jbk1234 wrote:babyjax13 wrote:Garland for Green, 2027 UTA/MIN/CLE 1st (worst), 2029 UTA/MIN/CLE/CHA 1st (worst)
The worst-of qualifier makes those picks very unlikely to be any good. I just don't see the Clippers preemptively blowing it up and holding a fire sale. If they start off 10-20, maybe they re-evaluate, or would re-evaluate if their entire front office wasn't suspended, but outside of clearing out bad contracts, there's no incentive to deliberately put yourself into bottom 5 territory anymore.
My thought is that a team anchored by Garland + Ingram in the West is probably a 30 win team (maybe a little less or more) and that they are better off just trading their core that has no future for assets that can help them either once they sign a bunch of free agents, or in 8 years when they have their own picks. I don't think there is much value for Garland available, and yah, the worst of qualifiers suck, but we are also about to have some deep drafts because players getting paid NIL will have finally normalized (i.e., a bunch of upperclassmen who would have otherwise declared before NIL are now about to graduate, so there should be a flood of first round caliber guys in the next two drafts, IMO --- 2027 is not great up top, but it looks incredibly deep to me).
And just like they don't have incentive to be bad, they also don't really have incentive to NOT be horrible. They don't own their picks, being awful lowers the value of the picks they don't own (so, who cares?) and they really should be in asset accumulation mode. If Green shows something (he won't) then they might be able to flip him, or he might contribute as much to winning as say ... Ingram (again, this won't happen, but you can see the logic of it if you were high on him).