MasterIchiro wrote:I guess some Hornets fans still want Sabonis regardless of Pacers fans repeatedly slamming his rim protection and defense. Hornets are third from last in defensive efficiency. So 1) Sabonis doesn't help and 2) Sabonis not helping in our weak area means our top prospects are off the table. If the Hornets just wanted a scorer, rebounder and big body, we would target Valanciunas who's much cheaper. We just did a deal with the Pelicans for Devonte' Graham.
Not that many teams need a center. Hornets should wait to see the free agent market for Nurkic, Bamba and Mitchell. You guys have us reaching here and giving up key pieces. We are not gonna panic knowing we're not a contender. And someone like Sabonis who doesn't fix our defense isn't gonna make us a contender.
Also, certain Hornets fans are antsy to unload Hayward but he has a trade kicker and the front office loves him. I think he's played in more games than any Hornet this year.
So if Hornets were a contender, will you be arguing that they shouldn't mess with what's working?
If we're an upper second tier contender I'd push more aggressively. If we're the Warriors, I don't touch a thing. I might dump Wiseman somewhere but who wants a project big off a knee injury besides a handful of desperate Hornets fans?
MasterIchiro wrote:I guess some Hornets fans still want Sabonis regardless of Pacers fans repeatedly slamming his rim protection and defense. Hornets are third from last in defensive efficiency. So 1) Sabonis doesn't help and 2) Sabonis not helping in our weak area means our top prospects are off the table. If the Hornets just wanted a scorer, rebounder and big body, we would target Valanciunas who's much cheaper. We just did a deal with the Pelicans for Devonte' Graham.
Not that many teams need a center. Hornets should wait to see the free agent market for Nurkic, Bamba and Mitchell. You guys have us reaching here and giving up key pieces. We are not gonna panic knowing we're not a contender. And someone like Sabonis who doesn't fix our defense isn't gonna make us a contender.
Also, certain Hornets fans are antsy to unload Hayward but he has a trade kicker and the front office loves him. I think he's played in more games than any Hornet this year.
Hornets defense problems are coaching/motivation and not player deficiencies, as evidenced by our fourth quarter defense
The argument for Sabonis is moving Hayward's skillset to the center position so that we can start two of Cody and Miles and PJ at the 3/4, and we also sorely need the rebounding. I think those two things improves our defense by default. The problem is that Indy fans don't want Hayward, which is why I was proposing the Simmons three-way because Hayward/Bouk are great fits for Philly.
Pacers fans seem terrified of the prospect of trading Turner and leaving behind Sabonis. The problems with our defense are multifactorial but it includes lack of elite rim protection which impacts the tenacity of perimeter defenders and erases their mistakes. The plan should be comprehensive, including coaching focus on defense, increased effort plus addition of rim protection. I bet Kupchak would rather wait and see on Richards and try to sign Mitchell or trade for Bamba before sending out Bouknight or before moving Miles to the three two years prematurely. Hayward for Sabonis is shuffling the deck. And if rebounding is what we need, go for Valanciunas. He wouldn't cost Hayward or Bouknight.
Oh, not really anymore. Last year, In the Bjorkgren defense, absolutely. But it was a terrible system that out each and every defender under immense stress and pressure at all times and every inch of the half court. Under a more realistic Carlisle defense, Sabonis has shown to be decent to good overall individually, and pretty good in a team system. He’s no rim protector, but we probably think we could do ok with Jackson or Goga at times. And he keeps getting better. He’s learning how to get away with his strength, and he’s not getting called for the touch fouls he was when he was younger.
amcoolio wrote: Hornets defense problems are coaching/motivation and not player deficiencies, as evidenced by our fourth quarter defense
The argument for Sabonis is moving Hayward's skillset to the center position so that we can start two of Cody and Miles and PJ at the 3/4, and we also sorely need the rebounding. I think those two things improves our defense by default. The problem is that Indy fans don't want Hayward, which is why I was proposing the Simmons three-way because Hayward/Bouk are great fits for Philly.
Pacers fans seem terrified of the prospect of trading Turner and leaving behind Sabonis. The problems with our defense are multifactorial but it includes lack of elite rim protection which impacts the tenacity of perimeter defenders and erases their mistakes. The plan should be comprehensive, including coaching focus on defense, increased effort plus addition of rim protection. I bet Kupchak would rather wait and see on Richards and try to sign Mitchell or trade for Bamba before sending out Bouknight or before moving Miles to the three two years prematurely. Hayward for Sabonis is shuffling the deck. And if rebounding is what we need, go for Valanciunas. He wouldn't cost Hayward or Bouknight.
Oh, not really anymore. Last year, In the Bjorkgren defense, absolutely. But it was a terrible system that out each and every defender under immense stress and pressure at all times and every inch of the half court. Under a more realistic Carlisle defense, Sabonis has shown to be decent to good overall individually, and pretty good in a team system. He’s no rim protector, but we probably think we could do ok with Jackson or Goga at times. And he keeps getting better. He’s learning how to get away with his strength, and he’s not getting called for the touch fouls he was when he was younger.
Even with Sabonis having passable defense, Hornets should be targeting Mitchell Robinson as a rim protector with the MLE or Nurkic or Valanciunas as cheaper targets. One long term goal here is to develop Bouknight as a primary scorer. His ability to get to the basket and his scoring instincts remind me of Devin Booker and at times James Harden. So if the choice is between Sabonis or one of those other targets and we get to keep James Bouknight, it's a no brainer. Our GM likes watching paint dry. It's like he's sadistic but long range planning is critical for small market teams. You don't ever want to be in a position where you have to pay a premium to fill a hole. The one situation where you might do it is free agency where the cost is money alone but you stagger the contract so that the premium is absorbed. It is far more difficult to absorb the loss of a player who breaks out on a rookie contract.
MasterIchiro wrote:I guess some Hornets fans still want Sabonis regardless of Pacers fans repeatedly slamming his rim protection and defense. Hornets are third from last in defensive efficiency. So 1) Sabonis doesn't help and 2) Sabonis not helping in our weak area means our top prospects are off the table. If the Hornets just wanted a scorer, rebounder and big body, we would target Valanciunas who's much cheaper. We just did a deal with the Pelicans for Devonte' Graham.
Not that many teams need a center. Hornets should wait to see the free agent market for Nurkic, Bamba and Mitchell. You guys have us reaching here and giving up key pieces. We are not gonna panic knowing we're not a contender. And someone like Sabonis who doesn't fix our defense isn't gonna make us a contender.
Also, certain Hornets fans are antsy to unload Hayward but he has a trade kicker and the front office loves him. I think he's played in more games than any Hornet this year.
So if Hornets were a contender, will you be arguing that they shouldn't mess with what's working?
If we're an upper second tier contender I'd push more aggressively. If we're the Warriors, I don't touch a thing. I might dump Wiseman somewhere but who wants a project big off a knee injury besides a handful of desperate Hornets fans?
Well, if the teams that are at the top (1st, 2nd, 3rd place) shouldn't make a move, and Hornets (7th place) shouldn't look for a trade either, that essentially means that only a very small number of teams (4th, 5th, 6th place) should be making trades
Topofthekey wrote:So if Hornets were a contender, will you be arguing that they shouldn't mess with what's working?
If we're an upper second tier contender I'd push more aggressively. If we're the Warriors, I don't touch a thing. I might dump Wiseman somewhere but who wants a project big off a knee injury besides a handful of desperate Hornets fans?
Well, if the teams that are at the top (1st, 2nd, 3rd place) shouldn't make a move, and Hornets (7th place) shouldn't look for a trade either, that essentially means that only a very small number of teams (4th, 5th, 6th place) should be making trades
Not sure if I can agree with this
You don't have to agree with it. I said the Warriors. So literally one team is good as is. The type of move is also a factor. Kupchak has said he won't make a move that may look good now but hurts us down the road. So his recent draft picks are staying put. That's how I read it. All his picks have turned out excellent including second rounders like Graham, Cody Martin and McDaniels. Sabonis and Turner aren't likely targets for Charlotte. A cheaper option to Turner might be Bamba. Cheaper options to Sabonis might include Nurkic, Val, Harrell.
MasterIchiro wrote: Pacers fans seem terrified of the prospect of trading Turner and leaving behind Sabonis. The problems with our defense are multifactorial but it includes lack of elite rim protection which impacts the tenacity of perimeter defenders and erases their mistakes. The plan should be comprehensive, including coaching focus on defense, increased effort plus addition of rim protection. I bet Kupchak would rather wait and see on Richards and try to sign Mitchell or trade for Bamba before sending out Bouknight or before moving Miles to the three two years prematurely. Hayward for Sabonis is shuffling the deck. And if rebounding is what we need, go for Valanciunas. He wouldn't cost Hayward or Bouknight.
Oh, not really anymore. Last year, In the Bjorkgren defense, absolutely. But it was a terrible system that out each and every defender under immense stress and pressure at all times and every inch of the half court. Under a more realistic Carlisle defense, Sabonis has shown to be decent to good overall individually, and pretty good in a team system. He’s no rim protector, but we probably think we could do ok with Jackson or Goga at times. And he keeps getting better. He’s learning how to get away with his strength, and he’s not getting called for the touch fouls he was when he was younger.
Even with Sabonis having passable defense, Hornets should be targeting Mitchell Robinson as a rim protector with the MLE or Nurkic or Valanciunas as cheaper targets. One long term goal here is to develop Bouknight as a primary scorer. His ability to get to the basket and his scoring instincts remind me of Devin Booker and at times James Harden. So if the choice is between Sabonis or one of those other targets and we get to keep James Bouknight, it's a no brainer. Our GM likes watching paint dry. It's like he's sadistic but long range planning is critical for small market teams. You don't ever want to be in a position where you have to pay a premium to fill a hole. The one situation where you might do it is free agency where the cost is money alone but you stagger the contract so that the premium is absorbed. It is far more difficult to absorb the loss of a player who breaks out on a rookie contract.
You’re right. As an Indy fan, we wouldn’t have any idea of what a small market team has to do to build.
But yeah. Maybe you could get Mitchell for the MLE in the offseason. That would be a relatively cheap move. But y’all have been trying to fix that center spot for awhile now on the cheap, and it still hasn’t worked. And Mitchell is still a terribly flawed player. But that could possibly happen. If you’re willing to leave the center spot as is for another half a season and potentially a playoffs appearance.
MasterIchiro wrote: If we're an upper second tier contender I'd push more aggressively. If we're the Warriors, I don't touch a thing. I might dump Wiseman somewhere but who wants a project big off a knee injury besides a handful of desperate Hornets fans?
Well, if the teams that are at the top (1st, 2nd, 3rd place) shouldn't make a move, and Hornets (7th place) shouldn't look for a trade either, that essentially means that only a very small number of teams (4th, 5th, 6th place) should be making trades
Not sure if I can agree with this
You don't have to agree with it. I said the Warriors. So literally one team is good as is. The type of move is also a factor. Kupchak has said he won't make a move that may look good now but hurts us down the road. So his recent draft picks are staying put. That's how I read it. All his picks have turned out excellent including second rounders like Graham, Cody Martin and McDaniels. Sabonis and Turner aren't likely targets for Charlotte. A cheaper option to Turner might be Bamba. Cheaper options to Sabonis might include Nurkic, Val, Harrell.
A lot of irrelevant chatter there
I didn't ask you about Warriors, nor I didn't ask you about Sabonis or Turner
I simply asked you, if Hornets were a contender, would you argue they shouldn't mess with what's working
I ask this in response to your stance that Hornets aren't looking to make a trade because they aren't contending
Topofthekey wrote:Well, if the teams that are at the top (1st, 2nd, 3rd place) shouldn't make a move, and Hornets (7th place) shouldn't look for a trade either, that essentially means that only a very small number of teams (4th, 5th, 6th place) should be making trades
Not sure if I can agree with this
You don't have to agree with it. I said the Warriors. So literally one team is good as is. The type of move is also a factor. Kupchak has said he won't make a move that may look good now but hurts us down the road. So his recent draft picks are staying put. That's how I read it. All his picks have turned out excellent including second rounders like Graham, Cody Martin and McDaniels. Sabonis and Turner aren't likely targets for Charlotte. A cheaper option to Turner might be Bamba. Cheaper options to Sabonis might include Nurkic, Val, Harrell.
A lot of irrelevant chatter there
I didn't ask you about Warriors, nor I didn't ask you about Sabonis or Turner
I simply asked you, if Hornets were a contender, would you argue they shouldn't mess with what's working
I ask this in response to your stance that Hornets aren't looking to make a trade because they aren't contending
And my embedded reply to your simple question is no, I wouldn't make that argument unless I'm in the same position as the Warriors, the one team I consider good as is.
This is the second time you received a simple answer to your simple question.
Oh, not really anymore. Last year, In the Bjorkgren defense, absolutely. But it was a terrible system that out each and every defender under immense stress and pressure at all times and every inch of the half court. Under a more realistic Carlisle defense, Sabonis has shown to be decent to good overall individually, and pretty good in a team system. He’s no rim protector, but we probably think we could do ok with Jackson or Goga at times. And he keeps getting better. He’s learning how to get away with his strength, and he’s not getting called for the touch fouls he was when he was younger.
Even with Sabonis having passable defense, Hornets should be targeting Mitchell Robinson as a rim protector with the MLE or Nurkic or Valanciunas as cheaper targets. One long term goal here is to develop Bouknight as a primary scorer. His ability to get to the basket and his scoring instincts remind me of Devin Booker and at times James Harden. So if the choice is between Sabonis or one of those other targets and we get to keep James Bouknight, it's a no brainer. Our GM likes watching paint dry. It's like he's sadistic but long range planning is critical for small market teams. You don't ever want to be in a position where you have to pay a premium to fill a hole. The one situation where you might do it is free agency where the cost is money alone but you stagger the contract so that the premium is absorbed. It is far more difficult to absorb the loss of a player who breaks out on a rookie contract.
You’re right. As an Indy fan, we wouldn’t have any idea of what a small market team has to do to build.
But yeah. Maybe you could get Mitchell for the MLE in the offseason. That would be a relatively cheap move. But y’all have been trying to fix that center spot for awhile now on the cheap, and it still hasn’t worked. And Mitchell is still a terribly flawed player. But that could possibly happen. If you’re willing to leave the center spot as is for another half a season and potentially a playoffs appearance.
I guarantee Hornets get sent to slaughter this playoffs with Plumlee. And yes, I'm resigned to the strong possibility the Hornets target a role player at the 5 rather than paying a premium. Given our top tier offense, we'd be concentrating on the value of the things Robinson does well, like rebounding and paint protection. With LaMelo being such an exquisite playmaker, we can get away with an offense playing 4-on-5. We have solid secondary playmakers in Rozier, Hayward and recently Miles Bridges. I'm willing to bump up compensation for a glorified role player like Bamba for the added spacing. But I don't think the 5 will be a top salary slot for us. And I don't think a small market team should allot a top salary slot for a 5. The Jazz have Gobert but they also have Donovan Mitchell, but even their ceiling is limited. Nuggets have Murray with Jokic and their ceiling is limited. I think our roster is well balanced for a small market team, and I've given up on top tier targets like Sabonis and Turner. I'm looking hard at Mitchell Robinson, Mo Bamba (he's my first choice), Nurkic, Val and Harrell. Maybe Noel.
MasterIchiro wrote: You don't have to agree with it. I said the Warriors. So literally one team is good as is. The type of move is also a factor. Kupchak has said he won't make a move that may look good now but hurts us down the road. So his recent draft picks are staying put. That's how I read it. All his picks have turned out excellent including second rounders like Graham, Cody Martin and McDaniels. Sabonis and Turner aren't likely targets for Charlotte. A cheaper option to Turner might be Bamba. Cheaper options to Sabonis might include Nurkic, Val, Harrell.
A lot of irrelevant chatter there
I didn't ask you about Warriors, nor I didn't ask you about Sabonis or Turner
I simply asked you, if Hornets were a contender, would you argue they shouldn't mess with what's working
I ask this in response to your stance that Hornets aren't looking to make a trade because they aren't contending
And my embedded reply to your simple question is no, I wouldn't make that argument unless I'm in the same position as the Warriors, the one team I consider good as is.
This is the second time you received a simple answer to your simple question.
That's quite an out you have provided yourself with, qualifying your position with "unless I consider the team good as is"
So hypothetically, if Hornets were a contender, you still could argue against making a trade, on the grounds that you consider the team good as is
In other words, the status of your team, whether they are a contender or not, has very little actual bearings on your stance whether they should be seeking trades or not
And this is what I was trying to point
Arguing that a team should or should not make a move based on their contendership status can be quite meaningless - one can literally try to justify it whichever way is convenient
Topofthekey wrote:A lot of irrelevant chatter there
I didn't ask you about Warriors, nor I didn't ask you about Sabonis or Turner
I simply asked you, if Hornets were a contender, would you argue they shouldn't mess with what's working
I ask this in response to your stance that Hornets aren't looking to make a trade because they aren't contending
And my embedded reply to your simple question is no, I wouldn't make that argument unless I'm in the same position as the Warriors, the one team I consider good as is.
This is the second time you received a simple answer to your simple question.
That's quite an out you have provided yourself with, qualifying your position with "unless I consider the team good as is"
So hypothetically, if Hornets were a contender, you still could argue against making a trade, on the grounds that you consider the team good as is
In other words, the status of your team, whether they are a contender or not, has very little actual bearings on your stance whether they should be seeking trades or not
And this is what I was trying to point
Arguing that a team should or should not make a move based on their contendership status can be quite meaningless - one can literally try to justify it whichever way is convenient
So many words here.
My position is: the degree of aggression in a move should be related to your team position. I don't know who's in the best position to pay a premium for Sabonis or Turner.
My position is: the degree of aggression in a move should be related to your team position. I don't know who's in the best position to pay a premium for Sabonis or Turner.
It's not the Hornets.
As I said, I disagree with this. Consider this two positions:
"We're not contenders - there's no need for immediate changes" "We're not contenders - immediate changes are needed"
These two positions are polar opposites to one another, yet they are both built from the same argument, that "we're not contenders"
Whether a team is a contender or not isn't what's important - it can be used to argue both ways anyway when it comes to trades
What you mentioned a few posts back: the type of move is also a factor - it is not "also a factor", it is actually a much more relevant factor than the contendership status of a team
Whether a team is a strong contender to win (like the Warriors as you said), or dwelling at the bottom of the rankings, there are always beneficial trades that can be had
In the context of Sabonis and Turner, it's fine if you don't think they are the type of trades your team should be pursuing, but "because we're not contenders" is a weak argument to use
MasterIchiro wrote: My position is: the degree of aggression in a move should be related to your team position. I don't know who's in the best position to pay a premium for Sabonis or Turner.
The landscape changes so fast in the NBA and even moreso the past few years. Right now the trade market overall is pretty weak all around. It may stay that way throughout or there may be some aggressive buyers at the deadline. There are scenarios where each could fetch a premium even in a deal where they aren't putting a team over the top. So I'd agree, but with the caveat that this applies to basically anyone who could realistically be available right now.
MasterIchiro wrote: My position is: the degree of aggression in a move should be related to your team position. I don't know who's in the best position to pay a premium for Sabonis or Turner.
The landscape changes so fast in the NBA and even moreso the past few years. Right now the trade market overall is pretty weak all around. It may stay that way throughout or there may be some aggressive buyers at the deadline. There are scenarios where each could fetch a premium even in a deal where they aren't putting a team over the top. So I'd agree, but with the caveat that this applies to basically anyone who could realistically be available right now.
You can count on one hand the number of teams clearly out of the play-in gimmick. To me it's an indication that there will be few sellers. There will be scarce supply coupled with high demand from the buyers. I don't have my Hornets as being an aggressive buyer in a seller's market. And I want to be clear for the whole forum (this is not directed at you or Pacers fans in general) that our need for a center isn't enough to make us a motivated buyer this year. I think by nature our GM is a cautious buyer. And this particular market is hostile towards buyers. Just like you wouldn't want to jump into a rebuild and host a firesale, you wouldn't want to go all-in before you're ready. Even going all-in may span multiple transaction periods. The Bulls added Vuc at the trade deadline. They missed the playoffs and sacrificed the pick that became Franz Wagner. Then in the off-season they added Lonzo, DeRozan and Caruso. They gave up a pick for DeRozan and recovered one using Lauri. They really started the whole process with LaVine as their lone foundational piece, which is remarkable. They paid a premium for all of their pieces and it worked out. It's hard to fathom the level of risk involved. Every major move worked out. But they're also a big market team with a larger margin of error. Hornets are 20 million below the tax, and rightfully so.
My position is: the degree of aggression in a move should be related to your team position. I don't know who's in the best position to pay a premium for Sabonis or Turner.
It's not the Hornets.
As I said, I disagree with this. Consider this two positions:
"We're not contenders - there's no need for immediate changes" "We're not contenders - immediate changes are needed"
These two positions are polar opposites to one another, yet they are both built from the same argument, that "we're not contenders"
Whether a team is a contender or not isn't what's important - it can be used to argue both ways anyway when it comes to trades
What you mentioned a few posts back: the type of move is also a factor - it is not "also a factor", it is actually a much more relevant factor than the contendership status of a team
Whether a team is a strong contender to win (like the Warriors as you said), or dwelling at the bottom of the rankings, there are always beneficial trades that can be had
In the context of Sabonis and Turner, it's fine if you don't think they are the type of trades your team should be pursuing, but "because we're not contenders" is a weak argument to use
I see what you're saying but you've isolated the type of move and the contender status when I consider them highly related variables. I think the market for Sabonis and Turner at their premium prices is a big market team selecting later in the draft. I don't think it's a small market team fresh out of the lottery (Bouknight) trying to just make the playoffs and currently on the cusp AS IS (0.5 games behind the #6 Sixers and 1.0 games behind the #5 Cavs). Our bedrock piece is 20. Bouknight is 21. Bridges is 23. PJ Washington is 23. Jalen McDaniels is 23. Kai Jones is 20. JT Thor is 19. Kupchak has bought time and with it he can be patient. We sold out our last home game and our opponent was the Houston Rockets. So it seems fans are pretty amped with the team as is.
My position is: the degree of aggression in a move should be related to your team position. I don't know who's in the best position to pay a premium for Sabonis or Turner.
It's not the Hornets.
As I said, I disagree with this. Consider this two positions:
"We're not contenders - there's no need for immediate changes" "We're not contenders - immediate changes are needed"
These two positions are polar opposites to one another, yet they are both built from the same argument, that "we're not contenders"
Whether a team is a contender or not isn't what's important - it can be used to argue both ways anyway when it comes to trades
What you mentioned a few posts back: the type of move is also a factor - it is not "also a factor", it is actually a much more relevant factor than the contendership status of a team
Whether a team is a strong contender to win (like the Warriors as you said), or dwelling at the bottom of the rankings, there are always beneficial trades that can be had
In the context of Sabonis and Turner, it's fine if you don't think they are the type of trades your team should be pursuing, but "because we're not contenders" is a weak argument to use
I see what you're saying but you've isolated the type of move and the contender status when I consider them highly related variables. I think the market for Sabonis and Turner at their premium prices is a big market team selecting later in the draft. I don't think it's a small market team fresh out of the lottery (Bouknight) trying to just make the playoffs and currently on the cusp AS IS (0.5 games behind the #6 Sixers and 1.0 games behind the #5 Cavs). Our bedrock piece is 20. Bouknight is 21. Bridges is 23. PJ Washington is 23. Jalen McDaniels is 23. Kai Jones is 20. JT Thor is 19. Kupchak has bought time and with it he can be patient. We sold out our last home game and our opponent was the Houston Rockets. So it seems fans are pretty amped with the team as is.
Sabonis and Turner are only 25 so they would fit with the timeline much better than Plumlee who's 31.
Topofthekey wrote:As I said, I disagree with this. Consider this two positions:
"We're not contenders - there's no need for immediate changes" "We're not contenders - immediate changes are needed"
These two positions are polar opposites to one another, yet they are both built from the same argument, that "we're not contenders"
Whether a team is a contender or not isn't what's important - it can be used to argue both ways anyway when it comes to trades
What you mentioned a few posts back: the type of move is also a factor - it is not "also a factor", it is actually a much more relevant factor than the contendership status of a team
Whether a team is a strong contender to win (like the Warriors as you said), or dwelling at the bottom of the rankings, there are always beneficial trades that can be had
In the context of Sabonis and Turner, it's fine if you don't think they are the type of trades your team should be pursuing, but "because we're not contenders" is a weak argument to use
I see what you're saying but you've isolated the type of move and the contender status when I consider them highly related variables. I think the market for Sabonis and Turner at their premium prices is a big market team selecting later in the draft. I don't think it's a small market team fresh out of the lottery (Bouknight) trying to just make the playoffs and currently on the cusp AS IS (0.5 games behind the #6 Sixers and 1.0 games behind the #5 Cavs). Our bedrock piece is 20. Bouknight is 21. Bridges is 23. PJ Washington is 23. Jalen McDaniels is 23. Kai Jones is 20. JT Thor is 19. Kupchak has bought time and with it he can be patient. We sold out our last home game and our opponent was the Houston Rockets. So it seems fans are pretty amped with the team as is.
Sabonis and Turner are only 25 so they would fit with the timeline much better than Plumlee who's 31.
Their age adds to their premium value. They fit our timeline but overkill our current goal. Our current goal is to reach the playoffs and it looks like we may do that without them, being 1.0 games out of the #5 seed after having played 10 more road games than home games on the season.
They don't fit our budget.
After giving Bridges a pay raise at John Collins money, Hornets will be right at the luxury tax. If we want to bring back Cody Martin at Terance Mann money we can't do it and JB has said Cody Martin is a big part of what we're doing here and what we're about. If we can somehow possibly fit Martin we definitely can't use the MLE without being taxed.
With Turner or Sabonis we definitely breach the luxury tax prematurely, before not really establishing playoff position and the roster will suffer casualties to players not even directly involved in a trade with Indiana, especially if you're subtracting Hornets cost-controlled prospects for your "rebuild". After Bridges and Martin are due raises, then we have PJ and McDaniels and Oubre due raises the following year.
The only way to absorb Sabonis or Turner is to send out either Hayward or Rozier. But we need a third team because Rozier or Hayward disrupt your rebuild plan. You're up against the tax while being on the play-in bubble and it seems Turner is the player you plan to keep and he's due (I project) 30 million in two years while Rozier or Hayward are still under contract.
If you want to keep Turner, you really need cost-controlled prospects for Sabonis.
I like Sabonis and he's feasted on the Hornets too many times but we need a rim protector and we need him to earn around the MLE if we want to keep our roster largely in tact (and we should given blend of youth, position, internal improvements). So Mitchell Robinson fits our timeline while also aligning with current goals. While I understand we want to reach the playoffs with Plumlee and Nick Richards, with PJ playing small ball 5, I don't think the plan is to get slaughtered. So I'm hoping for Bamba or Robinson at the deadline. Just to show you where my minds at...moments ago I was fiddling with Naz Reid trades on the trade machine. He's no rim protector but he only makes 1.7 million next year.
MasterIchiro wrote: I see what you're saying but you've isolated the type of move and the contender status when I consider them highly related variables. I think the market for Sabonis and Turner at their premium prices is a big market team selecting later in the draft. I don't think it's a small market team fresh out of the lottery (Bouknight) trying to just make the playoffs and currently on the cusp AS IS (0.5 games behind the #6 Sixers and 1.0 games behind the #5 Cavs). Our bedrock piece is 20. Bouknight is 21. Bridges is 23. PJ Washington is 23. Jalen McDaniels is 23. Kai Jones is 20. JT Thor is 19. Kupchak has bought time and with it he can be patient. We sold out our last home game and our opponent was the Houston Rockets. So it seems fans are pretty amped with the team as is.
Sabonis and Turner are only 25 so they would fit with the timeline much better than Plumlee who's 31.
Their age adds to their premium value. They fit our timeline but overkill our current goal. Our current goal is to reach the playoffs and it looks like we may do that without them, being 1.0 games out of the #5 seed after having played 10 more road games than home games on the season.
They don't fit our budget.
After giving Bridges a pay raise at John Collins money, Hornets will be right at the luxury tax. If we want to bring back Cody Martin at Terance Mann money we can't do it and JB has said Cody Martin is a big part of what we're doing here and what we're about. If we can somehow possibly fit Martin we definitely can't use the MLE without being taxed.
With Turner or Sabonis we definitely breach the luxury tax prematurely, before not really establishing playoff position and the roster will suffer casualties to players not even directly involved in a trade with Indiana, especially if you're subtracting Hornets cost-controlled prospects for your "rebuild". After Bridges and Martin are due raises, then we have PJ and McDaniels and Oubre due raises the following year.
The only way to absorb Sabonis or Turner is to send out either Hayward or Rozier. But we need a third team because Rozier or Hayward disrupt your rebuild plan. You're up against the tax while being on the play-in bubble and it seems Turner is the player you plan to keep and he's due (I project) 30 million in two years while Rozier or Hayward are still under contract.
If you want to keep Turner, you really need cost-controlled prospects for Sabonis.
I like Sabonis and he's feasted on the Hornets too many times but we need a rim protector and we need him to earn around the MLE if we want to keep our roster largely in tact (and we should given blend of youth, position, internal improvements). So Mitchell Robinson fits our timeline while also aligning with current goals. While I understand we want to reach the playoffs with Plumlee and Nick Richards, with PJ playing small ball 5, I don't think the plan is to get slaughtered. So I'm hoping for Bamba or Robinson at the deadline. Just to show you where my minds at...moments ago I was fiddling with Naz Reid trades on the trade machine. He's no rim protector but he only makes 1.7 million next year.
What woulld you pay for Robinson, Bamba or Reid? I can see Robinson going to Charlotte in a 3 team deal if the Knicks trade for Sabonis or Turner. Would you give up Bouknight, Wahington or Jones along with Plumlee in a trade for Richaun Holmes?
@Adrian Street because we are a top offense we can play 4-on-5 and accommodate a defensive specialist at the 5. LaMelo - Rozier - Hayward - Miles all have touched or sustained 40% on threes. They can all finish, score on 3 levels and make plays for others. Even Martin, McDaniels, Oubre and PJ space the floor off the bench.
The Knicks play most of their 48 minutes 4-on-5 with either Noel or Robinson. So I have the Hornets valuing Robinson more than the Knicks do.
The Knicks also own a Hornets first round pick where we can relax protections for 2022 to increase its value. We saw recently on draft night our GM's are not afraid to help each other. There's the precedent of a working relationship in place. We also have Pelicans 2nd in 2022 and 2024.
Robinson is easy to work with in the trade machine because he only makes 1.7. And while Holmes provides good offense we need to concentrate investment in rim protection and rebounds. What ever Robinson provides on offense is virtually superfluous for this roster. This is also why we don't need to pay for Turner then pay Turner a big raise for shooting 36% on threes with a roster where he's the 5th option with the starters. He's not a huge benefit there while being a huge cost. At bare bones, we really need Turner's rim protection/defense and should be looking to acquire strictly that (and rebounds). Put differently, I'd rather stay away from Holmes and keep our prospects, and work with the Knicks for Noel or Robinson. But if I had to choose one prospect to deal for Holmes it would be Kai Jones because he's so far away. But the Kings would have to really value his upside. Otherwise Noel is fine as a placeholder these next 3 years and I'd be happy to relax protections on the 2022 first owed to the Knicks. I'd even include 2 second rounders (2023, 2024) from the Celtics who currently have the same record as the Knicks.
Hornets are hugging a tight curve as you can see. The one guy who's off the table in all deals is James Bouknight. Just want to be clear. I know certain Hornets fans have entertained the idea, but I think they're being a little anxious. It may turn out that we wait just a few more months and get Robinson for the MLE. Then Richards becomes a legit backup next year and in 2-3 years Kai Jones breaks out and we stay really tight at the 5 with our spending.
MasterIchiro wrote: Even with Sabonis having passable defense, Hornets should be targeting Mitchell Robinson as a rim protector with the MLE or Nurkic or Valanciunas as cheaper targets. One long term goal here is to develop Bouknight as a primary scorer. His ability to get to the basket and his scoring instincts remind me of Devin Booker and at times James Harden. So if the choice is between Sabonis or one of those other targets and we get to keep James Bouknight, it's a no brainer. Our GM likes watching paint dry. It's like he's sadistic but long range planning is critical for small market teams. You don't ever want to be in a position where you have to pay a premium to fill a hole. The one situation where you might do it is free agency where the cost is money alone but you stagger the contract so that the premium is absorbed. It is far more difficult to absorb the loss of a player who breaks out on a rookie contract.
You’re right. As an Indy fan, we wouldn’t have any idea of what a small market team has to do to build.
But yeah. Maybe you could get Mitchell for the MLE in the offseason. That would be a relatively cheap move. But y’all have been trying to fix that center spot for awhile now on the cheap, and it still hasn’t worked. And Mitchell is still a terribly flawed player. But that could possibly happen. If you’re willing to leave the center spot as is for another half a season and potentially a playoffs appearance.
I guarantee Hornets get sent to slaughter this playoffs with Plumlee. And yes, I'm resigned to the strong possibility the Hornets target a role player at the 5 rather than paying a premium. Given our top tier offense, we'd be concentrating on the value of the things Robinson does well, like rebounding and paint protection. With LaMelo being such an exquisite playmaker, we can get away with an offense playing 4-on-5. We have solid secondary playmakers in Rozier, Hayward and recently Miles Bridges. I'm willing to bump up compensation for a glorified role player like Bamba for the added spacing. But I don't think the 5 will be a top salary slot for us. And I don't think a small market team should allot a top salary slot for a 5. The Jazz have Gobert but they also have Donovan Mitchell, but even their ceiling is limited. Nuggets have Murray with Jokic and their ceiling is limited. I think our roster is well balanced for a small market team, and I've given up on top tier targets like Sabonis and Turner. I'm looking hard at Mitchell Robinson, Mo Bamba (he's my first choice), Nurkic, Val and Harrell. Maybe Noel.
I strongly agree with this point -- spending on a C is the last thing a small market team should do. It is a luxury that doesn't make sense for a tax-averse team unless they are contending at that time. The game has changed and continue to evolve away from the basket and towards the 3pt line -- and that's where the salary space should be focused as well.
(aside: really enjoyed your posts in this thread detailing your thoughts on the Hornets C position -- well thought out and explained)
In a no-win argument, the first poster to Let It Go will at least retain some peace of mind
