SAS - PHO - LAL - BKN - NOP: Bigger is better, right (Durant - Vassel - Reaves - Alvarado - Claxton)

[JKiddy]

Once a player does not pass a NBA trade phsyical (super rare) his value plummets. If you want an example look at Shareef Abdur-Rahim after he failed his physical on a trade. He was a much better player than Mark Williams as well.

[DarkXaero]

They have to give up something of value in order to expect value in return. And just because it's the 3rd best player on the *checks notes* 6th worst team doesn't mean that he's valuable.

I think the mistake here is thinking that Nets HAVE to trade Claxton when they actually don't, certainly not for this return. Mark Williams was netting more in an actual trade and Claxton is worth more than Mark Williams imo. If you put Knecht, 2030 swap, and a 2031 unprotected first on the table, then its a conversation to have.

M. Williams is younger, bigger and heavier, a much better rebounder and scorer, and makes over $20 million less. Did you take that into account in your assessment?

And Claxton is 10x better defensively than Mark Williams, more established, less injury prone and fits in great with Luka's offense as a lob catcher/roller, did you take that into your assessment?

[realEAST]

Claxton kind of had a down year in comparison to previous seasons, and while I think it is mostly his engagement, that is saying something too about how he feels. Besides that, do you think Claxton is the part of the next Nets PO team? Thinking their rebuild will be over by 2027 is somewhat optimistic imo, as they don't have any real long term piece, and have fallen in this lottery too. FA is also more or less bare. I think better use of their capspace short term would be to accumulate assets - and the more you have it, the more value you can extract from it.

So I think saving a lot of long term money and adding high variance future pick that is lightly protected is a good way to go, for a player that is not the most engaged and on a big contract going forward.

Besides, Nets have a good, young center waiting, in Sharpe, who should be signed for less and given starting opportunity imo, as they look to add high draft pick next year; and have more cap space in 2026. when FA is slightly better, at least with role players.

[Astaluego]

I think the mistake here is thinking that Nets HAVE to trade Claxton when they actually don't, certainly not for this return. Mark Williams was netting more in an actual trade and Claxton is worth more than Mark Williams imo. If you put Knecht, 2030 swap, and a 2031 unprotected first on the table, then its a conversation to have.

M. Williams is younger, bigger and heavier, a much better rebounder and scorer, and makes over $20 million less. Did you take that into account in your assessment?

And Claxton is 10x better defensively than Mark Williams, more established, less injury prone and fits in great with Luka's offense as a lob catcher/roller, did you take that into your assessment?

I like Claxton alongside Luka, even if he is a terrible free throw shooter (51% to Mark's 80%... which makes me wonder if he can close out playoff games), the fact is that at the last deadline, Williams was more than worth his contract and you have to pay for that, it's arguable that Claxton making over 25 million is worth his contract and also attaching valuable assets, like a prospect at the beginning of his rookie deal and also a practically unprotected future high variance draft pick.

[drchaos]

The Nets do not control their 2027 pick.

Unless they get the 2027 pick swap back from the Rockets they need to load up and compete starting next Summer.

Without the 2027 pick swap they are not going to sacrifice players that let them compete in 2026 for picks that do not convey until 2028 or later.

Claxton to the Lakers makes all kinds of sense for both teams but that future first rounder from the Lakers needs to go to a third team so the Nets get paid now.

[DarkXaero]

Claxton kind of had a down year in comparison to previous seasons, and while I think it is mostly his engagement, that is saying something too about how he feels. Besides that, do you think Claxton is the part of the next Nets PO team? Thinking their rebuild will be over by 2027 is somewhat optimistic imo, as they don't have any real long term piece, and have fallen in this lottery too. FA is also more or less bare. I think better use of their capspace short term would be to accumulate assets - and the more you have it, the more value you can extract from it.

So I think saving a lot of long term money and adding high variance future pick that is lightly protected is a good way to go, for a player that is not the most engaged and on a big contract going forward.

Besides, Nets have a good, young center waiting, in Sharpe, who should be signed for less and given starting opportunity imo, as they look to add high draft pick next year; and have more cap space in 2026. when FA is slightly better, at least with role players.

I would like for us to trade Claxton, I'm not even denying that or pretending that I don't want him gone. But we've seen the Lakers try to make that Mark Williams trade and we've seen the cost, I don't see Claxton being lower value than that, even if I understand that there's a big salary difference. As for Claxton's down year, its 100% related to him having trouble staying engaged/motivated on a lottery team, which is a con for sure.

[DarkXaero]

M. Williams is younger, bigger and heavier, a much better rebounder and scorer, and makes over $20 million less. Did you take that into account in your assessment?

And Claxton is 10x better defensively than Mark Williams, more established, less injury prone and fits in great with Luka's offense as a lob catcher/roller, did you take that into your assessment?

I like Claxton alongside Luka, even if he is a terrible free throw shooter (51% to Mark's 80%... which makes me wonder if he can close out playoff games), the fact is that at the last deadline, Williams was more than worth his contract and you have to pay for that, it's arguable that Claxton making over 25 million is worth his contract and also attaching valuable assets, like a prospect at the beginning of his rookie deal and also a practically unprotected future high variance draft pick.

Claxton will be an issue in POs due to FT shooting, we already know that, we've seen it happen before. But Mark Williams will struggle to play in playoffs due to his defense, so there's that, at least Claxton brings a ton of defensive value up until teams start hacking him to send him to the line.

[JKiddy]

In all reality, once a player fails a trade physical and the other team TRADING FOR HIM wants that player due to massive positional need VERY BADLY then that player likely is out of the league within 2-4 years for good due to FORCED RETIREMENT.

I think that is the profound issue we are ignoring here. I do not think anyone would argue that Claxton is not the better overall here. Add that massive factor and its not even close anymore. Claxton does not have that issue currently.

[Texas Chuck]

making decisions worrying not about building the best long-term deal but instead making them because you are worried about a sunk cost of a pick you no longe control would be categorically dumb. I do not believe the Nets are run by dumb people, but you do I guess?

Any Claxton deal should be about what sets me up better for the future. And you are kidding yourself if you think Claxton prevents you from being terrible. He's not that kind of player. So even with your misguided concern about the value of someone else's asset, he doesn't even really change that meaningfully.

[Karmaloop]

I think the mistake here is thinking that Nets HAVE to trade Claxton when they actually don't, certainly not for this return. Mark Williams was netting more in an actual trade and Claxton is worth more than Mark Williams imo. If you put Knecht, 2030 swap, and a 2031 unprotected first on the table, then its a conversation to have.

You're right. Brooklyn doesn't have to trade him, but arguing that he's got value because he's one of the better player the Nets have (not necessarily in this specific thread mind you) doesn't hold weight when the Nets were bad this year. NOBODY is offering up a recent FRP, pick swap, AND an unprotected FRP for Claxton, and if that's your asking price then be ready to be disappointed. This is Clint Capela all over again. Let's not overvalue him more than he's actually worth. He's worth an expiring contract plus a very late FRP or a bad contract with a mid-ish FRP or recent draft pick that has shown promise.

[DarkXaero]

I think the mistake here is thinking that Nets HAVE to trade Claxton when they actually don't, certainly not for this return. Mark Williams was netting more in an actual trade and Claxton is worth more than Mark Williams imo. If you put Knecht, 2030 swap, and a 2031 unprotected first on the table, then its a conversation to have.

You're right. Brooklyn doesn't have to trade him, but arguing that he's got value because he's one of the better player the Nets have (not necessarily in this specific thread mind you) doesn't hold weight when the Nets were bad this year. NOBODY is offering up a recent FRP, pick swap, AND an unprotected FRP for Claxton, and if that's your asking price then be ready to be disappointed. This is Clint Capela all over again. Let's not overvalue him more than he's actually worth. He's worth an expiring contract plus a very late FRP or a bad contract with a mid-ish FRP or recent draft pick that has shown promise.

Again, I'm going off what has already happened. The fact is that the Lakers FO overpaid for Mark Williams, an injury prone young center on a bad hornets team (worse than Nets) and that is essentially the offer I'm replicating for Claxton. And yes Claxton has a lot higher salary but that's offset by the fact that he's actually better than Mark Williams.

[TheNetsFan]

I think the mistake here is thinking that Nets HAVE to trade Claxton when they actually don't, certainly not for this return. Mark Williams was netting more in an actual trade and Claxton is worth more than Mark Williams imo. If you put Knecht, 2030 swap, and a 2031 unprotected first on the table, then its a conversation to have.

You're right. Brooklyn doesn't have to trade him, but arguing that he's got value because he's one of the better player the Nets have (not necessarily in this specific thread mind you) doesn't hold weight when the Nets were bad this year. NOBODY is offering up a recent FRP, pick swap, AND an unprotected FRP for Claxton, and if that's your asking price then be ready to be disappointed. This is Clint Capela all over again. Let's not overvalue him more than he's actually worth. He's worth an expiring contract plus a very late FRP or a bad contract with a mid-ish FRP or recent draft pick that has shown promise.

I don't disagree completely. I believe expirings plus the 2031 is fair. Based on the Lakers history and status as a glamour team/market, their future firsts are assumed to be on the lower end. The swap needs to be included if you're sending back undesirable salary. I don't believe Knecht has any value. He was a very old rookie from a very weak draft class that couldn't sniff an all-rookie team or make a meaningful impact for his team

[Karmaloop]

Again, I'm going off what has already happened. The fact is that the Lakers FO overpaid for Mark Williams, an injury prone young center on a bad hornets team (worse than Nets) and that is essentially the offer I'm replicating for Claxton. And yes Claxton has a lot higher salary but that's offset by the fact that he's actually better than Mark Williams.

The way you brush off the salary difference is astounding. Claxton makes $25.4M next year, which would mean that two of Gabe Vincent, Jarred Vanderbilt, and Maxi Kleber would need to be included to match salaries. And if you include them in a Claxton trade, you can't include them in other trades. For that reason alone, there's an opportunity cost lost by trading for Claxton. And that's not even factoring in that Claxton is on the overpaid side. Not an albatross of a contract by any means, but more than what he's worth on the open market. If my choice is to sign Clint Capela or go anywhere near what you want for Claxton, the choice is incredibly simple. LIS in another thread (I think?), Claxton is worth expiring contracts and a very late FRP (25+) or a bad contract and a middle-of-the-pack pick (think like that 14-20 range) or a recently drafted prospect in that range. I think there's a middle ground there where something along the lines of Knecht and expiring for Claxton and 26/27 (or both). Problem is I don't think the Lakers want those guaranteed contracts, so a 3rd team would almost certainly be needed.

[Karmaloop]

I don't disagree completely. I believe expirings plus the 2031 is fair. Based on the Lakers history and status as a glamour team/market, their future firsts are assumed to be on the lower end. The swap needs to be included if you're sending back undesirable salary. I don't believe Knecht has any value. He was a very old rookie from a very weak draft class that couldn't sniff an all-rookie team or make a meaningful impact for his team

You're not getting a FRP with any real upside for Claxton. He's simply not that kind of difference maker. You could probably get expiring contracts plus a lottery (maybe top 10?) protected '31 pick. You can't just devalue certain teams picks based on feelings. The Lakers' pick has only been 18 or later 3 times since 2013.

[KdoubleDees23]

I am not a lakers fan! No team in the NBA should ever help them out.