Rumors, Random Thoughts, and Non-threadworthy Posts The 19th Hole

[jredsaz]

Read on Twitter

Exhilarating Second Round for Minnesota.

I never thought the Suns could trade up to 31 for Fleming. Is more grease in the wheels moving forward more important than getting a young rotation player on a second round contract? Especially for a team like the wolves who have a cap sheet pushing against the aprons.

If Wolves thought Fleming was a good pick up they would have grabbed him. They just don't see what the Suns see.

I guess so but that’s not what’s being argued here. Moreover, Fleming was pretty much consensus 25-35 guy. Just asking, why would the TWolves prefer future seconds to a young, controllable contract? Wolves fans seem happy about it. I’m just curious.

[zimpy27]

I never thought the Suns could trade up to 31 for Fleming. Is more grease in the wheels moving forward more important than getting a young rotation player on a second round contract? Especially for a team like the wolves who have a cap sheet pushing against the aprons.

If Wolves thought Fleming was a good pick up they would have grabbed him. They just don't see what the Suns see.

I guess so but that’s not what’s being argued here. Moreover, Fleming was pretty much consensus 25-35 guy. Just asking, why would the TWolves prefer future seconds to a young, controllable contract? Wolves fans seem happy about it. I’m just curious.

Because they didn't see anyone they thought was worth the money or roster spot at pick 31.

[Scoot McGroot]

I never thought the Suns could trade up to 31 for Fleming. Is more grease in the wheels moving forward more important than getting a young rotation player on a second round contract? Especially for a team like the wolves who have a cap sheet pushing against the aprons.

If Wolves thought Fleming was a good pick up they would have grabbed him. They just don't see what the Suns see.

I guess so but that’s not what’s being argued here. Moreover, Fleming was pretty much consensus 25-35 guy. Just asking, why would the TWolves prefer future seconds to a young, controllable contract? Wolves fans seem happy about it. I’m just curious.

Roster spots and apron space…

[ReggiesKnicks]

This is the 2nd year in a row where we have multiple GMs talking publicly about how the 2nd round is simply Agents already agreeing to deals with teams for their players.

How does this affect the value of 2nds moving forward? Is this an issue the NBA is looking to address in any meaningful way, and/or does the players' union even care?

I haven't put too much time into the topic, but there is a lot to unpack.

What’s the problem here? That’s functionally what the early first round picks already are. Draft promises aren’t new

I am asking if it is a problem or not

[ReggiesKnicks]

I never thought the Suns could trade up to 31 for Fleming. Is more grease in the wheels moving forward more important than getting a young rotation player on a second round contract? Especially for a team like the wolves who have a cap sheet pushing against the aprons.

If Wolves thought Fleming was a good pick up they would have grabbed him. They just don't see what the Suns see.

I guess so but that’s not what’s being argued here. Moreover, Fleming was pretty much consensus 25-35 guy. Just asking, why would the TWolves prefer future seconds to a young, controllable contract? Wolves fans seem happy about it. I’m just curious.

It sounds like the Wolves didn't want to guarantee a contract. My guess is whoever they picked at #45 will either stay overseas or Two-Way, while Fleming wanted a guaranteed contract.

That, and Minnesota simply didn't view Fleming as a prospect you guarantee money to.

[HadAnEffectHere]

Jazz are probably looking to trade three gunner guards in Sexton, Keyonte, and Clarkson.

One issue is that I can find literally 0 interested teams if the Mavs sign D'lo.

... Maybe the Lakers would like Sexton if they have matching salary left over? He's a nice fit on offense with Luka and LeBron (but defensively, wheee, him and Luka and LeBron together are so bad)

Anyway, picking a gunner guard at 18 when you already have three gunner guards you're trying to get rid of was weird.

Jazz would take expirings for Collin?

Expirings and hopefully two seconds, but we'll see if they even get that.

[Domejandro]

If Wolves thought Fleming was a good pick up they would have grabbed him. They just don't see what the Suns see.

I guess so but that’s not what’s being argued here. Moreover, Fleming was pretty much consensus 25-35 guy. Just asking, why would the TWolves prefer future seconds to a young, controllable contract? Wolves fans seem happy about it. I’m just curious.

It sounds like the Wolves didn't want to guarantee a contract. My guess is whoever they picked at #45 will either stay overseas or Two-Way, while Fleming wanted a guaranteed contract.

That, and Minnesota simply didn't view Fleming as a prospect you guarantee money to.

This is accurate. The second round is largely agents working with teams to determine where they can get their player a guaranteed contract. Minnesota really likes Rocco Zikarsky (their General Manager is friends with someone who coaches on the Brisbane Bullets) and they didn’t want to commit a roster spot to a player in the second round. It was a natural fit to bring Rocco in on a two-way deal.

Minnesota is already developing a lot of young players, so getting a super raw prospect to stash in the G-League makes sense. This is doubly true with getting two future seconds and cash in return for trading down.

[kobe_vs_jordan]

Jazz are probably looking to trade three gunner guards in Sexton, Keyonte, and Clarkson.

One issue is that I can find literally 0 interested teams if the Mavs sign D'lo.

... Maybe the Lakers would like Sexton if they have matching salary left over? He's a nice fit on offense with Luka and LeBron (but defensively, wheee, him and Luka and LeBron together are so bad)

Anyway, picking a gunner guard at 18 when you already have three gunner guards you're trying to get rid of was weird.

Jazz would take expirings for Collin?

Expirings and hopefully two seconds, but we'll see if they even get that.

Fair value imo

[SlimShady83]

Is Boston looking at resigning Luke Kornet?

[djFan71]

Is Boston looking at resigning Luke Kornet?

Yup. Brad Stevens mentioned they really want Luke and Horford back in his post-draft presser. He said he knows they both could have lots of suitors, but he really wants them back if he can get them.

[zimpy27]

Is Boston looking at resigning Luke Kornet?

Yup. Brad Stevens mentioned they really want Luke and Horford back in his post-draft presser. He said he knows they both could have lots of suitors, but he really wants them back if he can get them.

I think Lakers offer both the TaxMLE but Boston probably beats that.

[djFan71]

Is Boston looking at resigning Luke Kornet?

Yup. Brad Stevens mentioned they really want Luke and Horford back in his post-draft presser. He said he knows they both could have lots of suitors, but he really wants them back if he can get them.

I think Lakers offer both the TaxMLE but Boston probably beats that.

Yeah, It's tough to budget both in at that without further moves, but I feel both easily get that $ elsewhere. I think if both indicate they wanna come back, you can you move Niang, Simons or Hauser (probably last one) you can probably get to $15M total for both?

Even that's basically room exception each, so you hope one/both take a little hometown discount with player options to resign for more next summer. They both love it in Boston, but Luke's never made crazy money and Al may wanna title hunt. It will definitely be interesting.

[SlimShady83]

Is Boston looking at resigning Luke Kornet?

Yup. Brad Stevens mentioned they really want Luke and Horford back in his post-draft presser. He said he knows they both could have lots of suitors, but he really wants them back if he can get them.

I think Lakers offer both the TaxMLE but Boston probably beats that.

Laker have, $14.2m ish to spend this season, just a question. What happens if they DON'T spend that, what happens to next season, how much will they have? does it roll over next season If they don't spend this season?? Next offseason more talent IMO should wait then, even though there a couple players I'd like this off season; Sharpe/Laravia etc, still be ok with them waiting, at least in FA.

[brackdan70]

Is Boston looking at resigning Luke Kornet?

100% if they can figure out a way and stay under the second Apron.

[kobe_vs_jordan]

Yup. Brad Stevens mentioned they really want Luke and Horford back in his post-draft presser. He said he knows they both could have lots of suitors, but he really wants them back if he can get them.

I think Lakers offer both the TaxMLE but Boston probably beats that.

Laker have, $14.2m ish to spend this season, just a question. What happens if they DON'T spend that, what happens to next season, how much will they have? does it roll over next season If they don't spend this season?? Next offseason more talent IMO should wait then, even though there a couple players I'd like this off season; Sharpe/Laravia etc, still be ok with them waiting, at least in FA.

Don’t see lakers having money next season if they plan on keeping DFS and Reaves

[dcstanley]

Jazz are probably looking to trade three gunner guards in Sexton, Keyonte, and Clarkson.

One issue is that I can find literally 0 interested teams if the Mavs sign D'lo.

... Maybe the Lakers would like Sexton if they have matching salary left over? He's a nice fit on offense with Luka and LeBron (but defensively, wheee, him and Luka and LeBron together are so bad)

Anyway, picking a gunner guard at 18 when you already have three gunner guards you're trying to get rid of was weird.

I think MIL, LAC, DEN, TOR, MIA could use him.

[Karmaloop]

Laker have, $14.2m ish to spend this season, just a question. What happens if they DON'T spend that, what happens to next season, how much will they have? does it roll over next season If they don't spend this season?? Next offseason more talent IMO should wait then, even though there a couple players I'd like this off season; Sharpe/Laravia etc, still be ok with them waiting, at least in FA.

Not sure where you're getting $14.2M unless LeBron is willing to take a substantial haircut. I'm not going to say never, but that seems unlikely at this point. They're at $118.2M minus cap holds assuming that LeBron and DFS opt out and they waive Shake Milton. Figure in a new max deal for LBJ, and that number climbs to just over $172.3M. Given the lack of teams with spending power, my guess is DFS gets something around nt-MLE or maybe slightly higher. Something like 3 years, $42M sounds about right so that would push the Lakers to ~$186M. That gives the Lakers roughly $20M to stay below the 2nd apron. They only have ~$9M to spend to stay below 1st apron, so they'd need to dump salary if they wanted to use the nt-MLE. Obviously, LeBron taking a haircut would change the equation but I don't think he will.

[SlimShady83]

Laker have, $14.2m ish to spend this season, just a question. What happens if they DON'T spend that, what happens to next season, how much will they have? does it roll over next season If they don't spend this season?? Next offseason more talent IMO should wait then, even though there a couple players I'd like this off season; Sharpe/Laravia etc, still be ok with them waiting, at least in FA.

Not sure where you're getting $14.2M unless LeBron is willing to take a substantial haircut. I'm not going to say never, but that seems unlikely at this point. They're at $118.2M minus cap holds assuming that LeBron and DFS opt out and they waive Shake Milton. Figure in a new max deal for LBJ, and that number climbs to just over $172.3M. Given the lack of teams with spending power, my guess is DFS gets something around nt-MLE or maybe slightly higher. Something like 3 years, $42M sounds about right so that would push the Lakers to ~$186M. That gives the Lakers roughly $20M to stay below the 2nd apron. They only have ~$9M to spend to stay below 1st apron, so they'd need to dump salary if they wanted to use the nt-MLE. Obviously, LeBron taking a haircut would change the equation but I don't think he will.

Google.

How much can the Lakers spend in free agency?

Their primary way to upgrade their roster will be a future first-round pick (either 2031 or 2032), over $70 million in expiring contracts and either the the non-taxpayer midlevel exception (projected to start at $14.1 million annually) or the taxpayer midlevel exception (projected to start at $5.7 million annually)

[Karmaloop]

Google.

How much can the Lakers spend in free agency?

Their primary way to upgrade their roster will be a future first-round pick (either 2031 or 2032), over $70 million in expiring contracts and either the the non-taxpayer midlevel exception (projected to start at $14.1 million annually) or the taxpayer midlevel exception (projected to start at $5.7 million annually)

Either your Google is broken or you're using the wrong number. LBJ needs to take a haircut to around $35M if they want to stay far enough below the first apron to use the full MLE.

[SlimShady83]

Google.

How much can the Lakers spend in free agency?

Their primary way to upgrade their roster will be a future first-round pick (either 2031 or 2032), over $70 million in expiring contracts and either the the non-taxpayer midlevel exception (projected to start at $14.1 million annually) or the taxpayer midlevel exception (projected to start at $5.7 million annually)

Either your Google is broken or you're using the wrong number. LBJ needs to take a haircut to around $35M if they want to stay far enough below the first apron to use the full MLE.

I'm saying Google