Page 1 of 1
Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 4:39 pm
by Texas Chuck
Spurs trade: Keldon Johnson*/#14
Spurs get: PJ Washington/#21
Jazz trade: Sexton/#21
Jazz get: Keldon Williams/Powell/#14
Mavs trade: Washington/Powell
Mavs get: Sexton
Now in my mind Washington has a touch more value than Sexton, and feel like the Spurs owe value to Dallas but unsure and since I root for Dallas I'd prefer to err not on the homer side....
Spurs upgrade their forward rotation and move off the last year of Keldon* while moving back 7 spots in the middle of the draft.
Jazz take on a bit of salary to move up in the draft to get a better prospect
Mavs get their stopgap PG/6th man. I'd try to see if he would extend as part of this.
* If Spurs think he is good value, replace him with Barnes which would only make Utah more happy, but I think this version is better for SA
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 4:47 pm
by Godaddycurse
this seems rough for mavs and too good for spurs. would split 21 into lesser picks (26 + 27 from BRK maybe) and split it up
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:00 pm
by Djh7475
Spurs shouldn’t get a pick back in this deal. PJ in my opinion is worth a lower level 1st rounder (not quite 14 though), but KJ’s contract as a guy I don’t really consider a surefire rotation caliber player for a contender would take some value to unload in my opinion.
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:03 pm
by Bornstellar
Assuming no KD deal happens, I would definitely do OP's deal. PJ would be a great fit for SA at PF
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:04 pm
by wemby
The original deal is a yes from the Spurs I believe. But with PJ being an expiring, any scenario where the Spurs lose the pick or get a really bad one (as some propose) is a non starter, because Spurs can get a promising prospect on a cost controlled contract for 4 years, or trade it for (IMO) at least an unprotected pick in the future (given the pick and the class). I might be willing to throw in a 2nd rounder if necessary.
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:11 pm
by Chinook
The Spurs can match with two of Wesley, Branham or Champagnie, which they might want to do anyway to save their bigger contracts for a later trade (say the MPJ deal someone mentioned previously). I'd argue Dallas would find those guys useful, and Utah would find them much less onerous if the Jazz were still in the deal.
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:13 pm
by djFan71
Pretty solid overall. Feels a tiny bit too good for the Jazz. I'd have them send a 2nd to DAL.
I'm surprised people think it's too good for SAS. I think it's good, but not too good. They don't necessarily need to get off KJ salary, so while helpful, it's not compelling. And PJ is expiring. So seems fair, not like SAS is getting too much.
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:16 pm
by daoneandonly
Yea dreadful for Dallas. SA gives up the worst player in the deal and gets the best for a 7 spot move. Sexton is not a winning basketball player and a putrid fit with Kyrie
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:17 pm
by wemby
Chinook wrote:The Spurs can match with two of Wesley, Branham or Champagnie, which they might want to do anyway to save their bigger contracts for a later trade (say the MPJ deal someone mentioned previously). I'd argue Dallas would find those guys useful, and Utah would find them much less onerous if the Jazz were still in the deal.
Wesley and Branham yes, good call, but Champagnie is a definite no. No interest if Champagnie is going out.
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:22 pm
by SkyHook
Looks like this would have to be done prior to 30 June, and ideally before the draft; it doesn't work with next year's figures without Dallas adding another small contract. I'd do the version with Barnes for Utah.
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:23 pm
by wemby
daoneandonly wrote:Yea dreadful for Dallas. SA gives up the worst player in the deal and gets the best for a 7 spot move. Sexton is not a winning basketball player and a putrid fit with Kyrie
7 spot move is not nothing, but yes I also think maybe something else could be tweaked. Maybe Wesley + Branham (22 year olds entering their last rookie deal year) could make for a better salary match, as Chinook suggested, it'd be less money, for less years, and the Jazz might even prefer the flyer on two young guys who have shown some flashes, where for the Spurs it's time to pivot, we can't keep alloting significant playing time for development purposes.
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:24 pm
by jayjaysee
Chinook wrote:The Spurs can match with two of Wesley, Branham or Champagnie, which they might want to do anyway to save their bigger contracts for a later trade (say the MPJ deal someone mentioned previously). I'd argue Dallas would find those guys useful, and Utah would find them much less onerous if the Jazz were still in the deal.
Yeah, once Utah doesn’t have to pay Keldon - they probably chip in the value Dallas is owed in OP imo.
And/or agree to let Dallas get their choice of the Spurs guards and take on Hardy’s deal. Opens a bit more breathing space for Dallas and one of those two has to be better than Hardy.
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:26 pm
by jayjaysee
I like OP. But think it’s closer with Dallas sending their distant seconds to SAS and getting 21.
SAS is getting PJ for 14, which some probably feel is an overpay due to PJ being an expiring.. but then they also get to dump Keldon which shouldn’t be free imo.
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:29 pm
by Texas Chuck
some smart tweaks here. Appreciate everyone working to fix my value issues. And giving feedback on salary San Antonio might prefer to use.
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 7:17 pm
by hugepatsfan
I feel like Utah can move PJ separately for better than a 21 to 14 swap and taking back negative salary. I don't think SA is the right team here.
Re: Spurs/Jazz/Mavs
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2025 7:21 pm
by SkyHook
hugepatsfan wrote:I feel like Utah can move PJ separately for better than a 21 to 14 swap and taking back negative salary. I don't think SA is the right team here.
Yes, this works too.