OKC Gets Big, PHX Gets Long w/TOR

[jredsaz]

no reason for us to pay an early 2nd and future 2nd for kenrich though. toronto should be cut out altogether as another poster said.

Then what is Giddys value here? #19? #22? I don’t have Nurk as positive value in this. I have him as neutral along with Williams. Have Giddy as slightly positive. Have Boucher and McDaniels as slightly negative.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2380337

Most ppl value him at a mid 1st or better.

I think Nurk would get MLE money at most in FA so i have him as negative as well

I mean you’re splitting hairs on Nurks value. The MLE is $13M and probably over 3-4 years. He is not much more and over less years. Talking 3% more of the cap if that’s the justification for negative value he can’t be all that negative.

So #19 isn’t far off for value on Giddy? Fair enough.

[Godaddycurse]

Then what is Giddys value here? #19? #22? I don’t have Nurk as positive value in this. I have him as neutral along with Williams. Have Giddy as slightly positive. Have Boucher and McDaniels as slightly negative.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2380337

Most ppl value him at a mid 1st or better.

I think Nurk would get MLE money at most in FA so i have him as negative as well

I mean you’re splitting hairs on Nurks value. The MLE is $13M and probably over 3-4 years. He is not much more and over less years. Talking 3% more of the cap if that’s the justification for negative value he can’t be all that negative.

So #19 isn’t far off for value on Giddy? Fair enough.

its not but Toronto is not interested in paying fair value for Giddy (bad fit for Barnes and we already have IQ at PG)

[Crives]

I don’t see the suns trading Nurk if his value is negative.

[jredsaz]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2380337

Most ppl value him at a mid 1st or better.

I think Nurk would get MLE money at most in FA so i have him as negative as well

I mean you’re splitting hairs on Nurks value. The MLE is $13M and probably over 3-4 years. He is not much more and over less years. Talking 3% more of the cap if that’s the justification for negative value he can’t be all that negative.

So #19 isn’t far off for value on Giddy? Fair enough.

its not but Toronto is not interested in paying fair value for Giddy (bad fit for Barnes and we already have IQ at PG)

That’s why I proposed the trade the way I did. Ive read how much you don’t like Giddy to Toronto

I’d argue that Giddy has improved his shooting every year in the league and having a tall guard with his skill set is probably significantly better upside than what you would get at #19 in this draft. If he and Barnes become average three point shooters, they can make a great fit.

In the end I assume OKC moves Giddy for a player that helps them now, not a pick. Think you’re in that same page.

[jredsaz]

I don’t see the suns trading Nurk if his value is negative.

Do you consider the OP negative value for Phoenix? I kinda do. Suns should add athleticism and length. This was something that worked although the players aren’t better/more impactful than Nurk.

[cjmcallist]

IMO there’s nothing PHX can realistically add to make this work for OKC.

I’d much rather keep Giddey than trade him for Nurk. I’m not opposed to Nurk, but I don’t want to pay him for two years.

That’s fair. Didn’t know where Giddys value was. As for Nurk, doesn’t OKC expect to be over the cap in 25/26? Tradeable salary is a good thing at that point.

Hopefully we'll be over the cap this year (and below the tax). But, right now is especially hard for me because we've got so much cap space and a few good options (I think) to improve the team. I feel like we can be pretty choosey...