2024-25 Season Discussion and Speculation Part IV

[mkot]

Yeah, but you''re talking about a championship contending Denver squad that started Jokic, Gordon and Porter in their frontcourt for 3 years when he was there and their backup Cs were Plumlee, Javale McGee, Hartenstein and Cousins. And they had pretty good backup PFs too with Millsap, and then Jeff Green and JayMychal Green. They also had Zeke Nnaji as a young guy that got some minutes, but when you are a championship contender, with the MVP at C, and solid backups, along with solid forwards and vet backups, he was just a victim of that his 3 years in Denver.

Then his one year in Orlando they just had a TON of Cs and forwards. Paolo, Franz, Jonathan Isaac, Goga Bitadze, Wendell Carter, Bamba, Mo Wagner, Chuma Okeke. They just had super depth a ton of guys.

But he still got over 21 mpg in 70 games and started 33.

So I don't think coaches haven't liked him. I just think Denver, being a contender, was not going to play a young raw guy like him over the stars and vets they had, and in Orlando he actually got a decent amount of minutes, especially considering all the frontcourt players they have.

I think he still has upside but just needs minutes and maybe a bit more coaching/mentoring, but his shot is smooth, he defends well, he rebounds, he handles, etc. You may not want him handling, but he can, better than a lot of really good overall bigs.

I remember his days in Denver where he has shown some flashes in blocking shots and shooting the long ball, but couldn't get consistent minutes under Malone because of his defensive lapses. He would pull Jokic out and let Plumlee close game for the same reason early in Jokic's career so it's not like this is something he does to Bol, but I don't think his competition was Gordon and MPJ. Gordon wasn't there yet, MPJ missed his entire rookie campaign due to surgery. I think it was Millsap and Jeremy Grant with JUan Hernangomez as the 4/5 off the bench. But I think your point is still valid, Denver got Gordon the next year to replace Grant so Bol was never in their plan, and Magic has a lot of young talent and they are all 6'10 guy that play defense, he will never get serious minutes there either. I honestly thought he found a home in Orlando so when he wasn't re-signed I thought it's over for him. But I do wonder what these coaches see him in practice that make them decide not to give him rotation minute.

[Ghost of Kleine]

Are we getting AD back cuz if not they have nothing.

We're getting clean books, draft capital, and optionality in terms of players we want to keep around like PJ, Gafford and Christie (who's on a great contract)

I wouldn't want AD even if it came with a 2 FRP's, the guy is still owed $175m over the next 3 seasons with the last one being a player option at almost $63m and he'll be almost 35 by that point.

I agree. I think getting a clean cap with expirings in 2026 is a big part of this. Hence, why if they can get to certain apron levels - they can maybe make trades easier.

Christie and a FRP wouldn't be bad. Maybe flip Klay to another team. I don't hate it

We have to get past looking at KD as a salary dump and accepting a lowball garbage offer just to reduce cap space. That's a losing mentality that promotes negotiating from a position of weakness and a big reason why we lose trades surrendering unnecessary value at such a high rate. Slim pointed out KD's market value and it'll be better than most here anticipate even if just off the basis of bidding amongst multiple suitors. But doing a salary dump and maybe getting one singular 1st back would be nothing short of a catastrophic failure! KD's value is 1-2 good young players (upside talents, salary fillers (vet pieces) for matching purposes, and at minimum two 1sts. Maybe not any more than that under the current conditions of agee/ contract. But absolutely not garbage contracts and a singular 1st.

regardless of KD's age and contractual situation, Hee's still a 6'11 unstoppable scoring talent still putting up near triple-double production on elite efficiency and playing at near MVP levels/ MVP level impact on games. Too many people are being illogically influenced by the effects of our roster dysfunction, bad coaching, no flexibility, and no assets has created. BUT NONE OF THAT AT ALL affects KD's value to other teams. Because those other teams are not operating under the same conditions of futility as we are!
And due to that consideration, his value is only accentuated in better situations/ environments wherein his true impact can be maximized. So I'll give a value baseline example one more time for reference.

KD for Thompson/ Washington/ Marshall/ Martin/ Lively/ 2 1sts! DAL 25' 1st AND DAL 31' 1st. That's our threshold offer. And that would still leave them with

Irving/ Christie/Durant/ Davis/ Gafford.
Dinwiddie/ Hardy/ FA / Prosper/ Powell.
Williams/ Exum/ Hardy/ draft/ FA.

[bwgood77]

Yeah, but you''re talking about a championship contending Denver squad that started Jokic, Gordon and Porter in their frontcourt for 3 years when he was there and their backup Cs were Plumlee, Javale McGee, Hartenstein and Cousins. And they had pretty good backup PFs too with Millsap, and then Jeff Green and JayMychal Green. They also had Zeke Nnaji as a young guy that got some minutes, but when you are a championship contender, with the MVP at C, and solid backups, along with solid forwards and vet backups, he was just a victim of that his 3 years in Denver.

Then his one year in Orlando they just had a TON of Cs and forwards. Paolo, Franz, Jonathan Isaac, Goga Bitadze, Wendell Carter, Bamba, Mo Wagner, Chuma Okeke. They just had super depth a ton of guys.

But he still got over 21 mpg in 70 games and started 33.

So I don't think coaches haven't liked him. I just think Denver, being a contender, was not going to play a young raw guy like him over the stars and vets they had, and in Orlando he actually got a decent amount of minutes, especially considering all the frontcourt players they have.

I think he still has upside but just needs minutes and maybe a bit more coaching/mentoring, but his shot is smooth, he defends well, he rebounds, he handles, etc. You may not want him handling, but he can, better than a lot of really good overall bigs.

I remember his days in Denver where he has shown some flashes in blocking shots and shooting the long ball, but couldn't get consistent minutes under Malone because of his defensive lapses. He would pull Jokic out and let Plumlee close game for the same reason early in Jokic's career so it's not like this is something he does to Bol, but I don't think his competition was Gordon and MPJ. Gordon wasn't there yet, MPJ missed his entire rookie campaign due to surgery. I think it was Millsap and Jeremy Grant with JUan Hernangomez as the 4/5 off the bench. But I think your point is still valid, Denver got Gordon the next year to replace Grant so Bol was never in their plan, and Magic has a lot of young talent and they are all 6'10 guy that play defense, he will never get serious minutes there either. I honestly thought he found a home in Orlando so when he wasn't re-signed I thought it's over for him. But I do wonder what these coaches see him in practice that make them decide not to give him rotation minute.

Well I mean it's hard to decide if you want to play a guy his height at C or PF I suppose. But Plumlee was a vet. They were vet heavy every year, but a contender. I wouldn't expect a mid second round pick to get meaningful inutes on a contender during his rookie contract.

His last year with Orlando, they are just loaded with high picks that play SF/PF/C. Guys that get paid a lot and a lot was expected.

Yet he still got over 21 mpg, and started 33 games, which is pretty damn good.

I don't think many mid 2nd round picks are playing over 21 mpg in their 4th year. And he should have probably been playing a similar role with us this season, as he's shown lately.

I think he's better and more talented than Saber and fishi think.

[lilfishi22]

We're getting clean books, draft capital, and optionality in terms of players we want to keep around like PJ, Gafford and Christie (who's on a great contract)

I wouldn't want AD even if it came with a 2 FRP's, the guy is still owed $175m over the next 3 seasons with the last one being a player option at almost $63m and he'll be almost 35 by that point.

I agree. I think getting a clean cap with expirings in 2026 is a big part of this. Hence, why if they can get to certain apron levels - they can maybe make trades easier.

Christie and a FRP wouldn't be bad. Maybe flip Klay to another team. I don't hate it

We have to get past looking at KD as a salary dump and accepting a lowball garbage offer just to reduce cap space. That's a losing mentality that promotes negotiating from a position of weakness and a big reason why we lose trades surrendering unnecessary value at such a high rate. Slim pointed out KDs' market value and it'll be better than most here anticipate even if just off the basis of bidding amongst multiple suitors. But doing a salary dump and maybe getting one singular 21st back would be nothing short of a huge failure! KDs' value is 1-2 good young players (upside talents, salary fillers (vet pieces) for matching purposes, and at minimum two 1sts. Maybe not any more than that under the current conditions of agee/ contract. But absolutely not garbage contracts and a singular 1st.

regardless of KD's age and contractual situation, Hee's still a 6'11 unstoppable scoring talent still putting up near triple-double production on elite efficiency and playing at near MVP levels/ MVP level impact on games. Too many people are being illogically influenced by the effects of our roster dysfunction, bad coaching, no flexibility, and no assets has created. BUT NONE OF THAT AT ALL affects KD's value to other teams. Because those other teams are not operating under the same conditions of futility as we are!
And due to that consideration, his value is only accentuated in better situations/ environments wherein his true impact can be maximized. So I'll give a value baseline example one more time for reference.

KD for Thompson/ Washington/ Marshall/ Martin/ Lively/ 2 1sts! DAL 25' 1st AND DAL 31' 1st. That's our threshold offer. And that would still leave them with

Irving/ Christie/Durant/ Davis/ Gafford.
Dinwiddie/ Hardy/ FA / Prosper/ Powell.
Williams/ Exum/ Hardy/ draft/ FA.

Weren't you suggesting a Minny trade that involved Randle coming back has he "represents a massive $30 million expiring we can just let run out for more cap flexibility". There's also absolutely nothing wrong with one of our trade goals being to clean the books on a team that is hilariously $36m over the 2nd apron while being 4 games under .500 and sitting outside of a play-in spot.

FWIW your Dallas trade isn't a massive departure from my idea. I did suggest 1-2 FRP back but didn't have Lively and instead had Christie because I didn't think they would let Lively go that easily. I also didn't have Martin because I think he's overrated and at 29 with another 2 years and a player option left in the books, it doesn't entice me.

[Ghost of Kleine]

If we're looking at reuniting KD with Kyrie, Dallas would be an interesting trade partner. I would expect Dallas is under pretty big pressure to win it all to justify to fans and bring back lost fans after the Luka trade. They also have some nice contracts.

Maybe something along the lines of

Suns trade:
KD
FRP

Mavs trade:
Klay: $34m over 2yrs
Washington: Expiring $14m. Extension eligible.
Gafford: Expiring $14m. Extension eligible.
Christie: $16m over 2yrs
1-2 FRP

The 1st round pick is honestly a bit much for Dallas getting KD. I mean obviously, we're not in any position to be doing more favors for other teams, and it's other teams wanting KD, not us trying to salary dump him. So in any trade, we should still look at it as attempting to glean value rather than surrendering value for the biggest value piece in the trade. Now IF we're looking to try and stay competitive around Booker (Ishbias' goal post KD)?? then this package is fairly decent but not great overall.

Dallas is clearly in a more desperate situation than we are with their fanbase after trading Luka for peanuts for business decisions. So any package coming back for KD should be something along the lines of:

Thompson/ Washington/ Marshall/ Lively/ Martin/ DAL 25' 1st/ DAL 31' 1st.
This value is not optimal, but absolutely the baseline for us to accept trading KD to Dallas. And we for damn sure should accept nothing less. Then you..................................................
- Trade Allen/ Richards to Orlando for Bidatze/ Harris (7.5 million expiring).
- Trade O'neale to San Antonio for two future 2nds, 1 in 26 and 1 in 28.
- Buyout Harris, Decline the options for Milicic and Martin for $23 million in cap reduction.
- Trade the DAL 25' 1st (14th pick) to Brooklyn for their 21st and 25th picks. Giving us the 21st, 25th, and 29th picks in the 1st round and the 54th pick in the 2nd round. Use the picks in this upcoming draft as follows.

21- Rasheer Fleming. PF
25- Sergio de Larrea. PG
29- Carter Bryant. SF/PF
_________________________
54- Kobe Brea. SG

Beal/ Booker/ Marshall/ Washington/ Bidazte.
Morris/ Thompson/ Dunn/ Bol Bol / Lively.
Larrea/ Brea/ Bryant/ Fleming/ Ighodaro.
Future Picks
- 26' 2nd X 2.
- CLE 27' 1st.
- 28' 2nd X 2.
- CLE 29' 1st.
- DAL 31' 1st.

As mentioned in my previous post, I made a mistake leaving in the outgoing FRP. Initially I had Lively coming back to justify a FRP going out but when I took Lively off, I forgot to remove that outgoing FRP

Understandable man as I can understand making mistakes, errors, etc. better than anyone here given the frequency that they appear in some of my rushed, hasty, posts...LOL. But I will say that I think it's a mistake to be undervaluing KD in trades considering his still elite production, impact, and efficiency. He'll absolutely have multiple suitors, which in turn will create a bidding war situation even if in limited proportions. At a minimum, we are in the driver's seat here and should under no circumstances accept a craptastic or lowball offer. At a minimum, given the Mavs situation, we have to be getting Lively, Washington/ Marshall AND 2 1sts back in the trade to the Mavs.

Anything less would again be an egregious example of mismanagement and asset valuation, and a laughable failure on our part in dealing from a position of weakness like how w did with Beal. Our front office's job is to win trades not lose the value exchange significantly. Dallas is again in a much more desperate situation than we are after the whole Luka debacle. That alone affords us serious leverage. But then you add Irvings' impending free agency, and his desire to play with KD and AD, or else he may just not resign with them and they'll be even more incentivized, and then on top of that, You'd have the premise of giving Dallas a legit "big 3" to try and win over the fanbase again, and reclaim lost interest. Now you have multiple BIG factors in play giving significant leverage.

So it's really as simple as that and we just can't afford to hemorrhage any more unnecessary value as we did with the KD and Beal trades. The KD trade being at least somewhat justifiable, but the Beal trade as I kept trying to communicate to people is the perfect example of having definitive leverage but ignoring that leverage and then bidding against ourselves surrendering unnecessary value. In this premise, we just can't do that again! We have to break the cycle of doing this so we can start getting back on track.

[Ghost of Kleine]

I agree. I think getting a clean cap with expirings in 2026 is a big part of this. Hence, why if they can get to certain apron levels - they can maybe make trades easier.

Christie and a FRP wouldn't be bad. Maybe flip Klay to another team. I don't hate it

We have to get past looking at KD as a salary dump and accepting a lowball garbage offer just to reduce cap space. That's a losing mentality that promotes negotiating from a position of weakness and a big reason why we lose trades surrendering unnecessary value at such a high rate. Slim pointed out KDs' market value and it'll be better than most here anticipate even if just off the basis of bidding amongst multiple suitors. But doing a salary dump and maybe getting one singular 21st back would be nothing short of a huge failure! KDs' value is 1-2 good young players (upside talents, salary fillers (vet pieces) for matching purposes, and at minimum two 1sts. Maybe not any more than that under the current conditions of agee/ contract. But absolutely not garbage contracts and a singular 1st.

regardless of KD's age and contractual situation, Hee's still a 6'11 unstoppable scoring talent still putting up near triple-double production on elite efficiency and playing at near MVP levels/ MVP level impact on games. Too many people are being illogically influenced by the effects of our roster dysfunction, bad coaching, no flexibility, and no assets has created. BUT NONE OF THAT AT ALL affects KD's value to other teams. Because those other teams are not operating under the same conditions of futility as we are!
And due to that consideration, his value is only accentuated in better situations/ environments wherein his true impact can be maximized. So I'll give a value baseline example one more time for reference.

KD for Thompson/ Washington/ Marshall/ Martin/ Lively/ 2 1sts! DAL 25' 1st AND DAL 31' 1st. That's our threshold offer. And that would still leave them with

Irving/ Christie/Durant/ Davis/ Gafford.
Dinwiddie/ Hardy/ FA / Prosper/ Powell.
Williams/ Exum/ Hardy/ draft/ FA.

Weren't you suggesting a Minny trade that involved Randle coming back has he "represents a massive $30 million expiring we can just let run out for more cap flexibility". There's also absolutely nothing wrong with one of our trade goals being to clean the books on a team that is hilariously $36m over the 2nd apron while being 4 games under .500 and sitting outside of a play-in spot.

FWIW your Dallas trade isn't a massive departure from my idea. I did suggest 1-2 FRP back but didn't have Lively and instead had Christie because I didn't think they would let Lively go that easily. I also didn't have Martin because I think he's overrated and at 29 with another 2 years and a player option left in the books, it doesn't entice me.

LOL! Apples and Oranges argument clearly man because you're omitting (hopefully not on purpose) the part wherein I suggest we flip the combination of Randles' 30 million expiring AND one of either Milics' or Martins' expiring and two 1sts to Denver for Porter Jr ( to help replace the loss of Kds' scoring production somewhat). I've clearly suggested this premise multiple times, and you've somehow missed it or forgotten about it, but obviously not at all a freaking salary dump premise using KD which would be a really horrible example of asset management with one of our every last big assets were have left at all.

So obviously there's a huge difference between obtaining Randles' 30 million expiring to use in a follow-up trade vs suggesting just salary dumping him for expirings to target free agency with no guarantee of landing anyone of note. That'd be compounding on egregious failure of asset management returning minimal value just for a risk that may also return nothing. Give me the "bird in hand" scenario of actually securing assets over trying to bid against other teams for players very time.

[Ghost of Kleine]

Read on Twitter

[Ghost of Kleine]

Read on Twitter

This should be a "no brainer" easy decision considering our needs positionally, and our lack of flexibility and really any other viable options.

[Slim Charless]

Read on Twitter

The wild overpay absolutely ruined us. Beal trade was fine for what we paid. Giving up both Mikal AND CamJo, plus all those picks was stupid. Plus we traded Jae for all those seconds, like 5 of them and didnt get a single one.

Lol what a disaster.

[lilfishi22]

We have to get past looking at KD as a salary dump and accepting a lowball garbage offer just to reduce cap space. That's a losing mentality that promotes negotiating from a position of weakness and a big reason why we lose trades surrendering unnecessary value at such a high rate. Slim pointed out KDs' market value and it'll be better than most here anticipate even if just off the basis of bidding amongst multiple suitors. But doing a salary dump and maybe getting one singular 21st back would be nothing short of a huge failure! KDs' value is 1-2 good young players (upside talents, salary fillers (vet pieces) for matching purposes, and at minimum two 1sts. Maybe not any more than that under the current conditions of agee/ contract. But absolutely not garbage contracts and a singular 1st.

regardless of KD's age and contractual situation, Hee's still a 6'11 unstoppable scoring talent still putting up near triple-double production on elite efficiency and playing at near MVP levels/ MVP level impact on games. Too many people are being illogically influenced by the effects of our roster dysfunction, bad coaching, no flexibility, and no assets has created. BUT NONE OF THAT AT ALL affects KD's value to other teams. Because those other teams are not operating under the same conditions of futility as we are!
And due to that consideration, his value is only accentuated in better situations/ environments wherein his true impact can be maximized. So I'll give a value baseline example one more time for reference.

KD for Thompson/ Washington/ Marshall/ Martin/ Lively/ 2 1sts! DAL 25' 1st AND DAL 31' 1st. That's our threshold offer. And that would still leave them with

Irving/ Christie/Durant/ Davis/ Gafford.
Dinwiddie/ Hardy/ FA / Prosper/ Powell.
Williams/ Exum/ Hardy/ draft/ FA.

Weren't you suggesting a Minny trade that involved Randle coming back has he "represents a massive $30 million expiring we can just let run out for more cap flexibility". There's also absolutely nothing wrong with one of our trade goals being to clean the books on a team that is hilariously $36m over the 2nd apron while being 4 games under .500 and sitting outside of a play-in spot.

FWIW your Dallas trade isn't a massive departure from my idea. I did suggest 1-2 FRP back but didn't have Lively and instead had Christie because I didn't think they would let Lively go that easily. I also didn't have Martin because I think he's overrated and at 29 with another 2 years and a player option left in the books, it doesn't entice me.

LOL! Apples and Oranges argument clearly man because you're omitting (hopefully not on purpose) the part wherein I suggest we flip the combination of Randles' 30 million expiring AND one of either Milics' or Martins' expiring and two 1sts to Denver for Porter Jr ( to help replace the loss of Kds' scoring production somewhat). I've clearly suggested this premise multiple times, and you've somehow missed it or forgotten about it, but obviously not at all a freaking salary dump premise using KD which would be a really horrible example of asset management with one of our every last big assets were have left at all.

So obviously there's a huge difference between obtaining Randles' 30 million expiring to use in a follow-up trade vs suggesting just salary dumping him for expirings to target free agency with no guarantee of landing anyone of note. That'd be compounding on egregious failure of asset management returning minimal value just for a risk that may also return nothing. Give me the "bird in hand" scenario of actually securing assets over trying to bid against other teams for players very time.

And it was the first of the two options you presented in relation to Randle's expiring deal whereas now you're saying salary dumping KD is absolutely not on.

And FWIW, I like Washington and Gafford. I don't mind extending them on reasonable contracts because I think they can bring value to the team but if we can't come to terms, I'm also ok with flipping them. That's why I said we have optionality with them

[lilfishi22]

The 1st round pick is honestly a bit much for Dallas getting KD. I mean obviously, we're not in any position to be doing more favors for other teams, and it's other teams wanting KD, not us trying to salary dump him. So in any trade, we should still look at it as attempting to glean value rather than surrendering value for the biggest value piece in the trade. Now IF we're looking to try and stay competitive around Booker (Ishbias' goal post KD)?? then this package is fairly decent but not great overall.

Dallas is clearly in a more desperate situation than we are with their fanbase after trading Luka for peanuts for business decisions. So any package coming back for KD should be something along the lines of:

Thompson/ Washington/ Marshall/ Lively/ Martin/ DAL 25' 1st/ DAL 31' 1st.
This value is not optimal, but absolutely the baseline for us to accept trading KD to Dallas. And we for damn sure should accept nothing less. Then you..................................................
- Trade Allen/ Richards to Orlando for Bidatze/ Harris (7.5 million expiring).
- Trade O'neale to San Antonio for two future 2nds, 1 in 26 and 1 in 28.
- Buyout Harris, Decline the options for Milicic and Martin for $23 million in cap reduction.
- Trade the DAL 25' 1st (14th pick) to Brooklyn for their 21st and 25th picks. Giving us the 21st, 25th, and 29th picks in the 1st round and the 54th pick in the 2nd round. Use the picks in this upcoming draft as follows.

21- Rasheer Fleming. PF
25- Sergio de Larrea. PG
29- Carter Bryant. SF/PF
_________________________
54- Kobe Brea. SG

Beal/ Booker/ Marshall/ Washington/ Bidazte.
Morris/ Thompson/ Dunn/ Bol Bol / Lively.
Larrea/ Brea/ Bryant/ Fleming/ Ighodaro.
Future Picks
- 26' 2nd X 2.
- CLE 27' 1st.
- 28' 2nd X 2.
- CLE 29' 1st.
- DAL 31' 1st.

As mentioned in my previous post, I made a mistake leaving in the outgoing FRP. Initially I had Lively coming back to justify a FRP going out but when I took Lively off, I forgot to remove that outgoing FRP

Understandable man as I can understand making mistakes, errors, etc. better than anyone here given the frequency that they appear in some of my rushed, hasty, posts...LOL. But I will say that I think it's a mistake to be undervaluing KD in trades considering his still elite production, impact, and efficiency. He'll absolutely have multiple suitors, which in turn will create a bidding war situation even if in limited proportions. At a minimum, we are in the driver's seat here and should under no circumstances accept a craptastic or lowball offer. At a minimum, given the Mavs situation, we have to be getting Lively, Washington/ Marshall AND 2 1sts back in the trade to the Mavs.

Anything less would again be an egregious example of mismanagement and asset valuation, and a laughable failure on our part in dealing from a position of weakness like how w did with Beal. Our front office's job is to win trades not lose the value exchange significantly. Dallas is again in a much more desperate situation than we are after the whole Luka debacle. That alone affords us serious leverage. But then you add Irvings' impending free agency, and his desire to play with KD and AD, or else he may just not resign with them and they'll be even more incentivized, and then on top of that, You'd have the premise of giving Dallas a legit "big 3" to try and win over the fanbase again, and reclaim lost interest. Now you have multiple BIG factors in play giving significant leverage.

So it's really as simple as that and we just can't afford to hemorrhage any more unnecessary value as we did with the KD and Beal trades. The KD trade being at least somewhat justifiable, but the Beal trade as I kept trying to communicate to people is the perfect example of having definitive leverage but ignoring that leverage and then bidding against ourselves surrendering unnecessary value. In this premise, we just can't do that again! We have to break the cycle of doing this so we can start getting back on track.

I agree, anything less I wouldn't be happy about but I'm also not expecting a ton more than that. At the end of the day, whoever is trading for KD isn't trading for someone who's going to be around for the long term and may also be even shorter term if things don't go well and he walks. You CAN hold onto him for a better offer but that may never come and then he's going to walk for nothing.

I'm all for getting as much value back for KD, given what we had to give up to get him, but in the same way you think starting low is a "loser" approach, starting too high and not coming down is also a fools position. It's about finding balance

[Ghost of Kleine]

As mentioned in my previous post, I made a mistake leaving in the outgoing FRP. Initially I had Lively coming back to justify a FRP going out but when I took Lively off, I forgot to remove that outgoing FRP

Understandable man as I can understand making mistakes, errors, etc. better than anyone here given the frequency that they appear in some of my rushed, hasty, posts...LOL. But I will say that I think it's a mistake to be undervaluing KD in trades considering his still elite production, impact, and efficiency. He'll absolutely have multiple suitors, which in turn will create a bidding war situation even if in limited proportions. At a minimum, we are in the driver's seat here and should under no circumstances accept a craptastic or lowball offer. At a minimum, given the Mavs situation, we have to be getting Lively, Washington/ Marshall AND 2 1sts back in the trade to the Mavs.

Anything less would again be an egregious example of mismanagement and asset valuation, and a laughable failure on our part in dealing from a position of weakness like how w did with Beal. Our front office's job is to win trades not lose the value exchange significantly. Dallas is again in a much more desperate situation than we are after the whole Luka debacle. That alone affords us serious leverage. But then you add Irvings' impending free agency, and his desire to play with KD and AD, or else he may just not resign with them and they'll be even more incentivized, and then on top of that, You'd have the premise of giving Dallas a legit "big 3" to try and win over the fanbase again, and reclaim lost interest. Now you have multiple BIG factors in play giving significant leverage.

So it's really as simple as that and we just can't afford to hemorrhage any more unnecessary value as we did with the KD and Beal trades. The KD trade being at least somewhat justifiable, but the Beal trade as I kept trying to communicate to people is the perfect example of having definitive leverage but ignoring that leverage and then bidding against ourselves surrendering unnecessary value. In this premise, we just can't do that again! We have to break the cycle of doing this so we can start getting back on track.

I agree, anything less I wouldn't be happy about but I'm also not expecting a ton more than that. At the end of the day, whoever is trading for KD isn't trading for someone who's going to be around for the long term and may also be even shorter term if things don't go well and he walks. You CAN hold onto him for a better offer but that may never come and then he's going to walk for nothing.

I'm all for getting as much value back for KD, given what we had to give up to get him, but in the same way you think starting low is a "loser" approach, starting too high and not coming down is also a fools position. It's about finding balance

For sure good points man. But in any negotiations, you always start high and end up settling on a mutually amenable outcome. Usually wherein neither team feels like they got everything they wanted, but that's usually where the compromise ends up.


Now of course these outcomes can he scalable depending upon the leverage each team carries into the negotiations, possibly pushing value outcomes further in a specific teams favor.

But that's also why its important to recognize and employ any leverage angles to maximize value as much as possible in negotiations from a position of strength from recognizing and utilizing those leverage points in your favor.


By the way, not relinquishing position your position to compromise really only becomes a fool's position IF you have no other available alternatives/ options to pivot to equitably. Luckily for us, even with KDs' situation, that's not the case because we'll have multiple suitors for him this summer allowing us greater leverage to squeeze value in negotiations.

And even in a worst case scenario situation wherein you hold onto him.gor an offer that doesn't come (which of course doesn't really apply here to the KD premise with multiple suitors) KD for example having a 54 million expiring, would still afford us significant cap space if we did choose to hold him rather than taking a bad or losing deal. You always want the secured value ( "bird in hand" scenario) from a trade.

But even worst case scenario of him walking, it actually might be better to accept that outcome compared to further promoting the reputation of losing trades/ value exchange that our front office already established with their bad decisions.

This becomes bad for us as that reputation encourages teams to not take our franchise seriously in trades and not bring their top offers because they'll try and fleece us due to poor reputation in negotiating practices.

[BobbieL]

Read on Twitter

The wild overpay absolutely ruined us. Beal trade was fine for what we paid. Giving up both Mikal AND CamJo, plus all those picks was stupid. Plus we traded Jae for all those seconds, like 5 of them and didnt get a single one.

Lol what a disaster.

Jae was traded for five seconds. Suns theoretically could have had Nwosu Hill and Ibska plus 5 picks to use in a Durant trade

Such a horrible trade

[Ghost of Kleine]

Weren't you suggesting a Minny trade that involved Randle coming back has he "represents a massive $30 million expiring we can just let run out for more cap flexibility". There's also absolutely nothing wrong with one of our trade goals being to clean the books on a team that is hilariously $36m over the 2nd apron while being 4 games under .500 and sitting outside of a play-in spot.

FWIW your Dallas trade isn't a massive departure from my idea. I did suggest 1-2 FRP back but didn't have Lively and instead had Christie because I didn't think they would let Lively go that easily. I also didn't have Martin because I think he's overrated and at 29 with another 2 years and a player option left in the books, it doesn't entice me.

LOL! Apples and Oranges argument clearly man because you're omitting (hopefully not on purpose) the part wherein I suggest we flip the combination of Randles' 30 million expiring AND one of either Milics' or Martins' expiring and two 1sts to Denver for Porter Jr ( to help replace the loss of Kds' scoring production somewhat). I've clearly suggested this premise multiple times, and you've somehow missed it or forgotten about it, but obviously not at all a freaking salary dump premise using KD which would be a really horrible example of asset management with one of our every last big assets were have left at all.

So obviously there's a huge difference between obtaining Randles' 30 million expiring to use in a follow-up trade vs suggesting just salary dumping him for expirings to target free agency with no guarantee of landing anyone of note. That'd be compounding on egregious failure of asset management returning minimal value just for a risk that may also return nothing. Give me the "bird in hand" scenario of actually securing assets over trying to bid against other teams for players very time.

And it was the first of the two options you presented in relation to Randle's expiring deal whereas now you're saying salary dumping KD is absolutely not on.

And FWIW, I like Washington and Gafford. I don't mind extending them on reasonable contracts because I think they can bring value to the team but if we can't come to terms, I'm also ok with flipping them. That's why I said we have optionality with them

I'm sorry man, but I'm just not remembering suggesting trading for Randle with the intention of using him to salary dump him just for cap flexibility to pursue a player in free agency. I remember mentioning buying out Milicic and Martin and you saying we wouldn't need to as we could just decline their options.

And I also remember mentioning that Randles' value to us is un his being an expiring contract that we could trade. But still don't remember ever suggesting a trade for the sole purpose of letting him expire for cap space. Maybe you can show me the specific trade that suggests that for context to a more proper response?

And I'm in agreement on Gafford or Washington having trade value that could be flipped, but I might just want to keep Gafford for his defensive abilities and would also rather just get back Lively as he has much better size, is on a better deal, and represents better value inclusion to the deal to offset taking back Martin's and Thompsons' multi year deals.

Because additionally, KDs' expiring is actually a value positive in that it aligns with 26' free agency for any recieving team giving that recieving team a huge amount of cap flexibility towards free agency. So no real implied risk due to KDs' age as there's no long term commitment involved.

[lilfishi22]

Understandable man as I can understand making mistakes, errors, etc. better than anyone here given the frequency that they appear in some of my rushed, hasty, posts...LOL. But I will say that I think it's a mistake to be undervaluing KD in trades considering his still elite production, impact, and efficiency. He'll absolutely have multiple suitors, which in turn will create a bidding war situation even if in limited proportions. At a minimum, we are in the driver's seat here and should under no circumstances accept a craptastic or lowball offer. At a minimum, given the Mavs situation, we have to be getting Lively, Washington/ Marshall AND 2 1sts back in the trade to the Mavs.

Anything less would again be an egregious example of mismanagement and asset valuation, and a laughable failure on our part in dealing from a position of weakness like how w did with Beal. Our front office's job is to win trades not lose the value exchange significantly. Dallas is again in a much more desperate situation than we are after the whole Luka debacle. That alone affords us serious leverage. But then you add Irvings' impending free agency, and his desire to play with KD and AD, or else he may just not resign with them and they'll be even more incentivized, and then on top of that, You'd have the premise of giving Dallas a legit "big 3" to try and win over the fanbase again, and reclaim lost interest. Now you have multiple BIG factors in play giving significant leverage.

So it's really as simple as that and we just can't afford to hemorrhage any more unnecessary value as we did with the KD and Beal trades. The KD trade being at least somewhat justifiable, but the Beal trade as I kept trying to communicate to people is the perfect example of having definitive leverage but ignoring that leverage and then bidding against ourselves surrendering unnecessary value. In this premise, we just can't do that again! We have to break the cycle of doing this so we can start getting back on track.

I agree, anything less I wouldn't be happy about but I'm also not expecting a ton more than that. At the end of the day, whoever is trading for KD isn't trading for someone who's going to be around for the long term and may also be even shorter term if things don't go well and he walks. You CAN hold onto him for a better offer but that may never come and then he's going to walk for nothing.

I'm all for getting as much value back for KD, given what we had to give up to get him, but in the same way you think starting low is a "loser" approach, starting too high and not coming down is also a fools position. It's about finding balance

For sure good points man. But in any negotiations, you always start high and end up settling on a mutually amenable outcome. Usually wherein neither team feels like they got everything they wanted, but that's usually where the compromise ends up.


Now of course these outcomes can he scalable depending upon the leverage each team carries into the negotiations, possibly pushing value outcomes further in a specific teams favor.

But that's also why its important to recognize and employ any leverage angles to maximize value as much as possible in negotiations from a position of strength from recognizing and utilizing those leverage points in your favor.


By the way, not relinquishing position your position to compromise really only becomes a fool's position IF you have no other available alternatives/ options to pivot to equitably. Luckily for us, even with KDs' situation, that's not the case because we'll have multiple suitors for him this summer allowing us greater leverage to squeeze value in negotiations.

And even in a worst case scenario situation wherein you hold onto him.gor an offer that doesn't come ( which of course doesn't really apply here to the KD premise with multiple suitors) KD for example having a 54 million expiring, would still afford us significant cap space if we did choose to hold him rather than taking a bad or losing deal. You always want the secured value ( "bird in hand" scenario) from a trade.

But even worst case scenario of him walking, it actually might be better to accept that outcome compared to further promoting the reputation of losing trades/ value exchange that our front office already established with their bad decisions.

This becomes bad for us as that reputation encourages teams to not take our franchise seriously in trades and not bring their top offers because they'll try and fleece us due to poor reputation in negotiating practices.

And I'm not saying the Dallas trade is the only deal on the table, I'm just saying in a KD trade, that's about the baseline of what I would expect. Maybe there are better deals and if so, sure happy to accept a better one but I also don't expect we're getting an extra 1-2 young players and multiple FRP's more than in the framework I had laid out.

Like sure we could start with 4 FRP's and 3 young players to kick off negotiations but I quite honestly don't care where we start negotiations at because it's never reasonable and both teams and their grandparents know this isn't the going to be close to the final price. I care more about what is realistic and what I had laid out is very reasonable value for KD. It might be on the lower end of what you might consider reasonable but it's reasonable. I could use an extra FRP but if I could get 2FRPs for a 36yo KD, that's a good start imo.

[BobbieL]

I agree, anything less I wouldn't be happy about but I'm also not expecting a ton more than that. At the end of the day, whoever is trading for KD isn't trading for someone who's going to be around for the long term and may also be even shorter term if things don't go well and he walks. You CAN hold onto him for a better offer but that may never come and then he's going to walk for nothing.

I'm all for getting as much value back for KD, given what we had to give up to get him, but in the same way you think starting low is a "loser" approach, starting too high and not coming down is also a fools position. It's about finding balance

For sure good points man. But in any negotiations, you always start high and end up settling on a mutually amenable outcome. Usually wherein neither team feels like they got everything they wanted, but that's usually where the compromise ends up.


Now of course these outcomes can he scalable depending upon the leverage each team carries into the negotiations, possibly pushing value outcomes further in a specific teams favor.

But that's also why its important to recognize and employ any leverage angles to maximize value as much as possible in negotiations from a position of strength from recognizing and utilizing those leverage points in your favor.


By the way, not relinquishing position your position to compromise really only becomes a fool's position IF you have no other available alternatives/ options to pivot to equitably. Luckily for us, even with KDs' situation, that's not the case because we'll have multiple suitors for him this summer allowing us greater leverage to squeeze value in negotiations.

And even in a worst case scenario situation wherein you hold onto him.gor an offer that doesn't come ( which of course doesn't really apply here to the KD premise with multiple suitors) KD for example having a 54 million expiring, would still afford us significant cap space if we did choose to hold him rather than taking a bad or losing deal. You always want the secured value ( "bird in hand" scenario) from a trade.

But even worst case scenario of him walking, it actually might be better to accept that outcome compared to further promoting the reputation of losing trades/ value exchange that our front office already established with their bad decisions.

This becomes bad for us as that reputation encourages teams to not take our franchise seriously in trades and not bring their top offers because they'll try and fleece us due to poor reputation in negotiating practices.

And I'm not saying the Dallas trade is the only deal on the table, I'm just saying in a KD trade, that's about the baseline of what I would expect. Maybe there are better deals and if so, sure happy to accept a better one but I also don't expect we're getting an extra 1-2 young players and multiple FRP's more than in the framework I had laid out.

Like sure we could start with 4 FRP's and 3 young players to kick off negotiations but I quite honestly don't care where we start negotiations at because it's never reasonable and both teams and their grandparents know this isn't the going to be close to the final price. I care more about what is realistic and what I had laid out is very reasonable value for KD. It might be on the lower end of what you might consider reasonable but it's reasonable. I could use an extra FRP but if I could get 2FRPs for a 36yo KD, that's a good start imo.

I tend to agree with you. Getting players on expirings or just better contracts is a key part of a Durant deal. The suns need to get below aprons so they can combine salaries.


Durant is easy - there will be a market

Does Ish have the cajones to move Booker. I hope Book wants out but he is probably good making 55m so he doesn’t care to leave

[lilfishi22]

LOL! Apples and Oranges argument clearly man because you're omitting (hopefully not on purpose) the part wherein I suggest we flip the combination of Randles' 30 million expiring AND one of either Milics' or Martins' expiring and two 1sts to Denver for Porter Jr ( to help replace the loss of Kds' scoring production somewhat). I've clearly suggested this premise multiple times, and you've somehow missed it or forgotten about it, but obviously not at all a freaking salary dump premise using KD which would be a really horrible example of asset management with one of our every last big assets were have left at all.

So obviously there's a huge difference between obtaining Randles' 30 million expiring to use in a follow-up trade vs suggesting just salary dumping him for expirings to target free agency with no guarantee of landing anyone of note. That'd be compounding on egregious failure of asset management returning minimal value just for a risk that may also return nothing. Give me the "bird in hand" scenario of actually securing assets over trying to bid against other teams for players very time.

And it was the first of the two options you presented in relation to Randle's expiring deal whereas now you're saying salary dumping KD is absolutely not on.

And FWIW, I like Washington and Gafford. I don't mind extending them on reasonable contracts because I think they can bring value to the team but if we can't come to terms, I'm also ok with flipping them. That's why I said we have optionality with them

I'm sorry man, but I'm just not remembering suggesting trading for Randle with the intention of using him to salary dump him just for cap flexibility to pursue a player in free agency. I remember mentioning buying out Milicic and Martin and you saying we wouldn't need to as we could just decline their options.

And I also remember mentioning that Randles' value to us is un his being an expiring contract that we could trade. But still don't remember ever suggesting a trade for the sole purpose of letting him expire for cap space. Maybe you can show me the specific trade that suggests that for context to a more proper response?

And I'm in agreement on Gafford or Washington having trade value that could be flipped, but I might just want to keep Gafford for his defensive abilities and would also rather just get back Lively as he has much better size, is on a better deal, and represents better value inclusion to the deal to offset taking back Martin's and Thompsons' multi year deals.

Because additionally, KDs' expiring is actually a value positive in that it aligns with 26' free agency for any recieving team giving that recieving team a huge amount of cap flexibility towards free agency. So no real implied risk due to KDs' age as there's no long term commitment involved.

This was your quote and to be honest, I agree with the post, I don't mind letting Randle's $30m expire of cap flexibility.

What can we do with Randle and Dillingham?
Randle represents a massive $30 million expiring we can just let run out for more cap flexibility OR we can look to trade him for another key veet player, etc. Plus we should be able to aggregate salaries once the cap increases and if any trade we do doesn't put us back over the 2nd apron. So I'd look at doing this (if trying to become more competitive now!! So we'll consider these trades this summer. Upon acquiring Randle/Reid/Dillingham jr/ DET 25' 1st (17th pick)/ MIN 32' 1st. We trade (draft night)

I prefer Lively too as I'm sure most would but I expect he'll be hard to get and probably cost a net of 1 FRP's to get him. They are pretty high on the guy, as they should be. He could very well be the dealbreaker but given they're also all in now and wanting to prove to the world that the Luka trade was the right move because they win a championship in the next 2-3 seasons, they could relent and make him available.

I agree with Gafford, I think he's a solid player and I do think we could retain him on a value contract too. He doesn't turn 27 until the start of next season, he's a great rebounder, defender, shot blocker, finisher and just a solid utility guy. Washington I'm less sure of because I feel like he could cost too much (than I'm willing to pay) to retain. I'm happy to flip PJ for draft capital.

[lilfishi22]

For sure good points man. But in any negotiations, you always start high and end up settling on a mutually amenable outcome. Usually wherein neither team feels like they got everything they wanted, but that's usually where the compromise ends up.


Now of course these outcomes can he scalable depending upon the leverage each team carries into the negotiations, possibly pushing value outcomes further in a specific teams favor.

But that's also why its important to recognize and employ any leverage angles to maximize value as much as possible in negotiations from a position of strength from recognizing and utilizing those leverage points in your favor.


By the way, not relinquishing position your position to compromise really only becomes a fool's position IF you have no other available alternatives/ options to pivot to equitably. Luckily for us, even with KDs' situation, that's not the case because we'll have multiple suitors for him this summer allowing us greater leverage to squeeze value in negotiations.

And even in a worst case scenario situation wherein you hold onto him.gor an offer that doesn't come ( which of course doesn't really apply here to the KD premise with multiple suitors) KD for example having a 54 million expiring, would still afford us significant cap space if we did choose to hold him rather than taking a bad or losing deal. You always want the secured value ( "bird in hand" scenario) from a trade.

But even worst case scenario of him walking, it actually might be better to accept that outcome compared to further promoting the reputation of losing trades/ value exchange that our front office already established with their bad decisions.

This becomes bad for us as that reputation encourages teams to not take our franchise seriously in trades and not bring their top offers because they'll try and fleece us due to poor reputation in negotiating practices.

And I'm not saying the Dallas trade is the only deal on the table, I'm just saying in a KD trade, that's about the baseline of what I would expect. Maybe there are better deals and if so, sure happy to accept a better one but I also don't expect we're getting an extra 1-2 young players and multiple FRP's more than in the framework I had laid out.

Like sure we could start with 4 FRP's and 3 young players to kick off negotiations but I quite honestly don't care where we start negotiations at because it's never reasonable and both teams and their grandparents know this isn't the going to be close to the final price. I care more about what is realistic and what I had laid out is very reasonable value for KD. It might be on the lower end of what you might consider reasonable but it's reasonable. I could use an extra FRP but if I could get 2FRPs for a 36yo KD, that's a good start imo.

I tend to agree with you. Getting players on expirings or just better contracts is a key part of a Durant deal. The suns need to get below aprons so they can combine salaries.


Durant is easy - there will be a market

Does Ish have the cajones to move Booker. I hope Book wants out but he is probably good making 55m so he doesn’t care to leave

If Book wants out then I'm happy to accommodate but if there isn't any credible reports that he wants out then I'm not gonna waste time thinking about it

[Ghost of Kleine]

Weren't you suggesting a Minny trade that involved Randle coming back has he "represents a massive $30 million expiring we can just let run out for more cap flexibility". There's also absolutely nothing wrong with one of our trade goals being to clean the books on a team that is hilariously $36m over the 2nd apron while being 4 games under .500 and sitting outside of a play-in spot.

FWIW your Dallas trade isn't a massive departure from my idea. I did suggest 1-2 FRP back but didn't have Lively and instead had Christie because I didn't think they would let Lively go that easily. I also didn't have Martin because I think he's overrated and at 29 with another 2 years and a player option left in the books, it doesn't entice me.

LOL! Apples and Oranges argument clearly man because you're omitting (hopefully not on purpose) the part wherein I suggest we flip the combination of Randles' 30 million expiring AND one of either Milics' or Martins' expiring and two 1sts to Denver for Porter Jr ( to help replace the loss of Kds' scoring production somewhat). I've clearly suggested this premise multiple times, and you've somehow missed it or forgotten about it, but obviously not at all a freaking salary dump premise using KD which would be a really horrible example of asset management with one of our every last big assets were have left at all.

So obviously there's a huge difference between obtaining Randles' 30 million expiring to use in a follow-up trade vs suggesting just salary dumping him for expirings to target free agency with no guarantee of landing anyone of note. That'd be compounding on egregious failure of asset management returning minimal value just for a risk that may also return nothing. Give me the "bird in hand" scenario of actually securing assets over trying to bid against other teams for players very time.

And it was the first of the two options you presented in relation to Randle's expiring deal whereas now you're saying salary dumping KD is absolutely not on.

And FWIW, I like Washington and Gafford. I don't mind extending them on reasonable contracts because I think they can bring value to the team but if we can't come to terms, I'm also ok with flipping them. That's why I said we have optionality with them

I still need the specific example you're referencing man for context so I can respond more accurately to your bolded statement response. But I did want to make the additional point that KDs' value in contrast to Randles' in a trade is massively different.

Even the salary disparity. But clearly, Durant event in our current situation would pull significantly more value than Randle would for a multitude of reasons. The most obvious difference would be the legitimate possibility of returning multiple assets and picks with value, etc.

Even if the premise of salary dumping a big contract was the discussion point for this premise, it'd be a horribly egregious example of asset mismanagement just by virtue of what KD could return vs what Randle could not in a trade. So two entirely different value premises.

Now with the FWIW Dallas points, I agree with you on the premise of optionality with them in trades, but I'd add the point of extracting value in scalable value assessments for negotiations that it's also a scalable value exchange in that we're taking on contracts with multiple years for supplemental pieces with no real centerpiece value in this trade.

And due to salary matching and the term of the contracts we're taking back, were not saving any money in this trade either, so logically, the value has to be made up elsewhere in the deal to offset those negative aspects in contrast to KDs in coming value to that team.


This is where negotiations go back n forth on the exchanged value to reach an equitable determination, but also an example of why in this specific trade premise, we'd be getting back BOTH Lively AND the two 1sts in the deal to equitably offset those considerations to bring the value to a more amenable range.

[Ghost of Kleine]

And it was the first of the two options you presented in relation to Randle's expiring deal whereas now you're saying salary dumping KD is absolutely not on.

And FWIW, I like Washington and Gafford. I don't mind extending them on reasonable contracts because I think they can bring value to the team but if we can't come to terms, I'm also ok with flipping them. That's why I said we have optionality with them

I'm sorry man, but I'm just not remembering suggesting trading for Randle with the intention of using him to salary dump him just for cap flexibility to pursue a player in free agency. I remember mentioning buying out Milicic and Martin and you saying we wouldn't need to as we could just decline their options.

And I also remember mentioning that Randles' value to us is un his being an expiring contract that we could trade. But still don't remember ever suggesting a trade for the sole purpose of letting him expire for cap space. Maybe you can show me the specific trade that suggests that for context to a more proper response?

And I'm in agreement on Gafford or Washington having trade value that could be flipped, but I might just want to keep Gafford for his defensive abilities and would also rather just get back Lively as he has much better size, is on a better deal, and represents better value inclusion to the deal to offset taking back Martin's and Thompsons' multi year deals.

Because additionally, KDs' expiring is actually a value positive in that it aligns with 26' free agency for any recieving team giving that recieving team a huge amount of cap flexibility towards free agency. So no real implied risk due to KDs' age as there's no long term commitment involved.

This was your quote and to be honest, I agree with the post, I don't mind letting Randle's $30m expire of cap flexibility.

What can we do with Randle and Dillingham?
Randle represents a massive $30 million expiring we can just let run out for more cap flexibility OR we can look to trade him for another key veet player, etc. Plus we should be able to aggregate salaries once the cap increases and if any trade we do doesn't put us back over the 2nd apron. So I'd look at doing this (if trying to become more competitive now!! So we'll consider these trades this summer. Upon acquiring Randle/Reid/Dillingham jr/ DET 25' 1st (17th pick)/ MIN 32' 1st. We trade (draft night)

I prefer Lively too as I'm sure most would but I expect he'll be hard to get and probably cost a net of 1 FRP's to get him. They are pretty high on the guy, as they should be. He could very well be the dealbreaker but given they're also all in now and wanting to prove to the world that the Luka trade was the right move because they win a championship in the next 2-3 seasons, they could relent and make him available.

I agree with Gafford, I think he's a solid player and I do think we could retain him on a value contract too. He doesn't turn 27 until the start of next season, he's a great rebounder, defender, shot blocker, finisher and just a solid utility guy. Washington I'm less sure of because I feel like he could cost too much (than I'm willing to pay) to retain. I'm happy to flip PJ for draft capital.

Thank you for the contextual reference man. I'll respond below to try and shorten things up a bit.