2024-25 Season Discussion and Speculation Part III

[Ghost of Kleine]

Read on Twitter

For those desperately looking to get off of Nurkics' money and shortsightedly looking to needlessly attach/ give away a 1st in the deal,
This apparently bears repeating.

Why willingly screw ourselves further by attaching a 1st to dump Nurkic who will just become an expiring contract this summer and then be more easily movable as an asset? It's really another very poor and shortsighted way of doing business when Nurkic isn't really playing anyways or affecting anything regardless!

If so many are desperate to just get him off this team, then why not just swap Nurkic and his 19 million expiring ( this summer) for Huerters' 16 million expiring contract. WITHOUT HAVING TO SURRENDER A 1ST!!!

Huerter has been really bad for sure and underperformed significantly. But he'd be a different piece that wouldn't cost us anything more than swapping players. And Sacramento would very likely do it not only for positional depth, but to have a 19 million expiring filler to send out in a Fox trade or wherever really?


Heck, maybe you can send Huerters' slightly smaller expiring to Toronto for Olynyk/ filler while actually keeping Allen?? Or to Portland in a swap for Thybulle/ filler ( Reath)?? These are at least acceptable returns if giving up a first in a trade that moves Nurkic!!! Or if having to take back salary, at least a trade that'd make some sense like sending him to Philly for Caleb Martins' money, Oubre/ ( two way player/ filler) the other Nance 6'11 floor spacing big Pete Nance??

But we absolutely shouldn't be looking to attach a 1st in any deal with the end goal just being getting off of his contract. It'd alternatively just be much better to hold him and send him home ( just as we did with Crowder) and then flip him this summer as an asset for some cash strapped 1st or 2nd apron team.

[dremill24]

Read on Twitter

For those desperately looking to get off of Nurkics' money and shortsightedly looking to needlessly attach/ give away a 1st in the deal,
This apparently bears repeating.

Why willingly screw ourselves further by attaching a 1st to dump Nurkic who will just become an expiring contract this summer and then be more easily movable as an asset? It's really another very poor and shortsighted way of doing business when Nurkic isn't really playing anyways or affecting anything regardless!

If so many are desperate to just get him off this team, then why not just swap Nurkic and his 19 million expiring ( this summer) for Huerters' 16 million expiring contract. WITHOUT HAVING TO SURRENDER A 1ST!!!

Huerter has been really bad for sure and underperformed significantly. But he'd be a different piece that wouldn't cost us anything more than swapping players. And Sacramento would very likely do it not only for positional depth, but to have a 19 million expiring filler to send out in a Fox trade or wherever really? Heck, maybe you can send Hueeters' slightly smaller expiring to Atlanta in a deer deal elsewhere? Perhaps to Portland for Thybulle and filler or back to Atalanta for Nance / filler (attached first)?

But we absolutely shouldn't be looking to attach a 1st in any deal with the end goal just being getting off of his contract.

I'm not in the front office obviously but I don't really think that's the goal to be honest. I'd say what they're looking for is to use Nurkic's salary as the mechanism to acquire a player they think can help them. Adding a late 1st is just the way to make sure that player coming back isn't just dead salary.

If you trade Nurk + 1st for just like an expiring contract who can't play, then yeah that probably isn't good business. But if you move Nurk + 1st for someone who may not be on a great contract himself but can play in your rotation, then maybe you have something. Your market is just guys who probably wouldn't be worth a 1st if you were sending them neutral salary, but it being a late 1st vs some 2nds allows you to make up some of the difference.

Moving the picks at all obviously isn't a great look for those looking to tear it down, but they already dealt that '31 1st...so it seems pretty clear they do not currently have any plans to tear it down. These late 1sts are just burning a hole in their pocket, I'd be shocked if they didn't move at least a couple of them before next season. There's definitely something to be said about making sure you use them wisely, of course.

FWIW I posited a Huerter swap a while back in one of my written pieces (maybe that's where you saw it too), so I'm not necessarily disagreeing w/ the premise. Though obviously it's another SG who isn't shooting well so it'd ideally be only a last resort and after potentially moving Allen.

[Ghost of Kleine]

Read on Twitter

This is why I've been trying to promote a Nurkic/ 1st to Indiana for Toppin/ Wiseman/ filler. Because as I had said before, they'd likely be looking to cut salary commitment in order to address their imminent extensions and Toppin would be the logical option here with Walker dramatically outplaying his percieved value.

The Suns need to pounce on this using Nurkic' soon to be expiring as this actually makes a ton of sense for both teams. And Nurkic would also give them low key insurance at the 5 to allow them to also trade Turner for more assets and pieces!! And while picking up a first in the deal.

This is the type of trade we should be pursuing honestly. This or moving Nurkic and a 1st to Philly for Mattin/ OUBRE/Pete Nance ( two way) if not to New York in the Robinson trade I mentioned yesterday!

[BobbieL]

I know the Heat don't want Beal's contract but if they do the Butler trade before the deadline if they want to pursue Fox they can use those 3 1st's from the Suns to go after him. Beal would waive his NTC to join the Heat at least we think.

But Jimmy butler isn't worth 1 FRP let alone all three
That is a trade that kills the Suns future. I mean, the Suns might as well fold as a franchise if they trade 3 FRPs for Butler.

The Suns, if they are not blowing it up - need to just try to use at most 1 FRP to make a trade around the edges and go from there

I mean, if they lose to the Warriors tonight - it means they beat bad teams and lose to good teams. Thats not a model to win in the playoffs.

Fold the franchise because they’re trading 3 late picks while getting rid of the worst contract in the league who’s redundant with one of our best players?
Y’all are too emotional & not thinking rationally. They can trade Jimmy any time they want to. They won’t be held hostage by a narc “who holds the cards”.

For the billionth time. No one wants Beal. Beal is the only way we get Jimmy. There won’t be a team within the next week with a change of heart to take that bum and if they do he could just shut it down. It has made no sense to still getting riled up and falling for the media’s clickbait.

Yes, fold the franchise because a Jimmy Butler trade that will cost multiple draft picks will set the franchise back ten years. Jimmy Butler is not a player that will lead the Suns to a championship. Maybe the second round.

But the reason I say fold the franchise is you are giving up draft picks - so you will be left with none that you control for how many years

And you said "well you can always trade Butler" -- true but his value will still be declining. Sure they can trade him but if he is signed to an extension - who will want to pay Butler

You can say I am too emotional - thats fine
But fans that want the Butler deal to go through - I think are not looking realistically at the team not only this year but the future. The high level mark for the Suns, if butler is traded is this year. It will only get worse.

[Saberestar]

Read on Twitter

[Fo-Real]

Not that I'd ever suggest here but if Fox gets traded to the Spurs, they probably buy Chris Paul out. The Lakers are missing any semblance of a PG or backcourt leader I guess.

[Saberestar]

Via Michael Scotto

“There’s a growing sense that Hawks swingman Bogdan Bogdanovic could be traded ahead of the deadline, league sources told HoopsHype. The Phoenix Suns, Miami Heat, and other teams have expressed interest in trading for Bogdanovic, league sources told HoopsHype.”

[BobbieL]

Read on Twitter

Six days

I still think Ishbia is going to do something really stupid
might be all three FRPs plus Ryan Dunn to another team for a pick to get Butler. so 4 FRPs

[Saberestar]

The Pelicans are interested in Butler and they are open to trading Brandon Ingram (expiring) + fillers for him.

We can't compete with that offer. Ingram is much better than any other player or pick that has been offered for Butler.

Clear cut favorites to get him IMO.

[bullsaficianado]

The Pelicans are interested in Butler and they are open to trading Brandon Ingram (expiring) + fillers for him.

We can't compete with that offer. Ingram is much better than any other player or pick that has been offered for Butler.

Clear cut favorites to get him IMO.

The salaries straight up don't work.

[Slim Charless]

The Pelicans are interested in Butler and they are open to trading Brandon Ingram (expiring) + fillers for him.

We can't compete with that offer. Ingram is much better than any other player or pick that has been offered for Butler.

Clear cut favorites to get him IMO.

The salaries straight up don't work.

That's also a weird trade. Aren't the Pels tanking for Cooper? They're gonna switch up now and start trying to win......

Maybe in the summer that trade makes sense, but now it'd be strange to see the Pels make a play-in push

[Saberestar]

The Pelicans are interested in Butler and they are open to trading Brandon Ingram (expiring) + fillers for him.

We can't compete with that offer. Ingram is much better than any other player or pick that has been offered for Butler.

Clear cut favorites to get him IMO.

The salaries straight up don't work.

Brandon Ingram + filler

[BobbieL]

The Pelicans are interested in Butler and they are open to trading Brandon Ingram (expiring) + fillers for him.

We can't compete with that offer. Ingram is much better than any other player or pick that has been offered for Butler.

Clear cut favorites to get him IMO.

The salaries straight up don't work.

That's also a weird trade. Aren't the Pels tanking for Cooper? They're gonna switch up now and start trying to win......

Maybe in the summer that trade makes sense, but now it'd be strange to see the Pels make a play-in push

Or maybe they are worth being a third team in the trade. Not taking Butler but helping facilitate a trade.

[bwgood77]

Why give up a FRP? The difference as a players between Bogdanovic and Nurkic is HUGE, I seriously I doubt that they would make the trade for just a late (superlate) FRP.

Ultimately you should give up first round picks only to get players like you could get in the draft like Dunn or better who you have control of for some time. Ideally using them is the best because you can get a useful young player you control for years, at a great price. You seem to really like Dunn, but on the other hand love throwing away first round picks for of a guy like Bogs.

Now, the main reason to trade it would likely be to dump the Nurkic contract but again, sometimes like Bickley and Marotta will talk about how great Ishbia is spending, etc, and while I'm glad he is willing to spend, he doesn't seem smart about the NBA (granted, he is new and competing against savvy guys like Presti, Ainge and multiple other long time owners and GMs.

But part of the complaint about the early years of Sarver was ending up with players you had to get rid of their contracts to dump with picks, and now that is what might happen with Nurk and a first. We are already giving a savvy GM a very valuable pick for not great firsts (borderline seconds) after trading away valuable picks/swaps.rotation players for an aging injury prone star in KD.

They have gotten creative in many ways like trading swapss to Memphis for seconds and trading this unprotected 31 first for 3 late firsts, but both don't seem to be too smart. We will end up with those Memphis firsts every time. Prior to that we had either ours or a Washington/Brooklyn first (maybe not bad) but then we gave them to Memphis too for a few seconds. Seems pretty absurd.

Now we are piecemealing that unprotected 31 and part of it just to dump Nurk, which is basically a cost savings move.

I really like Dunn but I don't like and didn't like too many youngsters that we have drafted in the last 10 years. I would trade Oso right now, for example.

Regarding Bogdanovic I think it would be nice to get him while trading Nurkic. The guy was great on his role and one of the best 6th man in the league. His last season and the Olympics showed that he is very good yet but small injuries has been hitting him this current season and his numbers are down...but we know him pretty well, he is good for real.

I would give up a late FRP and Nurkic for him, n doubt about it, but I think his value is a bit higher than that. We will see.

Yeah, Bogdan was good in his role once as a 6th man. I mean he's pretty much a clone of Allen but worse (was worse last year, way worse this year).

If we could get him straight up for Nurkic it would be good.

I wouldn't waste firsts.

Yes, 2nds like Oso I don't put as much stock in. These late firsts are that valuable either in relation to the ones we gave up to get them, but the positive is that you hold the rights to the draft pick at a cheap price for 4 years and then have them as a RFA and the rights to match or extend earlier.

Much more valuable than paying a guy like Bogdan having a very down year at 32 years old making over $17 million a year and then the same for 2 more years.

I really don't understand people's rationale sometimes. Having a good late first round pick who's cheap like Dunn is infinitely more valuable to me than some 32 year old injury prone bench guy who is having an awful year. He's injured a lot too. Why do people want to go after these guys? They are on the block for a reason. That is not a good contract, especially when we also have Grayson Allen on a similar one.

[Ghost of Kleine]

And I said for Allen and a 1st, it wasn't worth it .

If you can get a deal done while dropping a negative asset in Nurk, that is very clearly a different deal from trading a positive asset in Allen.

But moving Nurkic at the expense of dumping one of our very few remaining firsts isn't even necessary! He'd have value as an expiring this summer! You're necessarily giving up assets to move a player you weren't even playing anyways, and for another overpaid player who's dramatically underperforming and is redundant at that position already! It's an egregious waste of our already very limited assets for a player that is not at all a need for us!

At least with my trade proposal, it's reducing further redundancy, reducing long-term term cost commitment, AND adding size, frontcourt floor spacing, and versatility that we currently do not have with any of Richards, Plumlee, or Ighodaro all not being able to space the floor, etc. And adding significant rebounding, defense, and transition scoring/playmaking potency too with Mogbo!
(As indicated by the links/tweets/ articles that I shared with you in our discussion. Easily a much better value cumulative return than dumping a 1st to swap a soon-to-be expiring for another shooting guard who's making big money, but also can't even shoot which his entire value is predicated upon!

You're dumping value just to add redundancy while not at all fixing or addressing our very obvious issues in the process. So regardless of your subjective assessment of value, this trade is significantly worse for a number of reasons that I mentioned above!

If surrendering a 1st, there are easily much better and more logical Nurkic trades than this that would at least address some critical needs which my proposal said from your individual value assessment still obviously does by comparison man.

Maybe you're confusing my point. I said I'm very supportive of a Nurk + 1st for Olynynk plus whatever asset. What I'm NOT good with is your previous suggestion of Grayson Allen plus a 1st for Olynyk, Mogobo, and some 2nd.

Yes, obviously you're right that it's a completely different deal both in framework and in overall context. But I believe your point, although somewhat veiled in wording would be that the Nurkic to Atlanta trade for us would make more sense in terms of acceptable value exchange than my trade proposal of Allen/1st to Toronto for Olynyk/ Mogbo on the basis of Nurkic being viewed as a negative asset while Allen is viewed as a positive. Would that be correct?

But my counter perspective on this was/is that it's completely unnecessary to trade Nurkic AND ATTACH A 1ST just for the sake of moving him when we could just as easily send him home (paid) while actually NOT GIVING UP AN ASSET (one of our very few remaining 1sts) while also taking back a large salary commitment (bogdan) at a position already deep and very expensive and then rationalizing it by saying now we can also trade our Positive asset in Allen because we added a much worse more expensive option at his position while giving up a 1st to do it! That just sounds very illogical and honestly counterproductive given our already very limited/ restrictive situation.

We're basically rationalizing paying to move a current situational non-factor that doesn't really affect anything in regards to what we're trying to do and taking on a worse player on a more expensive contract to replace the better option so that we can justify trading him when trading Alleen really has nothing to do with trading or not trading Nurkic because we could just as easily trade Alln regardless of doing anything at all with Nurkic. Essentially we're giving up an asset for a trade that's ultimately pointless and makes us worse at another position, but it's somehow acceptable because we're paying to move a bad contract versus moving a positive asset and a first for adding positional depth and versatility at a different position and a young very talented big with elite defensive, rebounding, and playmaking traits (as my links/ tweets indicated) resulting in addressing two of our positional needs.

Sure we're giving up a positive asset (Allen) and a 1st, but we're also addressing multiple critical needs while also adding significant frontcourt size (between two players), also adding A screen-sitting PICK 'N' POP capable big that because of his versatility and shooting ability BOTH from the midrange and the three-point line. Meaning he could play at the backup 4 for us complimenting any of our three bigs in Richards, Plumlee, and Ighodaro with none of those possessing that ability. that's multiple value considerations with Olynyk alone. Now you're also adding Mogbo, whom I realize you aren't familiar with at all, and that's ok! So that's clearly why you won't/ can't value him like at all here.

But again, as shown in the (tweets/ article links I've shared with you previously) from experts on the subject, it clearly indicates his untapped elite potential/ skillset traits (value) which would only further accentuate the returning value we'd be getting ON TOP OF the value we're getting back from Olynyk. My point in all this would be that when you dig deeper to analyze/properly assess the full cumulative value involved in my Toronto proposal, even at the expense of Allen AND a 1st, it's cumulatively more acceptable than the Nurkic Atlanta trade because it at least addresses ky critical issues while also adding more youth, size, athleticism, defensive versatility, playmaking, rebounding, and positional versatility WHILE NOT actually taking back a significantly worse player with a more expensive contract just to move a contract that doesn't really affect us either way. So yes, I get your point that the trade is in fact different! I'd wager it's significantly worse considering the conditions involved between both concepts.

You don't see value in my Toronto premise, but you do somehow see value in the Nurkic to Atlanta premise despite the points I've shared about Nurkic, Bogdan, and the return in my Toronto proposal. Again, that's fine! All we can agree upon here is that we disagree.

[Ghost of Kleine]

Read on Twitter

For those desperately looking to get off of Nurkics' money and shortsightedly looking to needlessly attach/ give away a 1st in the deal,
This apparently bears repeating.

Why willingly screw ourselves further by attaching a 1st to dump Nurkic who will just become an expiring contract this summer and then be more easily movable as an asset? It's really another very poor and shortsighted way of doing business when Nurkic isn't really playing anyways or affecting anything regardless!

If so many are desperate to just get him off this team, then why not just swap Nurkic and his 19 million expiring ( this summer) for Huerters' 16 million expiring contract. WITHOUT HAVING TO SURRENDER A 1ST!!!

Huerter has been really bad for sure and underperformed significantly. But he'd be a different piece that wouldn't cost us anything more than swapping players. And Sacramento would very likely do it not only for positional depth, but to have a 19 million expiring filler to send out in a Fox trade or wherever really? Heck, maybe you can send Hueeters' slightly smaller expiring to Atlanta in a deer deal elsewhere? Perhaps to Portland for Thybulle and filler or back to Atalanta for Nance/filler (attached first)?

But we absolutely shouldn't be looking to attach a 1st in any deal with the end goal just being getting off of his contract.

I'm not in the front office obviously but I don't really think that's the goal to be honest. I'd say what they're looking for is to use Nurkic's salary as the mechanism to acquire a player they think can help them. Adding a late 1st is just the way to make sure that player coming back isn't just dead salary.

If you trade Nurk + 1st for just like an expiring contract who can't play, then yeah that probably isn't good business. But if you move Nurk + 1st for someone who may not be on a great contract himself but can play in your rotation, then maybe you have something. Your market is just guys who probably wouldn't be worth a 1st if you were sending them neutral salary, but it being a late 1st vs some 2nds allows you to make up some of the difference.

Moving the picks at all obviously isn't a great look for those looking to tear it down, but they already dealt that '31 1st...so it seems pretty clear they do not currently have any plans to tear it down. These late 1sts are just burning a hole in their pocket, I'd be shocked if they didn't move at least a couple of them before next season. There's definitely something to be said about making sure you use them wisely, of course.

FWIW I posited a Huerter swap a while back in one of my written pieces (maybe that's where you saw it too), so I'm not necessarily disagreeing w/ the premise. Though obviously, it's another SG who isn't shooting well so it'd ideally be only a last resort and after potentially moving Allen.

Great points! I don't really disagree with anything you've said! Although I might add that if they can't find what they're looking for in a "high-level rotation piece back by adding the 1st to Nurkics' salary in trade, then they'd just been much better served to just send him home paid (just like Crowder) and then look to offload him this summer rather than surrendering an asset in a bad/poor move just for the sake of making a move while dumping Nurkic.

[BobbieL]

Ultimately you should give up first round picks only to get players like you could get in the draft like Dunn or better who you have control of for some time. Ideally using them is the best because you can get a useful young player you control for years, at a great price. You seem to really like Dunn, but on the other hand love throwing away first round picks for of a guy like Bogs.

Now, the main reason to trade it would likely be to dump the Nurkic contract but again, sometimes like Bickley and Marotta will talk about how great Ishbia is spending, etc, and while I'm glad he is willing to spend, he doesn't seem smart about the NBA (granted, he is new and competing against savvy guys like Presti, Ainge and multiple other long time owners and GMs.

But part of the complaint about the early years of Sarver was ending up with players you had to get rid of their contracts to dump with picks, and now that is what might happen with Nurk and a first. We are already giving a savvy GM a very valuable pick for not great firsts (borderline seconds) after trading away valuable picks/swaps.rotation players for an aging injury prone star in KD.

They have gotten creative in many ways like trading swapss to Memphis for seconds and trading this unprotected 31 first for 3 late firsts, but both don't seem to be too smart. We will end up with those Memphis firsts every time. Prior to that we had either ours or a Washington/Brooklyn first (maybe not bad) but then we gave them to Memphis too for a few seconds. Seems pretty absurd.

Now we are piecemealing that unprotected 31 and part of it just to dump Nurk, which is basically a cost savings move.

I really like Dunn but I don't like and didn't like too many youngsters that we have drafted in the last 10 years. I would trade Oso right now, for example.

Regarding Bogdanovic I think it would be nice to get him while trading Nurkic. The guy was great on his role and one of the best 6th man in the league. His last season and the Olympics showed that he is very good yet but small injuries has been hitting him this current season and his numbers are down...but we know him pretty well, he is good for real.

I would give up a late FRP and Nurkic for him, n doubt about it, but I think his value is a bit higher than that. We will see.

Yeah, Bogdan was good in his role once as a 6th man. I mean he's pretty much a clone of Allen but worse (was worse last year, way worse this year).

If we could get him straight up for Nurkic it would be good.

I wouldn't waste firsts.

Yes, 2nds like Oso I don't put as much stock in. These late firsts are that valuable either in relation to the ones we gave up to get them, but the positive is that you hold the rights to the draft pick at a cheap price for 4 years and then have them as a RFA and the rights to match or extend earlier.

Much more valuable than paying a guy like Bogdan having a very down year at 32 years old making over $17 million a year and then the same for 2 more years.

I really don't understand people's rationale sometimes. Having a good late first round pick who's cheap like Dunn is infinitely more valuable to me than some 32 year old injury prone bench guy who is having an awful year. He's injured a lot too. Why do people want to go after these guys? They are on the block for a reason. That is not a good contract, especially when we also have Grayson Allen on a similar one.

My theory - its just fun to make trades. The fans can hear Gambo talk about trades or Flex tweet and it comes across that the team is trying to win games.

"Look at Ishbia, he doesn't care about draft picks or cash, he just wants to win games!!!"

Activity over Accomplishment.

[TeamTragic]

Why would the Pelicans trade away Ingram for Butler to sit on the bench this season and leave in the offseason?

This is getting more stupid by the second.

[Sunsdeuce]

The best part of the season so far is reading everyone’s posts about trades.

The worst part of the season is actually turning on the TV to witness this lifeless team lead by a star and two wannabe stars (one them is entitled and the other is a model player who never complains but is subject to all the trade rumors).

Not sure what to do when the trade deadline hits and there will be nothing to talk about except how we can rebuild in the offseason.

[Qwigglez]

Read on Twitter

And this is what I thought initially too. No way the Pels want Butler, all of a sudden and out of nowhere. It makes no sense.