No he wasn't. 2nd draft refers to players who are somewhat unwanted to some degree, or at an appreciable lower value than they were when drafted. SGA was still a desired player and not viewed as being less valuable than his draft position.
Second Draft Trade Targets (Game Theory Podcast Definition)
- Thread starter SoberasHotRod
- Start date
Read the title, this is going off of the game theory podcast definition which was explained as guys traded on their rookie contract.
(FWIW, I get why he is different, and not really applicable to anything the Jazz are trying to do.)
Last edited:
"who might be underutilized or not being developed properly on their current team"
I don't think rookie year SGA fits that descriptor you wrote
They actually brought Tari up on the pod and thought he was going to get an extension soon.
I love Eason, but don't think he's available.
I don't think he is either and neither are all the guys listed. But I outlined some scenarios in my earlier post that could cause some tension in the extension process. There's no runway for him to be a starter, and what's probably best for him is to play for his next contract on a team where he can. If he has personal ambitions to become a starter or make starter money, he may not sign the deal.
Most likely case is that he signs an extension and is not moved, but I don't think the chances of him being moved in the next 18 months is zero. His situation actually reminds me a bit of Quickley's extension process who was eventually traded. It's a weird grey area when there's a very good young player who would be a starter on many teams but has no chance to be a starter for his current team. And on top of that they've already committed to Jabari Smith + added gotten crowded their front court rotation even more.
HOU obviously has eyes on making another massive star trade/acquisition in the future, so it may serve them better to get more future assets for Eason.
I wonder what the deal is with Devin Carter. I don't think his value would have dropped off to the point where he's nothing, and if it did you would think there is at least one team willing to take a flier on him. Does SAC have an asking price, or are they trying to give him away and not getting any takers?
At least on the Game Theory podcast they talked about him as someone who was available, not that they are trying to move him. That makes more sense to me, and I'm inclined to believe that the messaging has been muddied from available to not wanting him.
If the Kings really are trying to move him for anything it would be extremely short sighted. He played less than half the season after shoulder surgery with only 5 games where he got 20+ minutes the whole season. There is no way they could have expected him to look like anything in those circumstances.
(FWIW Devin Carter's Average Net Rating in the 5 games where he had more than 20 minutes is +14.88).
Yeah I don't know how he could possibly drop that low based on his. Injury or not, I thought his play was fine.
The Kings are not a logical franchise, however, and it seems like their focus is WB. If they bring in WB and keep Monk, they'll have no minutes for him and he'll just rot away.
I guess the part that I'm wondering about is why no one else in the league has taken a flier on him if he is indeed available for cheap. Does he have bad intel? Or do the Kings have an actual asking price that teams don't want to meet? Saric+Carter for Anderson seems like a reasonable trade if he's going for cheap.
You could include the RFA holdouts into this discussion. I’m still interested in how this Kuminga situation shakes out. I’m kind of surprised that there was zero smoke about him with the Jazz, he seems to be exactly Ainge’s type. There are definitely some similarities between he and Ace, on and off the court.
Kuminga deserves a lot of the blame for his situation, but at the same time I don’t think the Warriors put him in a position to succeed. I don’t think he’s Tatum/Brown of course, but I’m reminded of that year when Hayward came back. There was a ton of tension between the young guys trying to prove themselves and the existing veterans. Tatum and Brown both had poor seasons and it wasn’t all roses in the locker room. Kuminga has been in that situation for like 3 years straight.
Again, I don’t think he’s going to be as good as those two, but I do think a different situation would serve him well.
Kuminga deserves a lot of the blame for his situation, but at the same time I don’t think the Warriors put him in a position to succeed. I don’t think he’s Tatum/Brown of course, but I’m reminded of that year when Hayward came back. There was a ton of tension between the young guys trying to prove themselves and the existing veterans. Tatum and Brown both had poor seasons and it wasn’t all roses in the locker room. Kuminga has been in that situation for like 3 years straight.
Again, I don’t think he’s going to be as good as those two, but I do think a different situation would serve him well.
Is Monk considered a negative asset? He's been pretty solid the last 3 years in Sac, but I guess he's kind of overpaid in the new CBA landscape where no one wants to pay starter money to a 6th man who is an inconsistent shooter and a negative defensively.
Yes he's 100% negative.