2024-25 NBA Season Discussion

[eminence]

Eminence trade grades.

Lakers - A, spectacular work, in the range of neutral for this season, but you've set yourself up very nicely going forward. With a much younger/more marketable/slightly better star.

Mavs - F, AD is a good player, and the pieces aren't of no value. But he's not Luka and you've at best kept your chances the next few seasons neutral while having no real future in ~3 years and tanking your teams marketing value. All-time stupid move with no real chance at winning in your own fans eyes unless you go out and win a title with AD as the star (does anyone really think they do it?).

Jazz - B, Nice, grab a couple seconds Danny.

Luka - A, got to move to the biggest NBA market and managed to at least make it look like he wasn't involved in the move (doesn't seem to have been). Free money and might do more for him in becoming the face of the league than going to the Finals last season.

Davis - D, Name's getting dragged currently, but the fit is alright if he comes out playing like the #1 guy he can be. Unfortunately I expect he'll always be the guy they traded Luka for in Dallas.

LeBron - B, Opportunity here. Let's be honest, the Lakers as they were weren't doing anything going forward. Here he can either discretely ask out and get in a few last PO runs elsewhere or pass the torch to Luka in LA.

[sp6r=underrated]

How this will impact the business of Mavericks basketball?

The media and fans incorrectly evaluate trades in a zero-sum manner. Trade isn't zero sum even in the world of sports. Usually teams have differing agendas and the trade helps both teams accomplish their agenda As an example, the famous Lions-Rams trade was positive sum for both teams. The Rams were in win-now mode and needed a better QB. The Lions couldn't build a good team and wanted capital along with a respectable QB. The trade helped both teams.

But here how the lakers probably matters for the business of Mavericks basketball as much as how the Mavericks do given that the teams don't seem to have differing agenda/timelines.

If high-end customer sentiment mirrors online sentiment they are going to be getting a lot of angry calls from corporate/individual season ticket holders.Teams care a lot about what individual and corporate season ticket holders think. If the Mavericks bomb right out of the gate, you could lose a lot of ticket sales. And if the Lakers play picks up you may have risked your fanbase for years over this trade. And frankly, I'm amazed they do this.

If they had traded him for 2 good random 22 year olds not pegged for stardom it would make more sense to me. I'd assume Dallas management was unusually high on one of those players and convinced ownership.

Here you're buying a known good. Davis is old, somewhat injury-prone and had a bad attitude in New Orleans. He is also a big and bigs are the least marketable players. I'd probably consider keeping Luka and treating him as a rental over this trade package.

But companies make stupid decisions all the time. And I think that is what this is. Ownership ordered the basketball people to trade him by date X and they did it. I doubt the GM really believes his talking points.

Aside, conspiracy theorists combine low social trust with being overly credulousness for select sources. It is why they are so often marks for grifters.

I guess that goes into why ownership wanted to trade Luka or why they wanted him gone so quickly? Luka's medicals and health being substantially worse than is publicly known is more plausible although not super likely

"someone made a bad decision based on piss-poor logic" is a very underrated explanation. Management made some really strange calculations on Luka, the urgency of a trade and force their subordinates to move that forward. And I think that is all this is.

[Special_Puppy]

Eminence trade grades.

Lakers - A, spectacular work, in the range of neutral for this season, but you've set yourself up very nicely going forward. With a much younger/more marketable/slightly better star.

Mavs - F, AD is a good player, and the pieces aren't of no value. But he's not Luka and you've at best kept your chances the next few seasons neutral while having no real future in ~3 years and tanking your teams marketing value. All-time stupid move with no real chance at winning in your own fans eyes unless you go out and win a title with AD as the star (does anyone really think they do it?).

Jazz - B, Nice, grab a couple seconds Danny.

Luka - A, got to move to the biggest NBA market and managed to at least make it look like he wasn't involved in the move (doesn't seem to have been). Free money and might do more for him in becoming the face of the league than going to the Finals last season.

Davis - D, Name's getting dragged currently, but the fit is alright if he comes out playing like the #1 guy he can be. Unfortunately I expect he'll always be the guy they traded Luka for in Dallas.

LeBron - B, Opportunity here. Let's be honest, the Lakers as they were weren't doing anything going forward. Here he can either discretely ask out and get in a few last PO runs elsewhere or pass the torch to Luka in LA.

Luka was better positioned to compete for a championship in Dallas than LA

[Doctor MJ]

What conspiracy are you talking about? I legit don't understand

A conspiracy of calories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thinking too small, Trump obviously called in a favor to Adelson to absorb some news space.

Or maybe the liberal (derogatory) NBA is punishing Texas and forcing them to trade the next face of the league to LA? Wemby to GS inbound.

Who knows, the possibilities are endless.

On the serious side - Mavs just made a terrible move (has a shot at worst ever). The Kyrie/AD duo isn't going anywhere and will be rebuilding in 2-3 seasons at most.

Pelinka got given an absolute gift though not really for this season, were I him I'd at least talk with LeBron about moving teams to get some pieces to accelerate the rebuild around Luka. Can't see the squad gelling fast enough this season, and continuing to count on LeBron to be a 1B/2 guy going forward is unwise.

So what I'll say is this:

I don't think the way they went about this trade makes sense in terms of professional basketball GM behavior.
To me, it smacks of a capricious, cash-strapped owner, who has taken umbrage at a diva's behavior.

Doesn't mean that it's not about basketball beliefs, but it's not just about basketball I think.

Now, in terms of specifically choosing that AD was the player, the most likely thing here seems to me that Harrison was instructed to make the best win-now move he could find, and AD was the guy he thought of. Then, because he'd already decided on AD, he pursued that with the intent to make it happen quickly rather than milking the asset for as much as he could possibly get.

Not saying it's what I'd have done, to be clear. Were I moving on from Luka, I'd take it as a given that we'd be re-building and I'd be looking for young guys and draft picks, because I just don't see it as realistic to thinking you'd be going further than where Luka led you last year.

[eminence]

Eminence trade grades.

Lakers - A, spectacular work, in the range of neutral for this season, but you've set yourself up very nicely going forward. With a much younger/more marketable/slightly better star.

Mavs - F, AD is a good player, and the pieces aren't of no value. But he's not Luka and you've at best kept your chances the next few seasons neutral while having no real future in ~3 years and tanking your teams marketing value. All-time stupid move with no real chance at winning in your own fans eyes unless you go out and win a title with AD as the star (does anyone really think they do it?).

Jazz - B, Nice, grab a couple seconds Danny.

Luka - A, got to move to the biggest NBA market and managed to at least make it look like he wasn't involved in the move (doesn't seem to have been). Free money and might do more for him in becoming the face of the league than going to the Finals last season.

Davis - D, Name's getting dragged currently, but the fit is alright if he comes out playing like the #1 guy he can be. Unfortunately I expect he'll always be the guy they traded Luka for in Dallas.

LeBron - B, Opportunity here. Let's be honest, the Lakers as they were weren't doing anything going forward. Here he can either discretely ask out and get in a few last PO runs elsewhere or pass the torch to Luka in LA.

Luka was better positioned to compete for a championship in Dallas than LA

For next season in particular I agree. This season I don't feel either team had/has any real chances at a title. When he gets extended I imagine he'll have a better chance in LA. I'm not expecting a dynasty in LA or anything. But market value is huge, and the Lakers brand is on a completely different level than Dallas.

[Doctor MJ]

This is pretty amazing in its own right after LeBron bullying every franchise he’s ever played for (other than the Heat where his attempted bullying went nowhere).

Will be fascinating to see how it all plays out from here.

Lebron has played for 3 franchises. There's no real way for you to argue he's bullied the Lakers at this point, you've already crossed off the heat, and there certainly wasn't any bullying when he first left Cleveland. That leaves less than half his tenure with one franchise for LeBully to be a real talking point.

Russell Westbrook.

[Doctor MJ]

This was about Luka’s fitness and attitude, and these were issues we were well aware of.

"Fitness and attitude" was merely one of the post-trade rationalizations thrown out by the Mavs to try and spin this garbage trade. There are already other narratives being put out there and there will be more in the days and weeks to come. Sure, we all know Luka's fat, but that still doesn't justify trading him for way below market value without any advance warning or even shopping him around to the rest of the league first.

From a conspiratorial perspective, it also seems very convenient that Luka is being gifted the juiciest possible bulletin-board material to motivate him now that he's on the Lakers. Even if it's true that Luka isn't taking his fitness seriously enough, it's still utterly moronic to say that in public after you've traded him to a conference rival who you're going to have to play against on a regular basis for the next 20 years. Especially when it's a player as hyper-competitive as Luka is. It just adds to the shadiness around this trade that the Mavs would come out and say that anyway when they have to know how likely it is to backfire on them.

So you're best theory is one where the Lakers are secretly in control of the NBA? I think you can do better than that.

[sp6r=underrated]

Harrison was instructed to make the best win-now move he could find, and AD was the guy he thought of. Then, because he'd already decided on AD, he pursued that with the intent to make it happen quickly rather than milking the asset for as much as he could possibly get.

I think that is basically right with the caveat I think ownership gave a deadline. Luka is off the team by date X.

Like most middle age people, I miss being young but one nice thing about being middle age is the life experiences. When I was 23 I would have had a hard time believing that happened. I'm middle age now and have been in middle management for awhile.

I know from experience Doc's scenario happens in offices everyday, admittedly on a lower level, and it is the best explanation for what happened here.

[OhayoKD]

Lebron has played for 3 franchises. There's no real way for you to argue he's bullied the Lakers at this point, you've already crossed off the heat, and there certainly wasn't any bullying when he first left Cleveland. That leaves less than half his tenure with one franchise for LeBully to be a real talking point.

Russell Westbrook.

And why should we treat Lebron's capacity to bully for that outcome as uniquely different from his capacity to do so on the fronts of ty lue or dan hurley?

[sp6r=underrated]

From 2002 to 2020, 19 seasons, the New York Knicks had a 39.0% winning percentage. The 2nd worse team, Charlotte, was 40.6%. Their MOV was -3.14 while the 2nd worse, Charlotte was -2.89. Both teams tied for 7 wins in the playoffs.

If there really was a shadowy conspiracy behind the NBA, why didn't they try to make the Knicks contenders or at the very least competent.

The San Antonio Spurs who play in one of the NBA's smallest markets have landed # 1 picks, all years in which a top miss HOF prospect existed. If there really is a shadowy conspiracy behind the NBA, why do they keep handing elite players to a team with no national fan appeal.

[sp6r=underrated]

I understand why people like conspiracies but usually when bad decisions just happen due to bad decision making. Take this from one of Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War. We didn't have a plan to win. Crazy but true.

McCullough: [voice-over] "The pressure got so great Bob couldn't sleep at night," the President said later. "I loved him and I didn't want to let him go, but he was just short of cracking. Two months before, he felt he was a murderer and didn't know how to extricate himself. I never felt like a murderer. That's the difference." March 1, 1968, Clark Clifford replaced McNamara as Secretary of Defense. Half a million Americans were already in Vietnam, and Westmoreland wanted 200,000 more. Clifford confronted the Pentagon.

Clark Clifford, Presidential Adviser: I'd say, "Are we nearing the end of the war in Vietnam?" "We do not know." "Do we have enough men in Vietnam now?" "We do not know." "Is the bombing being effective?" "Well, in a limited way." I got down finally when I said, "Now, what is the plan for victory in Vietnam?" You know what? We didn't have any? It's probably the first time in the career of any of them that we'd ever fought a war in the jungles of that kind. Firepower didn't mean anything. I remember hearing a general who said, "Damn them, they wouldn't come out and fight."

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/lbj/#transcript

And when you see actual conspiracies they look nothing like what you see in the movies. Watergate was a very real conspiracy, all the chief conspirators were very accomplished men and they were terrible at it.

http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/watergate-and-conspiracy-theories.html

One of the key things this retrospective has taught me is not just the limitations of Presidents, but the limitations of conspiracies. These posts should be required reading for anyone tempted to believe in a conspiracy theory.

Which isn’t to say conspiracies don’t happen. This is, after all, an actual criminal conspiracy at the highest levels of state power. But that’s the thing... it’s not the moon landing, let alone 9/11 - all they’re scheming over is a few low-rent burglaries/buggings, and then a cover-up of those operations.

But they seem to be terrible at it. Not only do they fail to pull it off and keep their connections to it secret, but as soon as the pressure rises, they all get lawyers and start squealing on each other. They can’t remember what each other know, they probably can’t remember what they themselves knew at which point...they just seem to be really ineffective.

And these are not a bunch of chumps. It’s a President and chief of staff known for being clever, extremely driven, and politically ruthless; and a very competent inner circle.

There’s also very little of the style of imagined conspiracies here. You have moments where Nixon says things like, ‘You're to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in.’ But for the most part they do an elaborate dance around the issue at hand, rarely saying exactly what they mean - even those who don’t know they’re being taped. They pretend to know less than they do, they nudge each other towards taking more of the rap, mostly they just fret aimlessly, for months on end. And when they need to lay down the law to someone, like Mitchell for instance, they don’t seem to have the nerve to do it.

Or take something like the situation with Judge Sirica, as JB described it here. When Nixon first airs his frustrations about Sirica to Colson, and asks if he’s waiting for a Democrat to nominate him to the Supreme Court, Colson says:

No, no. He is a Republican. I know him pretty well. I have been with him at various events -- social events. Very decent guy, dedicated to you and to Eisenhower.

Now, in conspiracy land, what happens next is that they arrange for Colson to play a round of golf with him and just tell him, as a loyal soldier, what to do; or if he does balk, they promise him a SCOTUS seat, bribe him with millions, threaten or blackmail him or whatever - and problem solved. But no, in reality, they just speculate about whether he’s doing it because he’s a “hot-headed Italian” and carry on the dance of words. It seems it’s not even remotely on the radar to influence a judge. I mean, what kind of conspiracy is this!?

They also have a hard time raising the money to keep the boys quiet - again, this is a plot run by the White House and senior figures in the GOP, and they can’t get their hands on enough money to keep their conspiracy secret. In the movies and on the net, hush-money is really not a problem for these kind of people.

Now, no doubt a good deal of this is the result of what JB has been explaining about Nixon’s alienation of the rest of government, and presidential weakness in general. I dare say it’s easier to pull off a conspiracy if you’re Stalin than if you’re occupying the White House. And I guess a circle of, say, ‘shadowy’ international financiers, has less institutional barriers facing them. On the other hand, they lack many advantages of being officially in charge of the country. Like being able to offer immunity, or ask the FBI to destroy evidence.

Still, I’d tentatively suggest that on this evidence, to pull off a major conspiracy like an inside-job 9/11 is, if not actually impossible, so incredibly unlikely to succeed that no experienced or competent pol would ever try it.

--

Back to me: I think that's all exactly right.

One other point, however, worth making is that the Nixon tapes themselves are excellent evidence against ongoing major conspiracy theories, stuff such as faked moon landings or UFO cover-ups, or larger political things such as domination of the government by shadowy outside actors. Basically, we have on tape much of what Richard Nixon said from February 1971 through July 1973, and there's no indication of any of those conspiracies in what we have to date. And yet Nixon was candid enough on these tapes that he was willing to incriminate himself multiple times. His Chief of Staff, too, was candid enough to incriminate himself. And others, who (supposedly?) didn't know about the tapes, were also quite candid about their Watergate-related crimes. And yet none of them happened to mention any of those other conspiracies. Nor, for that matter, do any of the White House tapes of other presidents, for whatever that's worth.

So: maybe these far-reaching conspiracies were nevertheless unknown to the President of the United States and his top aides (depending on the conspiracy theory at issue, that might be absolutely implausible). Maybe, in all those hours, it just happened to never come up -- again, depending on the theory at issue, this might be very plausible or not plausible at all. Maybe Nixon and Haldeman knew that there were certain things that absolutely could not be exposed, but it was perfectly fine to expose their own criminal actions (seems highly improbable to me). Maybe everyone who has reviewed the tapes is in on it -- after all, there are all those things that are blacked out of transcripts for "national security" reasons -- but that's an awful large conspiracy, by now.

Not that any of this will convince anyone who truly wants to believe in conspiracies; hey, maybe I'm in on it! But, yes, the evidence of Watergate -- and, in my view, Iran-Contra, as well -- makes it hard to believe that there are really lots of massive conspiracies that the government has managed to pull off without getting caught.

http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/watergate-and-conspiracy-theories.html

I just find it fanciful the NBA could pull off the type of conspiracy people love to claim. I think it is impossible they have this capacity without it leaking. And if they did have the capacity why on Earth have they let the knicks flounder given that NYC is much larger/wealthier than LA.

[Doctor MJ]

How this will impact the business of Mavericks basketball?

The media and fans incorrectly evaluate trades in a zero-sum manner. Trade isn't zero sum even in the world of sports. Usually teams have differing agendas and the trade helps both teams accomplish their agenda As an example, the famous Lions-Rams trade was positive sum for both teams. The Rams were in win-now mode and needed a better QB. The Lions couldn't build a good team and wanted capital along with a respectable QB. The trade helped both teams.

But here how the lakers probably matters for the business of Mavericks basketball as much as how the Mavericks do given that the teams don't seem to have differing agenda/timelines.

If high-end customer sentiment mirrors online sentiment they are going to be getting a lot of angry calls from corporate/individual season ticket holders.Teams care a lot about what individual and corporate season ticket holders think. If the Mavericks bomb right out of the gate, you could lose a lot of ticket sales. And if the Lakers play picks up you may have risked your fanbase for years over this trade. And frankly, I'm amazed they do this.

If they had traded him for 2 good random 22 year olds not pegged for stardom it would make more sense to me. I'd assume Dallas management was unusually high on one of those players and convinced ownership.

Here you're buying a known good. Davis is old, somewhat injury-prone and had a bad attitude in New Orleans. He is also a big and bigs are the least marketable players. I'd probably consider keeping Luka and treating him as a rental over this trade package.

But companies make stupid decisions all the time. And I think that is what this is. Ownership ordered the basketball people to trade him by date X and they did it. I doubt the GM really believes his talking points.

Aside, conspiracy theorists combine low social trust with being overly credulousness for select sources. It is why they are so often marks for grifters.

Oh I think the Maverick franchise is in great danger of losing a lot of their fans. People will generally go with you in trading a toxic personality, but you generally want to do work in public ahead of time so the fans know what's going on. In this case Mav fans are clearly experiencing an awful whiplash.

Re: doubt GM really believes his talking points. I'd agree that there's more than meets the eye, but I think we have to really deal with the fact that they actively throwing Luka under the bus. They've made it explicitly personal in public, and I think that that feeling isn't simply some smoke screen without any truth to it.

[Doctor MJ]

Lebron has played for 3 franchises. There's no real way for you to argue he's bullied the Lakers at this point, you've already crossed off the heat, and there certainly wasn't any bullying when he first left Cleveland. That leaves less than half his tenure with one franchise for LeBully to be a real talking point.

Russell Westbrook.

And why should we treat Lebron's capacity to bully for that outcome as uniquely different from his capacity to do so on the fronts of ty lue or dan hurley?

I think the clear thing here is that LeBron has regularly pushed his franchises to make win now moves as a matter of course for forever. He doesn't always get what he wants, but the mere fact that the Lakers said "Yes" to LeBron's plan with Westbrook but "No" to some other things doesn't mean he wasn't pushing for Westbrook. They deserve blame too, but that doesn't let LeBron off the hook.

[sp6r=underrated]

Oh I think the Maverick franchise is in great danger of losing a lot of their fans. People will generally go with you in trading a toxic personality, but you generally want to do work in public ahead of time so the fans know what's going on. In this case Mav fans are clearly experiencing an awful whiplash.

A good datapoint here is Kyrie. The Nets/Cavs made sure their fans understood what was going on before he exited. A similar thing happened with San Antonio and Kawhi. Lakers with Shaq or Davis with New Orleans. As you said notice is almost always given and teams go out of their way to bury players with their fans.

By contrast the Mavs, coming off a Finals appearance and with no notice, gave him away for a deal that looks terrible on paper.

As said, they are really risking a lot of fans here.

Re: doubt GM really believes his talking points. I'd agree that there's more than meets the eye, but I think we have to really deal with the fact that they actively throwing Luka under the bus. They've made it explicitly personal in public, and I think that that feeling isn't simply some smoke screen without any truth to it.

There is a possible synthesis. Management forced the GM to make a trade which they can't admit. But given that they are forced to make this trade, they decided to air pre-existing grievances they had with Luka, even if that isn't why they made the trade.

[Dr Positivity]

I'd take Davis in 2019 at around the same age over 2025 Doncic and I expect Davis to rank higher on my ATL list at the end of their careers. I think 29 year old Davis with sweetener for Luka would've been a fair trade but Dallas got a version a bit too old for me for a player never expected to age amazingly.

[Lou Fan]

I'd take Davis in 2019 at around the same age over 2025 Doncic and I expect Davis to rank higher on my ATL list at the end of their careers. I think 29 year old Davis with sweetener for Luka would've been a fair trade but Dallas got a version a bit too old for me for a player never expected to age amazingly.

Anthony Davis has always gotten a shocking lack of credit/flowers for someone who could conceivably have a top 25 case when it's all said and done. I guess the combination of being defensively oriented, playing in NOLA, and playing with LeBron makes it not all that shocking but still. I think the wider basketball world would think you were absolutely crazy for taking Davis over Doncic if they were the same age but I agree and I would too.

[tsherkin]

Anthony Davis has always gotten a shocking lack of credit/flowers for someone who could conceivably have a top 25 case when it's all said and done. I guess the combination of being defensively oriented, playing in NOLA, and playing with LeBron makes it not all that shocking but still. I think the wider basketball world would think you were absolutely crazy for taking Davis over Doncic if they were the same age but I agree and I would too.

He's very good. He has, however, played 70+ games only 3 times, and less than 60 just as many times. That puts a damper on how much enthusiasm people can have for you, the same as it is with Kawhi, Embiid and others.

He's been a top-5 guy in the DPOY vote several times, he's a very good scoring threat who can get it done without tons and tons of on-ball time and that all together makes him quite valuable. When he's there.

The impact of his absence on the LA defense should be pretty quickly apparent as it stretches out over the remainder of the season, though. Especially with Luka inbound.

[OhayoKD]

Russell Westbrook.

And why should we treat Lebron's capacity to bully for that outcome as uniquely different from his capacity to do so on the fronts of ty lue or dan hurley?

I think the clear thing here is that LeBron has regularly pushed his franchises to make win now moves as a matter of course for forever.

And this constitutes bullying?

He doesn't always get what he wants, but the mere fact that the Lakers said "Yes" to LeBron's plan with Westbrook but "No" to some other things doesn't mean he wasn't pushing for Westbrook

You need to first establish Westbrook was Lebron's plan, then you need to establish he pushed and exerted power to force this plan to fruition to a degree that constitutes bullying, preferably establishing a bar for bullying you are comfortable applying evenly. "Russell Westbrook" doesn't really do any of these things.

They deserve blame too, but that doesn't let LeBron off the hook.

Assuming for the sake of this exercise you have established Lebron pushed for the Westbrook trade, sure. But this reasoning would also suggest Lebron has not only played for, but helped build multiple championship rosters and several contenders and deserves credit for those beyond his own play. That part mostly isn't accounted for in this sort of discourse, lest we accept the possibility individual autonomy can be a good thing.

[eminence]

Barring a mini dynasty from Dallas over the next 3-4 seasons, no chance AD pushes for top 25. Guy has been a B level superstar even when healthy and engaged, and has serious issues in both of those areas.

[bballcool34]

This was about Luka’s fitness and attitude, and these were issues we were well aware of.

"Fitness and attitude" was merely one of the post-trade rationalizations thrown out by the Mavs to try and spin this garbage trade. There are already other narratives being put out there and there will be more in the days and weeks to come. Sure, we all know Luka's fat, but that still doesn't justify trading him for way below market value without any advance warning or even shopping him around to the rest of the league first.

From a conspiratorial perspective, it also seems very convenient that Luka is being gifted the juiciest possible bulletin-board material to motivate him now that he's on the Lakers. Even if it's true that Luka isn't taking his fitness seriously enough, it's still utterly moronic to say that in public after you've traded him to a conference rival who you're going to have to play against on a regular basis for the next 20 years. Especially when it's a player as hyper-competitive as Luka is. It just adds to the shadiness around this trade that the Mavs would come out and say that anyway when they have to know how likely it is to backfire on them.

This is pretty amazing in its own right after LeBron bullying every franchise he’s ever played for (other than the Heat where his attempted bullying went nowhere).

How has LeBron "bullied" the Lakers? They've consistently ignored his opinions on everything, even to the team's detriment (such as letting Caruso walk). The only bone they've thrown him over the years was drafting Bronny, but handing out roster spots to your franchise player's relatives is nothing new. See: Giannis' brother, Lillard's cousin... the Knicks even did it for JR freaking Smith.

Claiming “fitness” makes no sense when trading for Day to Davis - a player who is much older and just as injury prone as Luka.

A fat Luka on a super max - even if you think that is where this is headed - is still a tradeable asset.

He just took them to the Finals for god sake.

In other words - trading Luka is clearly unwise for basketball reasons (not really a debate). Trading him to save money or for future health concerns makes sense for financial / risk reasons. Trading him for THIS package is unconscionable.

That is why people are claiming conspiracy. I am not a conspiracy theorist - but the explanations thus far just don’t add up.