Denver - Chicago - SAS

[Godaddycurse]

Denver trade: MPJ, Saric, Tyson
Denver receive: Smith, Barnes, Williams

SAS trade: Johnson, Barnes
SAS receive: MPJ, Tyson

Chicago trade: Williams, Smith
Chicago receive: Johnson, Saric

Why for Denver: Turns MPJ into 3 rotation players. buy low on williams and see if he can bounce back next to Jokic
Why for SAS: upgrade size and shooting in SL
Why for Chicago: get out of williams' last few years

add 2nds as needed

[One_and_Done]

Switch out Barnes for Wesley & Branham, then it's fairer.

[Texas Chuck]

Switch out Barnes for Wesley & Branham, then it's fairer.

Denver is going to have no interest in downgrading to Keldon with nothing else in it for them. I know you claim to not be a Spurs fan, but in every deal you only worry about what is ideal for them with just no thoughts at all for if the other team would consider your counter. You can't possibly believe Denver would think that version is interesting.

Both teams need to like a deal not just one team.

[louc1970]

Spurs should ask for Holmes if they are taking on MPJ.

[Godaddycurse]

Spurs should ask for Holmes if they are taking on MPJ.

why? they are not sending out positive value either

[psman2]

Switch out Barnes for Wesley & Branham, then it's fairer.

Denver is going to have no interest in downgrading to Keldon with nothing else in it for them. I know you claim to not be a Spurs fan, but in every deal you only worry about what is ideal for them with just no thoughts at all for if the other team would consider your counter. You can't possibly believe Denver would think that version is interesting.

Both teams need to like a deal not just one team.

I think Barnes is a non impactful player and would rather have the cash savings for Denver here so his exclusion makes the deal better for Denver imo.

But I rather just stick with MPJ here regardless.

[One_and_Done]

Switch out Barnes for Wesley & Branham, then it's fairer.

Denver is going to have no interest in downgrading to Keldon with nothing else in it for them. I know you claim to not be a Spurs fan, but in every deal you only worry about what is ideal for them with just no thoughts at all for if the other team would consider your counter. You can't possibly believe Denver would think that version is interesting.

Both teams need to like a deal not just one team.

Oh I wouldn't do this as Denver. My assumption is this move is motivated by ownerships desire to save money.

[Texas Chuck]

Switch out Barnes for Wesley & Branham, then it's fairer.

Denver is going to have no interest in downgrading to Keldon with nothing else in it for them. I know you claim to not be a Spurs fan, but in every deal you only worry about what is ideal for them with just no thoughts at all for if the other team would consider your counter. You can't possibly believe Denver would think that version is interesting.

Both teams need to like a deal not just one team.

I think Barnes is a non impactful player and would rather have the cash savings for Denver here so his exclusion makes the deal better for Denver imo.

But I rather just stick with MPJ here regardless.

I don't. Jokic asked them for the first time for help. I wouldn't want to have said help be downgrading a starter for a bit of money savings. Barnes can play half the game at a level that doesn't hurt you. Denver needs that because Keldon can play half the game and it probably does hurt you.

[One_and_Done]

Denver is going to have no interest in downgrading to Keldon with nothing else in it for them. I know you claim to not be a Spurs fan, but in every deal you only worry about what is ideal for them with just no thoughts at all for if the other team would consider your counter. You can't possibly believe Denver would think that version is interesting.

Both teams need to like a deal not just one team.

I think Barnes is a non impactful player and would rather have the cash savings for Denver here so his exclusion makes the deal better for Denver imo.

But I rather just stick with MPJ here regardless.

I don't. Jokic asked them for the first time for help. I wouldn't want to have said help be downgrading a starter for a bit of money savings. Barnes can play half the game at a level that doesn't hurt you. Denver needs that because Keldon can play half the game and it probably does hurt you.

Then why are they moving.MPJ at all?

[Texas Chuck]

I think Barnes is a non impactful player and would rather have the cash savings for Denver here so his exclusion makes the deal better for Denver imo.

But I rather just stick with MPJ here regardless.

I don't. Jokic asked them for the first time for help. I wouldn't want to have said help be downgrading a starter for a bit of money savings. Barnes can play half the game at a level that doesn't hurt you. Denver needs that because Keldon can play half the game and it probably does hurt you.

Then why are they moving.MPJ at all?

Well in the 3 versions of this godaddy has posted, you can make the argument they are better on the court for having made the deal. But when all they get is Keldon Johnson and non-rotation guys, you can't say that.

[One_and_Done]

I don't. Jokic asked them for the first time for help. I wouldn't want to have said help be downgrading a starter for a bit of money savings. Barnes can play half the game at a level that doesn't hurt you. Denver needs that because Keldon can play half the game and it probably does hurt you.

Then why are they moving.MPJ at all?

Well in the 3 versions of this godaddy has posted, you can make the argument they are better on the court for having made the deal. But when all they get is Keldon Johnson and non-rotation guys, you can't say that.

So if you believe that the trade makes Denver better on the court, why would the Spurs do it? You just talked about making sure the deal works for both sides; why should the Spurs take on more money to get worse? At least my version makes sense if we assume Denver are being cheap yet again.

[Texas Chuck]

It's almost like teams can have different needs which is why trades happen at any point. Each team feels like they benefit. You made a counter you then admitted Denver would never consider. That seems pointless. If you don't think the Spurs would do any of godaddy's, okay that's cool. But he's at least trying to make a deal that works for both.

[Chinook]

Barnes was pretty good last year, and I don't think folks should assume he wouldn't continuing being pretty good next year. I think Denver really needs to recover assets for a year or two. I'm sorry that Jokic wants help, but his team doesn't have any options, and they can't keep chasing diminishing returns trying to pull rabbits out of their hats. At best, they'd have to pull a Miami and trade with OKC to unprotect their picks to free up some of their later years. Then they could pull a Phoenix and trade for some low-value but guaranteed firsts so they can free up their off years for deals. But to be honest, the fastest way to retool around Jokic is to completely tear down the roster around him in exchange for picks and future salary relief so they can play free agency and make trades. Otherwise, it's just going to be hoping this core gets it done somehow. I'd be very interested in seeing someone mock out such a process.

For the Spurs, this isn't so much about improving the roster this year (because there are better ways to do that). It's about having that $40-Million expiring to offer teams in 2026 to find that third star. They do this trade and first hope that someone wants to give up an unprotected first for 14. If not, then take the best forward there, sign a center with the MLE and hope that Porter has a healthy and productive year to become good ballast

[One_and_Done]

It's almost like teams can have different needs which is why trades happen at any point. Each team feels like they benefit. You made a counter you then admitted Denver would never consider. That seems pointless. If you don't think the Spurs would do any of godaddy's, okay that's cool. But he's at least trying to make a deal that works for both.

I wouldn't do it because I'm only interested in Denver winning games, their owners seem to have other priorities. That is a perfectly good motivation. What is the Spurs motivation to the deal?

[Texas Chuck]

It's right there in the OP. Again, you can disagree, but he gave you what he believed to be their motivation.

[One_and_Done]

It's right there in the OP. Again, you can disagree, but he gave you what he believed to be their motivation.

But you just admitted you don't believe it would help the Spurs; so why are you not saying that? It feels like you should be telling the OP why it won't work for SA.

[Texas Chuck]

It's right there in the OP. Again, you can disagree, but he gave you what he believed to be their motivation.

But you just admitted you don't believe it would help the Spurs; so why are you not saying that? It feels like you should be telling the OP why it won't work for SA.

I already did tell him that, but I also know in Spurs threads there will be plenty of posts telling him that.

My concern was with you posting a counter offer you admitted Denver would never consider. It's one thing to have an idea that maybe isn't quite right. It's another to intentionally post something you know only works for one team. That's pointless.

[One_and_Done]

It's right there in the OP. Again, you can disagree, but he gave you what he believed to be their motivation.

But you just admitted you don't believe it would help the Spurs; so why are you not saying that? It feels like you should be telling the OP why it won't work for SA.

I already did tell him that, but I also know in Spurs threads there will be plenty of posts telling him that.

My concern was with you posting a counter offer you admitted Denver would never consider. It's one thing to have an idea that maybe isn't quite right. It's another to intentionally post something you know only works for one team. That's pointless.

But Denver would consider it, if you assume they're being cheap again. There is a real motivation we can point to that is plausible. I just wouldn't do it, because I'm not cheap. There's no motivation on the Spurs end for the OP deal.

I also don't see you shooting down the OP in this thread, though maybe you did in another.

[Texas Chuck]

There is motivation for the Spurs. You just disagree with it. But disagreeing with you is not the same as not existing.

And Jokic publicly demanded help for the first time. It seems super unlikely the Nuggets will go cheap instead of trying to upgrade. Yet you are convinced your reasoning of cheap is justification for an offer you agree is terrible for them.

Yet a sound reason like the OP provides you dismiss because you are only ever interested in deals where the Spurs get a deal the other teams would never consider because of how bad the value is.

You can't see this blind spot though because your only concern is the Spurs despite this repeated claim that you aren't a fan of them. That you think is fooling anyone? Also pointless.

[One_and_Done]

There is motivation for the Spurs. You just disagree with it. But disagreeing with you is not the same as not existing.

And Jokic publicly demanded help for the first time. It seems super unlikely the Nuggets will go cheap instead of trying to upgrade. Yet you are convinced your reasoning of cheap is justification for an offer you agree is terrible for them.

Yet a sound reason like the OP provides you dismiss because you are only ever interested in deals where the Spurs get a deal the other teams would never consider because of how bad the value is.

You can't see this blind spot though because your only concern is the Spurs despite this repeated claim that you aren't a fan of them. That you think is fooling anyone? Also pointless.

What is the Spurs motivation? You told us Denver would get better on the court with Barnes & Keldon, so why would they do the deal?