Moderators: bwgood77, Qwigglez, lilfishi22
Saberestar wrote:
They wanted our Bouyea and they finally got Monte Morris. I love it.
Ghost of Kleine wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:
I think given our very limited situation in terms of both overall talent as well as cap flexibility (important towards resigning/ extending both of Gillespie and Williams) realistically we have little options short of unguaranteed salary towards resigning both if their market value escalates significantly.
So I'd think you contemplate the potential value of both outcomes. The same idea applies to the Zion discussion in that you'd either get the benefit of his talent and production paying off for us and Booker to play off of in a better situation.
Or if he doesn't, and he can't play within the threshold of his contractual clauses, then you'd have the option of waiving him and clearing an additional 39- 44 million towards resigning Gillespie and Williams.
Or looking towards options in the very deep 27' free agency summer? Both carry obvious risks. But both also carry the flipside of that coin being the potential to create more cap flexibility in the event of things not panning out.
Calculated risks for a team that has been projected as a play in/ lottery team. But has exceeded expectations so far. It'd suck to have to move some depth from our team in the form of Allen and/ or O'neale. But ultimately, it might he unavoidable in order to resign Gillespie and Williams anyways.
That's the price we're paying for buying out Beal instead of finding a trade for him as an expiring contract heading into the 2027 season. Either that or we'd likely have to lose one of Green's or Brooks salaries to create cap space to resign them both??
You keep bringing up our limited situation as the reason we NEED to do something major like trade half of our key contributors away for Zion. I just don't see that at all.The only reason to trade for Zion is if we're guaranteed we can waive him for nothing next season in order to take full advantage of the cap space he opens up for us. But doing so means we're trading away key role players from this competitive team. Which is fine if it means keeping CG/Williams but the moment there's any hint that Zion can play and we might want to keep him around, then you're right back at square one of not being able to afford CG/Williams AND you're swapping places with the Pels on that 7 season long merry-go-around ride of hoping he stays healthy enough to matter. That's not an enviable situation to be in and I'd argue if you ask any Pels fans if they've enjoyed the Zion experience, the vast majority would say no.
I have slightly more patience for Kuminga because he's less damaged good in my books and while I think both guys could benefit from a change in scenery, only one guy isn't limited by health. But just saying the words calculated risk doesn't mean it's a good gamble work taking.
You're really only looking at things through a negative lens while downplaying or dismissing the probability of success as the alternative. First, I'm not talking aboytbtrading half of our key players man, maybe one or two ( if not a J Green swap for value and salary matching purposes). As currently Zion only makes 39 million.
So even if you packaged Allen/ O'neale and Richards (does anyone currently consider him a key piece given what he's shown this season)?? So maybe our two rotational shooters. But even then in that framework, we'd still have Gillespie, Brooks, Dunn, William's, Livers, our rookies (for the future).
And most importantly, a starting 5 of:
Booker/ Green/ Brooks/ Zion/ Williams.
Gillespie/ Livers / Dunn/ Flemming/ Ighodaro.
Goodwin/ Brea/ NHD/ draft / Maluach.
And you're also not considering that the salary exchange in a Zion trade essentially changes nothing to our current cap situation because we'd still have those salaries for Allen and O'neale on our books even if we didn't do a trade for Zion or someone else.
To generate more cap flexibility in interest of resigning Gillespie and Williams, we'd have to dump salary regardless man. In any form of saying goodbye to one of J Green, Brooks, or some combination of Allen and O'neale unfortunately.
So either way, short of some anomalous miracle, our roster is going to have to change as a result of buying out Beal and carrying up to 22 million in dead cap. Accepting the inevitability of that scenario, I'm looking to try and maximize our overachieving for now and add talent to take the pressures off of Booker while potentially raising our projected postseason outcome.
Because you're also overlooking that if Zion does in fact play enough to justify his contract, then not only would our projected competitive outcome become better, but Zion would become a curiously desirable trade asset that could be flipped for other assets and cap space to resign both players!
Because if he at all shows improvement in a different situation/ environment, then teams will have interest in trading for him. So we could flip him to not only recoup some draft assets but also clear that salary towards resigning those two players and possibly another in free agency for 27'.
Bottomline is there really isn't only one lens to look at and consider potential outcomes. I'm for my part choosing to look at the potential outcomes optimistically instead of negatively.
Ghost of Kleine wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:Someone that can objectively see the value in upgrading the roster and asset acquisition. I appreciate your response man.
Not unexpected the two guys pushing hardest for a Zion trade thinks each other's opinion is the truly objective one while others are subjective I presume
Objective in that we are acknowledging the implied risks involved around his durability/ injury concerns, but ALSO weighing all inclusive factors around him.
While the opposing arguments are really only focusing on the singular negative aspect of his durability/ injury concerns. And low key dismissing his production when on the court, his dominance in a position of clear weakness for us, the potential for change in a positive change in a new environment and different situation.
And the offset of his contract clauses for his three year contract. That help insulate the very implied risks that people are focusing on by nullifying his salary if his outcome is negative and he can't play.
Focusing on a singular aspect of the discussion point while being openly dismissive of/ ignoring the other factors that could yield very positive outcomes isn't really being objective though man.
You can claim that Slim and I are only subjectively looking at his positives subjectively, but actually I've mentioned his contract clauses, and how that could help us clear cap for our impending interests in resigning Gillespie and Williams to directly address your perspective/ position on this.
Therefore assessing things objectively. Have any of you acknowledged the potential positive outcome scenarios at all? Or even using this scenario as a mechanism to create other possibilities to work around towards our long term interests? If not, would you classify that as being objective or subjective?
sunskerr wrote:bwgood77 wrote:We finally have a fun team to watch again and everyone wants to trade for "stars" again. That doesn't always go so well as we all should know. Well, we don't really have the assets, which is probably a good thing. Though I'd love to still have our picks if we kept them.
This is lightning in a bottle right now. Like our 13-14 season. And that got capsized by a silly addition in IT2. So I can see the reluctance.
But unlike then we don't have our picks, as you pointed out. So there is this sort of debate here now about what to do because we don't have our picks but we're also much better than we thought.
Unfortunately I don't think anyone is holding their breath on Maluach turning into a real asset next year or even in two years. Sucks to burn a top 10 pick on that. Then we've got Fleming, Brea, and some other random assets. Bless their souls but if anyone's arguing betting on those guys being a better bet to improvement than Zion (and I say this as a big Zion doubter) then you need to show me your proof of employment as pro ball scout otherwise everyone can just ignore you.
Jalen Green is ostensibly the only real avenue we have to a drastic improvement to playoffs-level threat and he doesn't necessarily have even a history of marked improvement.
Like, I don't want Zion. If it's for a package where the best asset is Royce O'Neal or Maluach lol sure. I get why some would make a case for him if the price was that. But it's not that low.
If another star is available who fits then sure I'd think long and hard about it. This season is a big time building block. We don't even have to make a trade this year if Booker stays happy with progress and so that would mean we don't have to trade for someone who might be done by 29. Trust me yall do not want another Beal situation with Zion in 3 years where he's in and out of the lineup, can't build chemistry, and is a step slow.
Eventually we WILL have to do something major. You can't try to play slightly above .500 ball for the next 5-6 years.
garrick wrote:sunskerr wrote:bwgood77 wrote:We finally have a fun team to watch again and everyone wants to trade for "stars" again. That doesn't always go so well as we all should know. Well, we don't really have the assets, which is probably a good thing. Though I'd love to still have our picks if we kept them.
This is lightning in a bottle right now. Like our 13-14 season. And that got capsized by a silly addition in IT2. So I can see the reluctance.
But unlike then we don't have our picks, as you pointed out. So there is this sort of debate here now about what to do because we don't have our picks but we're also much better than we thought.
Unfortunately I don't think anyone is holding their breath on Maluach turning into a real asset next year or even in two years. Sucks to burn a top 10 pick on that. Then we've got Fleming, Brea, and some other random assets. Bless their souls but if anyone's arguing betting on those guys being a better bet to improvement than Zion (and I say this as a big Zion doubter) then you need to show me your proof of employment as pro ball scout otherwise everyone can just ignore you.
Jalen Green is ostensibly the only real avenue we have to a drastic improvement to playoffs-level threat and he doesn't necessarily have even a history of marked improvement.
Like, I don't want Zion. If it's for a package where the best asset is Royce O'Neal or Maluach lol sure. I get why some would make a case for him if the price was that. But it's not that low.
If another star is available who fits then sure I'd think long and hard about it. This season is a big time building block. We don't even have to make a trade this year if Booker stays happy with progress and so that would mean we don't have to trade for someone who might be done by 29. Trust me yall do not want another Beal situation with Zion in 3 years where he's in and out of the lineup, can't build chemistry, and is a step slow.
Eventually we WILL have to do something major. You can't try to play slightly above .500 ball for the next 5-6 years.
The reality is the major pieces on this roster are in their prime right now so we can't sustain this level of play for very long.
Brooks, Grayson and Royce are not going to continue to play at a high level for more than 2 years at the most given their age and they will drop off significantly so you have to decide how long you are going to ride these guys for.
That's not even considering Booker who is 29 and is most likely not going to resemble the player he was a couple seasons ago and we would be smart to trade him if we can get a decent package back for him.
Slim Charless wrote:So are we rooting for Seldin and Kohlberg here? I need a forum guage check.
Fo-Real wrote:Slim Charless wrote:So are we rooting for Seldin and Kohlberg here? I need a forum guage check.
I vote no ****!! Don't care.
sunsbg wrote:Saberestar wrote:
They wanted our Bouyea and they finally got Monte Morris. I love it.
Olympiacos collects all ex-Suns 2nd/3rd string PGs. Isaiah Canaan played there and this season it's Saben Lee and now Morris. Also Suns draftee Alec Peters is their backup PF being the most successful of this ex-Suns group.
lilfishi22 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:
You keep bringing up our limited situation as the reason we NEED to do something major like trade half of our key contributors away for Zion. I just don't see that at all.The only reason to trade for Zion is if we're guaranteed we can waive him for nothing next season in order to take full advantage of the cap space he opens up for us. But doing so means we're trading away key role players from this competitive team. Which is fine if it means keeping CG/Williams but the moment there's any hint that Zion can play and we might want to keep him around, then you're right back at square one of not being able to afford CG/Williams AND you're swapping places with the Pels on that 7 season long merry-go-around ride of hoping he stays healthy enough to matter. That's not an enviable situation to be in and I'd argue if you ask any Pels fans if they've enjoyed the Zion experience, the vast majority would say no.
I have slightly more patience for Kuminga because he's less damaged good in my books and while I think both guys could benefit from a change in scenery, only one guy isn't limited by health. But just saying the words calculated risk doesn't mean it's a good gamble work taking.
You're really only looking at things through a negative lens while downplaying or dismissing the probability of success as the alternative. First, I'm not talking aboytbtrading half of our key players man, maybe one or two ( if not a J Green swap for value and salary matching purposes). As currently Zion only makes 39 million.
So even if you packaged Allen/ O'neale and Richards (does anyone currently consider him a key piece given what he's shown this season)?? So maybe our two rotational shooters. But even then in that framework, we'd still have Gillespie, Brooks, Dunn, William's, Livers, our rookies (for the future).
And most importantly, a starting 5 of:
Booker/ Green/ Brooks/ Zion/ Williams.
Gillespie/ Livers / Dunn/ Flemming/ Ighodaro.
Goodwin/ Brea/ NHD/ draft / Maluach.
And you're also not considering that the salary exchange in a Zion trade essentially changes nothing to our current cap situation because we'd still have those salaries for Allen and O'neale on our books even if we didn't do a trade for Zion or someone else.
To generate more cap flexibility in interest of resigning Gillespie and Williams, we'd have to dump salary regardless man. In any form of saying goodbye to one of J Green, Brooks, or some combination of Allen and O'neale unfortunately.
So either way, short of some anomalous miracle, our roster is going to have to change as a result of buying out Beal and carrying up to 22 million in dead cap. Accepting the inevitability of that scenario, I'm looking to try and maximize our overachieving for now and add talent to take the pressures off of Booker while potentially raising our projected postseason outcome.
Because you're also overlooking that if Zion does in fact play enough to justify his contract, then not only would our projected competitive outcome become better, but Zion would become a curiously desirable trade asset that could be flipped for other assets and cap space to resign both players!
Because if he at all shows improvement in a different situation/ environment, then teams will have interest in trading for him. So we could flip him to not only recoup some draft assets but also clear that salary towards resigning those two players and possibly another in free agency for 27'.
Bottomline is there really isn't only one lens to look at and consider potential outcomes. I'm for my part choosing to look at the potential outcomes optimistically instead of negatively.
Grayson plus Royce is 2 of our 3 high volume high % 3PT shooters. I don't need to explain to you how critical our shooting has been to our success so far this season. We're 11th in the league in 3P% and 8th in volume. We lose both of them and our 3PT tanks. That's what I mean by key pieces
Like I said, if our only focus is cutting salary and this season be damned, then fine. We could cut him the moment the ink dries on the trade papers and we're only on the hook for this season's salary. But if he manages to play 41 games then $17m is guaranteed next season, another 10 games and it's $25m guaranteed and so on. The only way we can guarantee we get full benefit of salary dumping key players is if we're confident Zion is not going to sniff 41 games or we cut him right away.
lilfishi22 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:Not unexpected the two guys pushing hardest for a Zion trade thinks each other's opinion is the truly objective one while others are subjective I presume
Objective in that we are acknowledging the implied risks involved around his durability/ injury concerns, but ALSO weighing all inclusive factors around him.
While the opposing arguments are really only focusing on the singular negative aspect of his durability/ injury concerns. And low key dismissing his production when on the court, his dominance in a position of clear weakness for us, the potential for change in a positive change in a new environment and different situation.
And the offset of his contract clauses for his three year contract. That help insulate the very implied risks that people are focusing on by nullifying his salary if his outcome is negative and he can't play.
Focusing on a singular aspect of the discussion point while being openly dismissive of/ ignoring the other factors that could yield very positive outcomes isn't really being objective though man.
You can claim that Slim and I are only subjectively looking at his positives subjectively, but actually I've mentioned his contract clauses, and how that could help us clear cap for our impending interests in resigning Gillespie and Williams to directly address your perspective/ position on this.
Therefore assessing things objectively. Have any of you acknowledged the potential positive outcome scenarios at all? Or even using this scenario as a mechanism to create other possibilities to work around towards our long term interests? If not, would you classify that as being objective or subjective?
The focus is on his health because it's not some small consideration. It's not like a team interested in trading for for Booker and putting some consideration around his yearly groin/hamstring injury. The simple fact that he's ridden the bench longer than he's been on the court, this IS the story of Zion's career.
Ask anyone what the story of Zion's career is and it's not about an MVP campaign, it's not about all-NBA seasons, it's not about playoff performances, it's not about his leadership. The story of Zion's career is his injuries, his weight, his motivations, and it's one of disappointment.
sunsbum wrote:I just want to know why I have to read 2 pages of zion talk. 1 man is responsible. Cease him!
I imagine him doing that 12 games a year. Then I wake up and realize we don’t have the assets to get him for 12 games a year so either way I don’t really want to do it.Slim Charless wrote:sunsbum wrote:I just want to know why I have to read 2 pages of zion talk. 1 man is responsible. Cease him!
You say that but imagine this with PHX?
BTW that was JJJ's DPOTY year too
Ghost of Kleine wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:
You're really only looking at things through a negative lens while downplaying or dismissing the probability of success as the alternative. First, I'm not talking aboytbtrading half of our key players man, maybe one or two ( if not a J Green swap for value and salary matching purposes). As currently Zion only makes 39 million.
So even if you packaged Allen/ O'neale and Richards (does anyone currently consider him a key piece given what he's shown this season)?? So maybe our two rotational shooters. But even then in that framework, we'd still have Gillespie, Brooks, Dunn, William's, Livers, our rookies (for the future).
And most importantly, a starting 5 of:
Booker/ Green/ Brooks/ Zion/ Williams.
Gillespie/ Livers / Dunn/ Flemming/ Ighodaro.
Goodwin/ Brea/ NHD/ draft / Maluach.
And you're also not considering that the salary exchange in a Zion trade essentially changes nothing to our current cap situation because we'd still have those salaries for Allen and O'neale on our books even if we didn't do a trade for Zion or someone else.
To generate more cap flexibility in interest of resigning Gillespie and Williams, we'd have to dump salary regardless man. In any form of saying goodbye to one of J Green, Brooks, or some combination of Allen and O'neale unfortunately.
So either way, short of some anomalous miracle, our roster is going to have to change as a result of buying out Beal and carrying up to 22 million in dead cap. Accepting the inevitability of that scenario, I'm looking to try and maximize our overachieving for now and add talent to take the pressures off of Booker while potentially raising our projected postseason outcome.
Because you're also overlooking that if Zion does in fact play enough to justify his contract, then not only would our projected competitive outcome become better, but Zion would become a curiously desirable trade asset that could be flipped for other assets and cap space to resign both players!
Because if he at all shows improvement in a different situation/ environment, then teams will have interest in trading for him. So we could flip him to not only recoup some draft assets but also clear that salary towards resigning those two players and possibly another in free agency for 27'.
Bottomline is there really isn't only one lens to look at and consider potential outcomes. I'm for my part choosing to look at the potential outcomes optimistically instead of negatively.
Grayson plus Royce is 2 of our 3 high volume high % 3PT shooters. I don't need to explain to you how critical our shooting has been to our success so far this season. We're 11th in the league in 3P% and 8th in volume. We lose both of them and our 3PT tanks. That's what I mean by key pieces
Like I said, if our only focus is cutting salary and this season be damned, then fine. We could cut him the moment the ink dries on the trade papers and we're only on the hook for this season's salary. But if he manages to play 41 games then $17m is guaranteed next season, another 10 games and it's $25m guaranteed and so on. The only way we can guarantee we get full benefit of salary dumping key players is if we're confident Zion is not going to sniff 41 games or we cut him right away.
Yes, both Allen and O'neale are key players to our 3 pt shooting schemes. And both have been really good at times too. And 3 point shooting is really important for our offensive success. However, we don't even know what the framework would look like in a Zion trade, and it's quite possible that we'd keep one of those two possibly if buying low ( Zion's lowest value ever currently).
Also, let's not act like as good as they are as role players for us, that 3 point shooting specialists are very difficult to obtain. There's plenty of 3 point shooting guards that we could pick up/ seek from trade, free agency, buyout pool, or possibly even the unsigned nba players lists.
As you know I've extensively formulated various for specific players and roles for our needs in the past. They've been solid for us, but emotional attachments aside, are far from irreplaceable.
But even if we theoretically did have to lose those two in a Zion trade premise, the sheer gravity that Zion creates when on the floor pulls multiple defenders in so much that any of our shooters would have much more wide open looks.
And this would allow for much better efficiency from our other shooters or shooters we might acquire to replace those two players in a worst case scenario.
As for the idea of cutting Zion, that should be more of an alternative than the primary goal. Let's not forget that in reality, we are a low key rebuilding team with play in projections that absent recency bias, has exceeded expectations. But has still shown our true ceiling when playing the actual Legitimate top teams.
Sure, we're good for maybe a 2nd round exit if very lucky having everything break our way. But ultimately, we're a low end playoff fodder team with limited cap space, no draft assets, a 29 yr old centerpiece star and still having real weaknesses at the power forward and guard positions.
We've done really well so far. But in reality, we should still be trying to improve creatively when possible. And to do that requires some level of risks. Unless everyone is happy being a treadmilling playin team until Booker leaves or asks out eventually.
You mention that If Zion plays 41 games then we'll be on the hook for $17 million. I don't know about you, but $17 million for a player that's virtually unstoppable in the frontcourt/ going to the rim, who pulls major gravity, and puts up near triple double production is one hell of a bargain for us given our current situation!
And if he plays 51 games then $25 million for an unstoppable player with triple double production for Booker and J Green to play off of? I'll take that everyday of the week in comparison to our current conditions. Zion averages nearly a triple double whenever he plays.
How often do our beloved key players (Allen and O'neale) average that even combined? We'd be getting that production needed from multiple players out of a singular player in Zion. This would give us more options to help carry the load in case of potential injury.
And the very severe implied risks involved in a worst case scenario are again nullified if he can't/ doesn't play. So either your getting top tier triple double production, or worst case scenario, your clearing upwards of 39-40 million if things somehow didn't work out here.
That 40 million now being able to be applied to resigning Gillespie and Williams without going as deeply back into the tax.
The other considerations that apparently no one seems to bring up is that
1- if Zion can do well here and experience a renaissance of sorts or shows durability, not only does he drastically elevate our ceiling outcome, but he becomes a premium trade chip for us to possinly reqcquire more future assets WITHOUT HAVING TO TRADE BOOKER.
2- Given our current cap situation, there's no real guarantee that we wouldn't look to still offload Allen and O'neales' salaries in order to create cap flexibility towards resigning Gillespie and Williams. Unless you believe the consensus is they're viewed as more valuable than Gillespie and Williams have been for us.
My point being that our roster changing (even possibly after this very season is inevitable man! Our situation is just not financially sustainable unless Ishbias' willing to get back into the tax to field a "fun to watch" play in team. The contracts that we have alongside of Booker's supermax deal dictate that some players will have to he moved.
I like our roster, but I'm not oblivious to the needs of our future or the necessity to get better and elevate ourselves competitively with talent to try and maximize Booker's remaining time here, and to add more talent (assets) that can be moved to reacquire some semblance of a future for us! To reap any rewards, you have to take risks.
lilfishi22 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:
Grayson plus Royce is 2 of our 3 high volume high % 3PT shooters. I don't need to explain to you how critical our shooting has been to our success so far this season. We're 11th in the league in 3P% and 8th in volume. We lose both of them and our 3PT tanks. That's what I mean by key pieces
Like I said, if our only focus is cutting salary and this season be damned, then fine. We could cut him the moment the ink dries on the trade papers and we're only on the hook for this season's salary. But if he manages to play 41 games then $17m is guaranteed next season, another 10 games and it's $25m guaranteed and so on. The only way we can guarantee we get full benefit of salary dumping key players is if we're confident Zion is not going to sniff 41 games or we cut him right away.
Yes, both Allen and O'neale are key players to our 3 pt shooting schemes. And both have been really good at times too. And 3 point shooting is really important for our offensive success. However, we don't even know what the framework would look like in a Zion trade, and it's quite possible that we'd keep one of those two possibly if buying low ( Zion's lowest value ever currently).
Also, let's not act like as good as they are as role players for us, that 3 point shooting specialists are very difficult to obtain. There's plenty of 3 point shooting guards that we could pick up/ seek from trade, free agency, buyout pool, or possibly even the unsigned nba players lists.
As you know I've extensively formulated various for specific players and roles for our needs in the past. They've been solid for us, but emotional attachments aside, are far from irreplaceable.
But even if we theoretically did have to lose those two in a Zion trade premise, the sheer gravity that Zion creates when on the floor pulls multiple defenders in so much that any of our shooters would have much more wide open looks.
And this would allow for much better efficiency from our other shooters or shooters we might acquire to replace those two players in a worst case scenario.
As for the idea of cutting Zion, that should be more of an alternative than the primary goal. Let's not forget that in reality, we are a low key rebuilding team with play in projections that absent recency bias, has exceeded expectations. But has still shown our true ceiling when playing the actual Legitimate top teams.
Sure, we're good for maybe a 2nd round exit if very lucky having everything break our way. But ultimately, we're a low end playoff fodder team with limited cap space, no draft assets, a 29 yr old centerpiece star and still having real weaknesses at the power forward and guard positions.
We've done really well so far. But in reality, we should still be trying to improve creatively when possible. And to do that requires some level of risks. Unless everyone is happy being a treadmilling playin team until Booker leaves or asks out eventually.
You mention that If Zion plays 41 games then we'll be on the hook for $17 million. I don't know about you, but $17 million for a player that's virtually unstoppable in the frontcourt/ going to the rim, who pulls major gravity, and puts up near triple double production is one hell of a bargain for us given our current situation!
And if he plays 51 games then $25 million for an unstoppable player with triple double production for Booker and J Green to play off of? I'll take that everyday of the week in comparison to our current conditions. Zion averages nearly a triple double whenever he plays.
How often do our beloved key players (Allen and O'neale) average that even combined? We'd be getting that production needed from multiple players out of a singular player in Zion. This would give us more options to help carry the load in case of potential injury.
And the very severe implied risks involved in a worst case scenario are again nullified if he can't/ doesn't play. So either your getting top tier triple double production, or worst case scenario, your clearing upwards of 39-40 million if things somehow didn't work out here.
That 40 million now being able to be applied to resigning Gillespie and Williams without going as deeply back into the tax.
The other considerations that apparently no one seems to bring up is that
1- if Zion can do well here and experience a renaissance of sorts or shows durability, not only does he drastically elevate our ceiling outcome, but he becomes a premium trade chip for us to possinly reqcquire more future assets WITHOUT HAVING TO TRADE BOOKER.
2- Given our current cap situation, there's no real guarantee that we wouldn't look to still offload Allen and O'neales' salaries in order to create cap flexibility towards resigning Gillespie and Williams. Unless you believe the consensus is they're viewed as more valuable than Gillespie and Williams have been for us.
My point being that our roster changing (even possibly after this very season is inevitable man! Our situation is just not financially sustainable unless Ishbias' willing to get back into the tax to field a "fun to watch" play in team. The contracts that we have alongside of Booker's supermax deal dictate that some players will have to he moved.
I like our roster, but I'm not oblivious to the needs of our future or the necessity to get better and elevate ourselves competitively with talent to try and maximize Booker's remaining time here, and to add more talent (assets) that can be moved to reacquire some semblance of a future for us! To reap any rewards, you have to take risks.
What is the framework for a Zion deal then.
King4Day wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:
Yes, both Allen and O'neale are key players to our 3 pt shooting schemes. And both have been really good at times too. And 3 point shooting is really important for our offensive success. However, we don't even know what the framework would look like in a Zion trade, and it's quite possible that we'd keep one of those two possibly if buying low ( Zion's lowest value ever currently).
Also, let's not act like as good as they are as role players for us, that 3 point shooting specialists are very difficult to obtain. There's plenty of 3 point shooting guards that we could pick up/ seek from trade, free agency, buyout pool, or possibly even the unsigned nba players lists.
As you know I've extensively formulated various for specific players and roles for our needs in the past. They've been solid for us, but emotional attachments aside, are far from irreplaceable.
But even if we theoretically did have to lose those two in a Zion trade premise, the sheer gravity that Zion creates when on the floor pulls multiple defenders in so much that any of our shooters would have much more wide open looks.
And this would allow for much better efficiency from our other shooters or shooters we might acquire to replace those two players in a worst case scenario.
As for the idea of cutting Zion, that should be more of an alternative than the primary goal. Let's not forget that in reality, we are a low key rebuilding team with play in projections that absent recency bias, has exceeded expectations. But has still shown our true ceiling when playing the actual Legitimate top teams.
Sure, we're good for maybe a 2nd round exit if very lucky having everything break our way. But ultimately, we're a low end playoff fodder team with limited cap space, no draft assets, a 29 yr old centerpiece star and still having real weaknesses at the power forward and guard positions.
We've done really well so far. But in reality, we should still be trying to improve creatively when possible. And to do that requires some level of risks. Unless everyone is happy being a treadmilling playin team until Booker leaves or asks out eventually.
You mention that If Zion plays 41 games then we'll be on the hook for $17 million. I don't know about you, but $17 million for a player that's virtually unstoppable in the frontcourt/ going to the rim, who pulls major gravity, and puts up near triple double production is one hell of a bargain for us given our current situation!
And if he plays 51 games then $25 million for an unstoppable player with triple double production for Booker and J Green to play off of? I'll take that everyday of the week in comparison to our current conditions. Zion averages nearly a triple double whenever he plays.
How often do our beloved key players (Allen and O'neale) average that even combined? We'd be getting that production needed from multiple players out of a singular player in Zion. This would give us more options to help carry the load in case of potential injury.
And the very severe implied risks involved in a worst case scenario are again nullified if he can't/ doesn't play. So either your getting top tier triple double production, or worst case scenario, your clearing upwards of 39-40 million if things somehow didn't work out here.
That 40 million now being able to be applied to resigning Gillespie and Williams without going as deeply back into the tax.
The other considerations that apparently no one seems to bring up is that
1- if Zion can do well here and experience a renaissance of sorts or shows durability, not only does he drastically elevate our ceiling outcome, but he becomes a premium trade chip for us to possinly reqcquire more future assets WITHOUT HAVING TO TRADE BOOKER.
2- Given our current cap situation, there's no real guarantee that we wouldn't look to still offload Allen and O'neales' salaries in order to create cap flexibility towards resigning Gillespie and Williams. Unless you believe the consensus is they're viewed as more valuable than Gillespie and Williams have been for us.
My point being that our roster changing (even possibly after this very season is inevitable man! Our situation is just not financially sustainable unless Ishbias' willing to get back into the tax to field a "fun to watch" play in team. The contracts that we have alongside of Booker's supermax deal dictate that some players will have to he moved.
I like our roster, but I'm not oblivious to the needs of our future or the necessity to get better and elevate ourselves competitively with talent to try and maximize Booker's remaining time here, and to add more talent (assets) that can be moved to reacquire some semblance of a future for us! To reap any rewards, you have to take risks.
What is the framework for a Zion deal then.
He gets cut and we sign him to the vet min