2024-25 Trade Rumors Thread

[Handlogten's Heros]

Eh, objectively it's not a black and white question unless you think that trading Walker, Sexton, or anyone else that helps us win makes our chances of finishing above or below a certain team 100% or 0%. All I'm saying is that there's wiggle room in between and that is reality. Whether it's worth it or not can be a black can be a black and white answer but not what I'm talking about. You can have high confidence that Walker will deliver value on the other side of this tank, so IMO it's more of a pressing question on Sexton/Collins anyways.

I don't really care to discuss the value of 3 CLE firsts versus one PHX first, but I have extreme priority on more valuable picks. If given the choice between two CLE firsts, which technically meets the reported asking price, it's not even remotely close I'd have the PHX pick instead. Give me the the PHX 31 over CLE 27 + CLE 29 and that's an easy decision. Adding in CLE 25 doesn't really tip the scales that much to me.

Even if you told me all 3 picks end up in the 20s I'd still take 3 bites at the apple over the chances that they Phoenix pick is top 10. I believe I also stated that if it was straight Walker for 2031 phoenix pick I could be down with that. Adding in Nurk is like subtracting a pick imo. There's also just the human element to this that I (and many others) would loathe watching the guy. Add in a couple seconds and maybe a third team that wants to take Nurk and maybe I'm in.

We very much need quality over quantity. IF we decide to trade Kessler, I'd be extremely disappointed if we do it for a pile of stuff and/or crappy picks. If the messaging reflected what my feelings were, it's be "One very good pick" instead of "two first round picks". I'm not cheapening the price, just specifying the method of payment. As far as future picks goes, PHX 31 is one of the better one's out there.

I don't disagree. Its just I think 2031 for Walker is already a bit favorable to Phoenix. Eating Nurks deal (even if swapping with JC) just makes it yucky ****. With Walker's improvement, where the tank is, and our other options... I'd lean towards getting something a bit more palatable.

 

[KqWIN]

Even if you told me all 3 picks end up in the 20s I'd still take 3 bites at the apple over the chances that they Phoenix pick is top 10. I believe I also stated that if it was straight Walker for 2031 phoenix pick I could be down with that. Adding in Nurk is like subtracting a pick imo. There's also just the human element to this that I (and many others) would loathe watching the guy. Add in a couple seconds and maybe a third team that wants to take Nurk and maybe I'm in.

I don't disagree. Its just I think 2031 for Walker is already a bit favorable to Phoenix. Eating Nurks deal (even if swapping with JC) just makes it yucky ****. With Walker's improvement, where the tank is, and our other options... I'd lean towards getting something a bit more palatable.

Eh....we already have a lot of bites at the apple, so many that we likely can't take all of them anyways. We should be in the business of consolidating our picks and trying to turn them into better ones. At some point it is likely that we'll have to eat value because in trades because we can't use all of them. Remember, we're not actually trading PHX 31 for three CLE picks. We already have the 3 CLE picks, so more small bites at the apple just isn't what we should be looking for. Like I said, not really interested in getting into a deep discussion about CLE vs PHX....Just saying that given all the bad picks we already have the only kind of trade that makes sense for Kessler is one that involves premium picks. PHX 31 is pretty dang good. I have never been one to say that we need to trade Kessler, only that he could be traded for the right price and for me that price can only be paid in premium picks. I'm saying no if a team offers up multiple bad ones.

As far as the Nurkic thing, I obviously can't change your own personal feelings. For me it's no difference between he and Clarkson. I actually loathe watching Clarkson play more, but even if I didn't....it wouldn't matter too much to me. If you said we were trading for Kuzma, that'd be a different story

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

We see how hard it is to draft true difference makers and people just want to throw away Kessler for a pick 6 years from now?

Insanity.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Eh....we already have a lot of bites at the apple, so many that we likely can't take all of them anyways. We should be in the business of consolidating our picks and trying to turn them into better ones. At some point it is likely that we'll have to eat value because in trades because we can't use all of them. Remember, we're not actually trading PHX 31 for three CLE picks. We already have the 3 CLE picks, so more small bites at the apple just isn't what we should be looking for. Like I said, not really interested in getting into a deep discussion about CLE vs PHX....Just saying that given all the bad picks we already have the only kind of trade that makes sense for Kessler is one that involves premium picks. PHX 31 is pretty dang good. I have never been one to say that we need to trade Kessler, only that he could be traded for the right price and for me that price can only be paid in premium picks. I'm saying no if a team offers up multiple bad ones.

I understand we have many picks... trading Kessler for one doesn't help us consolidate. While I understand your "framing of Ainge wants two picks I'd take one good one" I think that is the price without a toxic contract. JC is less toxic than Nurk imo. Never mind watchability. I also think some discounting has to be done with the premium pick. If I offer to give you $1M in two years versus 7 years from now one is obviously much more preferable. We have all the cash we need for 2025/27/29 obviously but if someone offered a decent 2026 pick without taking a bad contract that's a decent offer too.

As far as the Nurkic thing, I obviously can't change your own personal feelings. For me it's no difference between he and Clarkson. I actually loathe watching Clarkson play more, but even if I didn't....it wouldn't matter too much to me. If you said we were trading for Kuzma, that'd be a different story

Overall I don't hate the deal. I would understand if they did it. I just wouldn't right now.

 

[KqWIN]

I understand we have many picks... trading Kessler for one doesn't help us consolidate. While I understand your "framing of Ainge wants two picks I'd take one good one" I think that is the price without a toxic contract. JC is less toxic than Nurk imo. Never mind watchability. I also think some discounting has to be done with the premium pick. If I offer to give you $1M in two years versus 7 years from now one is obviously much more preferable. We have all the cash we need for 2025/27/29 obviously but if someone offered a decent 2026 pick without taking a bad contract that's a decent offer too.

Overall I don't hate the deal. I would understand if they did it. I just wouldn't right now.

Nurkic vs Clarkson might set the record for world's smallest obstacle for me. It hardly changes anything financially, and if anything I'd prefer it because Hardy would be less attached to Clarkson and as much as I loathe watching Clarkson play I like him as the person and I'd like to give him that chance to be on a playoff team vs rot on the bench. Nurkic likely wants to rot on the bench so everyone is happy expect for maybe Ryan's golfing trip fund.

As far as your $1M two years later versus $1M seven years later analogy.....just no lol. Fact is, PHX 31 is a really good pick. It's good if you plan on waiting to use it, it's good if you plan on using it earlier and trading it. If you don't think so, whatever, I don't care to discuss why I think it's high quality any further than the simple notion that PHX is beyond ****ed in the distant future.

If we are going to move Kessler at all, it has to be for a high quality pick regardless of the year. I don't care when a pick is, I care about the quality of said pick. It stands to reason that if we trade Kessler it would be for some kind of draft compensation, if it's not high quality then I'm not considering it even if it's high quantity. It would have to be an unreasonable amount of crappy picks to make me move from Kessler. If there's a higher quality pick that conveys sooner that could be in a trade, by all means, let's discuss it. A high quality pick is a high quality pick, it doesn't have to be the PHX pick. A good pick in 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 would make for a good deal.

And yes, this does require some degree of speculation to determine just how good a future pick. For some reason having thoughts about things in the future has become a sensitive topic around here, but I think speculating on where future picks will land is definitely a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Nurkic vs Clarkson might set the record for world's smallest obstacle for me. It hardly changes anything financially, and if anything I'd prefer it because Hardy would be less attached to Clarkson and as much as I loathe watching Clarkson play I like him as the person and I'd like to give him that chance to be on a playoff team vs rot on the bench. Nurkic likely wants to rot on the bench so everyone is happy expect for maybe Ryan's golfing trip fund.

LOL Nurk won't want to rot on the bench. You are better than that. They will attempt to recycle him or mothball him against his will. More likely will be the recycle route which means you will get Nurk. If you don't care about that then okay but assuming a pro who works his *** off just wants to sit on the bench and crush his future earning potential (as small as it may be) is just not it.

As far as your $1M two years later versus $1M seven years later analogy.....just no lol. Fact is, PHX 31 is a really good pick. It's good if you plan on waiting to use it, it's good if you plan on using it earlier and trading it. If you don't think so, whatever, I don't care to discuss why I think it's high quality any further than the simple notion that PHX is beyond ****ed in the distant future.

Its not an LOL. A speculative asset that is 8-9 years away from providing benefit will receive some discount. It may be a valuable speculative asset but it will have some discount. A less valuable asset that will be realized sooner may or may not be more valuable but a 2031 pick is highly speculative. You can realize earlier by cashing it in. Phoenix has an uphill battle but with no reason to bottom out and an attractive FA market there is no certainty that they are ****ed. Say they move Book and KD and get a young player that hits in that time period they could be bouncing back up at that time. I think they are more likely to suck in the 27-29 period if they try to hold on too long.

If we are going to move Kessler at all, it has to be for a high quality pick regardless of the year. I don't care when a pick is, I care about the quality of said pick. It stands to reason that if we trade Kessler it would be for some kind of draft compensation, if it's not high quality then I'm not considering it even if it's high quantity. It would have to be an unreasonable amount of crappy picks to make me move from Kessler. If there's a higher quality pick that conveys sooner that could be in a trade, by all means, let's discuss it. A high quality pick is a high quality pick, it doesn't have to be the PHX pick. A good pick in 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 would make for a good deal.

And yes, this does require some degree of speculation to determine just how good a future pick. For some reason having thoughts about things in the future has become a sensitive topic around here, but I think speculating on where future picks will land is definitely a worthwhile endeavor.

I don't think we should trade him for a pick right now. I would hold out for premium value. What you are describing is fair value. I'm pretty sure I have stated that so not sure why you keep going on about the premium pick. Yeah I'd rather have a premium pick than a gaggle of other picks. Any pick 2-3 years in the future that is unprotected is a good pick to me. If a team came with two unprotected picks and no bad salary coming back then I may make a move. If I think it makes a big impact on our draft lotto odds I may do the Phoenix deal. While it makes an impact as things stand... I don't think its big enough. That's where I am. And I'm out.

 

[KqWIN]

LOL Nurk won't want to rot on the bench. You are better than that. They will attempt to recycle him or mothball him against his will. More likely will be the recycle route which means you will get Nurk. If you don't care about that then okay but assuming a pro who works his *** off just wants to sit on the bench and crush his future earning potential (as small as it may be) is just not it.


Its not an LOL. A speculative asset that is 8-9 years away from providing benefit will receive some discount. It may be a valuable speculative asset but it will have some discount. A less valuable asset that will be realized sooner may or may not be more valuable but a 2031 pick is highly speculative. You can realize earlier by cashing it in. Phoenix has an uphill battle but with no reason to bottom out and an attractive FA market there is no certainty that they are ****ed. Say they move Book and KD and get a young player that hits in that time period they could be bouncing back up at that time. I think they are more likely to suck in the 27-29 period if they try to hold on too long.

I don't think we should trade him for a pick right now. I would hold out for premium value. What you are describing is fair value. I'm pretty sure I have stated that so not sure why you keep going on about the premium pick. Yeah I'd rather have a premium pick than a gaggle of other picks. Any pick 2-3 years in the future that is unprotected is a good pick to me. If a team came with two unprotected picks and no bad salary coming back then I may make a move. If I think it makes a big impact on our draft lotto odds I may do the Phoenix deal. While it makes an impact as things stand... I don't think its big enough. That's where I am. And I'm out.

Look, if you think Clarkson being here is so much more favorable than Nurk, I suppose I can't change that opinion. For me, the very last team in the NBA I'd want to see him on is UTA. I hate watching him play, but I do like him as a person and would like if he was on a good team. When I watch Nurk play, he doesn't seem to care to play much. I think we would see less of him than coaches favorite, but do your own thing. If it's that more preferable to have Clarkson rot vs Nurkic, I'm ok with having a different opinion.

It is not the same as $1M today being better than $1M tomorrow because of inflation. Give me a break. That asset is not 8-9 years away from providing benefit. How can that be true when the asset would instantly be providing value for another team? You are 100% right that the value can be realized earlier. The reason why it's valuable in the first place is because it is distant, and in the NBA it can be reasonable to defer a pick until later even if the value of that pick is the same. Depending on the circumstances it can be perfectly reasonable to trade out of a draft if you do not want to cash in that value immediately. Teams would never trade out of a draft if this weren't the case. For example, I loved what the Spurs did on draft night, and they are way closer than we are.

As far as getting premium value for Kessler, maybe we can get more. Just in a vacuum, I think Kessler's value is at it's highest between now and the deadline. Big part of his value is the value he provides on his rookie deal. If you look back at this conversation, I haven't said we should for sure do it. I have said the 31 pick makes you think about it, as it is a great pick and for me only a great pick can get me to think about. I'm all ears if you think there's actually a better pick than PHX 31, but I'm not seeing it. Lakers are a total no go and their season has been the opposite of where it needed to go in order to make a similar kind of trade. This does not mean we should or have to trade Kessler for fair value, but like I said it's definitely worth consideration.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Look, if you think Clarkson being here is so much more favorable than Nurk, I suppose I can't change that opinion. For me, the very last team in the NBA I'd want to see him on is UTA. I hate watching him play, but I do like him as a person and would like if he was on a good team. When I watch Nurk play, he doesn't seem to care to play much. I think we would see less of him than coaches favorite, but do your own thing. If it's that more preferable to have Clarkson rot vs Nurkic, I'm ok with having a different opinion.

Its partly about Nurk and partly about watching a developing player who is getting better be replaced with a guy that I don't want to watch. JC already has the plantar issue which comes and goes and makes him easier to sit as the only way to treat the issue is rest. LOL at you thinking you can watch a player and know what he is thinking and his desires. bruh.

It is not the same as $1M today being better than $1M tomorrow because of inflation. Give me a break. That asset is not 8-9 years away from providing benefit. How can that be true when the asset would instantly be providing value for another team? You are 100% right that the value can be realized earlier. The reason why it's valuable in the first place is because it is distant, and in the NBA it can be reasonable to defer a pick until later even if the value of that pick is the same. Depending on the circumstances it can be perfectly reasonable to trade out of a draft if you do not want to cash in that value immediately. Teams would never trade out of a draft if this weren't the case. For example, I loved what the Spurs did on draft night, and they are way closer than we are.

Its not just inflation and its not a 1;1 comparison... i get that. Its valid though and don't pretend it isn't. If I am going to give you a boss *** vacation in 3 years or 7 years when do you prefer getting the vacation? Its the same vacation. If you were to sell the vacation to monetize it do you think you'd get more for the vacation that is 3 years away or 7 years away. For me I think its more predictable that the Lakers will be a lotto team in 2 years so I'd say the Lakers pick is more valuable than a Suns 2031 pick. Its fungible and its value likely increases slightly each year as it gets closer to being realized. If the Lakers could have received a 2027 Lakers pick instead of a 2031 Minny pick I'd think that would be preferable as it is fungible for a couple years if they want to sell it and also they can just hold it and make the pick themselves and still have that player benefit the team while Vic is in his prime.

San Antonio's decision was primarily based on the quality of the prospects they were staring at. They did the best they could I am sure. It looks fine unless someone around that draft range pops and then everyone kills them for trading what could be "that guy" and instead they moved him for the draft right to an 11-year-old. Some GMs prefer the far out mystery box so they can't be judged on it yet. So whatevs but its not lol worthy to say "a pick in 7 years is gonna take a bit of a discount".

As far as getting premium value for Kessler, maybe we can get more. Just in a vacuum, I think Kessler's value is at it's highest between now and the deadline. Big part of his value is the value he provides on his rookie deal. If you look back at this conversation, I haven't said we should for sure do it. I have said the 31 pick makes you think about it, as it is a great pick and for me only a great pick can get me to think about. I'm all ears if you think there's actually a better pick than PHX 31, but I'm not seeing it. Lakers are a total no go and their season has been the opposite of where it needed to go in order to make a similar kind of trade. This does not mean we should or have to trade Kessler for fair value, but like I said it's definitely worth consideration.

I'm not looking to move him. If I'm not selling my house why do I care that its value is higher today than it will be in 6 months? I think we have so few building blocks that he should be one for us. I thought we'd be in the 5/6 range and we are more like 2/3 right now. Stacking one more pick rather than just utilizing his value over the next 5-6 years is not something I do unless other stuff changes. There are other routes to aid the tank if we need. If we are doing the tank with Lauri thing then you need to keep some of these guys around for when we decide to move forward. So I don't need to scour the market for a deal better than this one... I'm not selling at this price.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Let me just say this

Phoenix is an unbelievably ****** place and I think by 2031 Utah will be a better FA destination (if we can stop growing Kentucky Bluegrass and Alfalfa en route to drying up the Great Salt Lake you absolute ****ing lunatics).

 

[KqWIN]

Its partly about Nurk and partly about watching a developing player who is getting better be replaced with a guy that I don't want to watch. JC already has the plantar issue which comes and goes and makes him easier to sit as the only way to treat the issue is rest. LOL at you thinking you can watch a player and know what he is thinking and his desires. bruh.

Its not just inflation and its not a 1;1 comparison... i get that. Its valid though and don't pretend it isn't. If I am going to give you a boss *** vacation in 3 years or 7 years when do you prefer getting the vacation? Its the same vacation. If you were to sell the vacation to monetize it do you think you'd get more for the vacation that is 3 years away or 7 years away. For me I think its more predictable that the Lakers will be a lotto team in 2 years so I'd say the Lakers pick is more valuable than a Suns 2031 pick. Its fungible and its value likely increases slightly each year as it gets closer to being realized. If the Lakers could have received a 2027 Lakers pick instead of a 2031 Minny pick I'd think that would be preferable as it is fungible for a couple years if they want to sell it and also they can just hold it and make the pick themselves and still have that player benefit the team while Vic is in his prime.

San Antonio's decision was primarily based on the quality of the prospects they were staring at. They did the best they could I am sure. It looks fine unless someone around that draft range pops and then everyone kills them for trading what could be "that guy" and instead they moved him for the draft right to an 11-year-old. Some GMs prefer the far out mystery box so they can't be judged on it yet. So whatevs but its not lol worthy to say "a pick in 7 years is gonna take a bit of a discount".


I'm not looking to move him. If I'm not selling my house why do I care that its value is higher today than it will be in 6 months? I think we have so few building blocks that he should be one for us. I thought we'd be in the 5/6 range and we are more like 2/3 right now. Stacking one more pick rather than just utilizing his value over the next 5-6 years is not something I do unless other stuff changes. There are other routes to aid the tank if we need. If we are doing the tank with Lauri thing then you need to keep some of these guys around for when we decide to move forward. So I don't need to scour the market for a deal better than this one... I'm not selling at this price.

Admittedly, I love to play body language doctor. Nurk looks disinterested, checked out, and like his body is hurt. He is out with injury right now. To me that seems like a guy that would be fairly easy to sit out. I do not get the impression that Nurkic is grinding in the background dying to play more. OTOH, you said no. So we can move on.

$1M now vs later is a terrible analogy and does not apply lol. The reason why you would want $1M now versus later is because there's an opportunity cost to not having the money to use now and because inflation would make the buying power of $1M less than in the future. Neither of those things apply to a future draft pick. Draft picks are liquid and you can get value for them before they can convey and picks don't decrease in buying. The 10th pick next year and the 10th pick in 7 years is certainly not the same situation as $1M today vs $1M in 7 years.

Now your vacation analogy, much better with the assumption that it's the same vacation and is actually applicable. But imagine if you said you got $1k to spend on vacation 3 years from now or $1k for vacation 7 years from now. That's not the same vacation is it. This is why the earlier analogy has no application. I think the Jazz are in a situation where they should just be looking for the best single vacation they can get instead of multiple, less exciting vacations.

As far as the Lakers pick being more valuable, well duh. That's just a more valuable pick. I don't think I said anything that would imply otherwise, just that the analogy doesn't apply. The Lakers pick is not more valuable because of reduced buying power due to inflation or opportunity cost. I'm pretty sure I just said that I'm looking for a higher quality pick regardless of year and PHX 31 is one of those higher quality picks. Uncertainty on it's own isn't necessarily bad. For example, the CLE 29 is more uncertain than the CLE 25 but I'd definitely rather have the CLE 29. The value of a pick is in it expectation of where a pick may land and the certainty of those outcomes. PHX 31 may be uncertain because it's distant and anything can happen, but given their situation I still think it's a really good high quality to have. Yes there are better picks (maybe none available for Walker), but it's still a very good pick and one that at least makes me think about trading for Walker.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Let me just say this

Phoenix is an unbelievably ****** place and I think by 2031 Utah will be a better FA destination (if we can stop growing Kentucky Bluegrass and Alfalfa en route to drying up the Great Salt Lake you absolute ****ing lunatics).

Are you calling me a lunatic?

 

[NUMBERICA]

Are you calling me a lunatic?

Does the shoe fit?