Utah - Indiana - Philadelphia

[babyjax13]

Hendriks lost a year of development, and he was a project, no reason for UTA to trade him for a player looking for extension...

Basically this. He might not be more impactful than Mathurin, but we don't know yet. He is a nice archetype and was at least interesting his rookie year. Makes more sense to give it a go and keep the pick.

[Scoot McGroot]

Mathurin > Grimes in value imo.

Probably, but also, if Mathurin could return Eason, Indy just takes that, no? Use Nesmith/Sheppard more at 2 than 3, and run Eason/Walker/Siakam/Obi as the forward rotation, with a lot of small ball minutes if Obi/Walker playing some 5?

Downside is you have to (over)pay eason too potentially. I like the idea of a cost controlled grimes for them

Cost control helps, for sure, but in this case it’s simply paying less for a lesser player? I think Indy would just prefer to let Sheppard, Jones, Peter, Nesmith, and Nembhard develop in the role long term than pay above MLE money to a Grimes just for cost certainty? Hard to invest so much extra on the wings rather than try and acquire/develop the forwards and C Indy really needs?

[Daddy 801]

I’d rather keep the pick and see what Hendricks can do this year.

Only trades I see Utah doing at this point are to send off the vets they acquired this year via trade, or to rent out their cap space for assets.

Utah is 2-3 years away from making win now moves. Bringing in quality players doesn’t make sense until you get your star player. And for all we know that might be this next years draft pick. I’m hoping Ace is a good to great player, but rookies are inefficient so even if he is the real deal we are years away from surrounding him with the right type of players. Best case scenario IMO is I see Utah tanking at least two more seasons and then starting to fill out the roster.