-year-old locked into a $28M-a-year contract for the next 3 years. What on Earth would be the rationale for this? To try and win 28 games instead of 25?

Pretty sure he isn't suggesting the Wizards do so considering he's talking about the Warriors not attaching assets to Wiggins to send to Washington....

He's simply responding to the notion of the Warriors attaching assets to swap him for dead Wizards salary as something that makes no sense for Golden State considering the age of Steph and Draymond and if money is the primary concern let Paul and Klay go and they are well clear of the tax.

Saying a deal is bad for one team is not saying its good for the other team. It can frequently make sense for neither. Though if I was Washington and GSW was going to add value to swap Wiggins for Holmes/Bagley I would say yes very quickly personally.

It only makes sense for Washington to take on the contract if they are getting assets to do so.

Does it make sense for Golden State to pay to get off Wiggins contract - different story.

Texas Chuck wrote:

nate33 wrote:

gswhoops wrote:I don't really see a universe where we trade Wiggins for useless players and pay for the privilege.

Nor do I see a universe where the Wizards give up any assets whatsoever for 29-year-old locked into a $28M-a-year contract for the next 3 years. What on Earth would be the rationale for this? To try and win 28 games instead of 25?

Pretty sure he isn't suggesting the Wizards do so considering he's talking about the Warriors not attaching assets to Wiggins to send to Washington....

He's simply responding to the notion of the Warriors attaching assets to swap him for dead Wizards salary as something that makes no sense for Golden State considering the age of Steph and Draymond and if money is the primary concern let Paul and Klay go and they are well clear of the tax.

Saying a deal is bad for one team is not saying its good for the other team. It can frequently make sense for neither. Though if I was Washington and GSW was going to add value to swap Wiggins for Holmes/Bagley I would say yes very quickly personally.

My bad. I misread the part about loosening protections on the GSW pick.