2023-24 Insider Information Thread

[kg01]

1 hour ago, TheFuzz said:

I hesitate here, too, but maybe in a Snyder motion offense he can get the touches he wants. I think he's a play finisher rather than playmaker though

Clearly but he doesn't seem to want that to be his role, which is what the issue in TOR is.  IIUC 

[Spud2nique]

38 minutes ago, Diesel said:

because his defense

No he’s much better on the D end than Clint, it’s not even close. OO gave Giannis hell. No, Clint can’t board for sure but his defense is nowhere close to OO now.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, Spud2nique said:

No he’s much better on the D end than Clint, it’s not even close. OO gave Giannis hell. No, Clint can’t board for sure but his defense is nowhere close to OO now.

He isn't much better on D than Clint in the way that prime Scottie Pippen was better than prime Nique or something.  It is more matchup dependent.  There are games where CC is more effective and others where OO is.  Clearly, OO is better at matching up against mobile forwards like Giannis than OO and CC is better against big bodies.  

Given where the game has moved, OO should be more effective overall if he keeps developing like I expect he will.  That should coincide with him seizing the starting role but we'll see what Snyder does in that regard.

[JeffS17]

20 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I'm actually looking for names attached to these hypothetical trades to make it make sense.

Easy to say, we should move him...more difficult in reality in getting a return that makes sense.

I'm not a GM so I do not know who is available.  I'm speaking to what the goals should be for our front office -- not what the current available market is for those player types.  Including potential player names just sends the conversations down rabbit holes that are not fruitful at all.

[JeffS17]

1 hour ago, Spud2nique said:

No he’s much better on the D end than Clint, it’s not even close. OO gave Giannis hell. No, Clint can’t board for sure but his defense is nowhere close to OO now.

Spud we were OO truthers from day 1

It's great to see everyone else coming around now.

[AHF]

12 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

I'm not a GM so I do not know who is available.  I'm speaking to what the goals should be for our front office -- not what the current available market is for those player types.  Including potential player names just sends the conversations down rabbit holes that are not fruitful at all.

I don't think it is unreasonable to talk about players that would make sense because there can be a big gap between purely hypothetical scenarios that are detached from any reality and what things look like once you start looking at real world scenarios.  Of course nobody knows which players are available or the precise price point for anyone but if you can't put together hypothetical scenarios with real players that may speak to whether your objective is worth pursuing.

(Example:  If you said the Braves should trade excess pitching for a catcher who is both a plus defender and a plus hitter and you can't come up with any catchers that meet that who aren't clearly off the market then maybe your objective is in fact a rabbit hole that is not fruitful at all.  Thinking about what real world players could fit that objective helps to separate what is a valid idea to explore and what is an unhelpful rabbit hole.)

[TheFuzz]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

Clearly but he doesn't seem to want that to be his role, which is what the issue in TOR is.  IIUC 

We've seen Snyder change up some folks games already, maybe he can work his magic with OG. Hell, maybe he can work it with Hunter and it's moot.

As for some other folks to keep an eye on due to their teams cap situation: Brandon Ingram, Jaden McDaniels. Either would be very nice.

[JeffS17]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I don't think it is unreasonable to talk about players that would make sense because there can be a big gap between purely hypothetical scenarios that are detached from any reality and what things look like once you start looking at real world scenarios.  Of course nobody knows which players are available or the precise price point for anyone but if you can't put together hypothetical scenarios with real players that may speak to whether your objective is worth pursuing.

(Example:  If you said the Braves should trade excess pitching for a catcher who is both a plus defender and a plus hitter and you can't come up with any catchers that meet that who aren't clearly off the market then maybe your objective is in fact a rabbit hole that is not fruitful at all.  Thinking about what real world players could fit that objective helps to separate what is a valid idea to explore and what is an unhelpful rabbit hole.)

It's perfectly valid to discuss hypothetical scenarios, but my intention is to not talk about today or near-term.  Whether there is a player like that available today is not really relevant, because I'm speaking to what I want from our roster construction long term.  It's a broadened scope.  That's why we're effectively talking past each other.  If there's a trade available today to achieve what I would want in a Clint trade, that's great.  If it's available next season, great.  If it's never available and we have to ship him for 2 seconds, but that means we free up cap space to spend on other positions (like a developed AJ for instance), then that also works.  My entire point is that it does not make sense to invest so heavily at the center position, and that our long term goal should be to spread more of those dollars to the wings, or maybe a better backup PG.  None of those points really have anything to do with specific players available today.

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

I'm not a GM so I do not know who is available.  I'm speaking to what the goals should be for our front office -- not what the current available market is for those player types.  Including potential player names just sends the conversations down rabbit holes that are not fruitful at all.

Then what's the point of saying 'we should move him' without a thought of how we fill the void now or in the future to further the conversation.  Like I said pretty easy to say 'we should move on from him'

[JeffS17]

3 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Then what's the point of saying 'we should move him' without a thought of how we fill the void now or in the future to further the conversation.  Like I said pretty easy to say 'we should move on from him'

I gave my thoughts on how to construct a competitive roster.  Spending 35% of the cap, or 28% of the luxury floor at the center position is not a recipe for success.  I'm not interested in doing the GMs job for them on a forum, nor am I demanding we do something today to remedy the situation, but that is effectively what I think we have to move towards (trading Clint).  It will be impossible to contend with two centers, who cannot share the floor, and take up a huge chunk of the cap space.  I think we should spend more on wing depth, or a superstar consolidation.  The former can be through paying to retain Bey, paying to retain AJ (if he develops into a solid rotation piece), or it could be achieved through trade.  Regardless, we will be making some very disappointing moves very soon if our choice is to retain Clint and OO long term.  Because you will see our quality and depth at the wings erode.  This is why I believe we will have to move on from Clint.  Not sure what else to offer you.

[JayBirdHawk]

Just now, JeffS17 said:

I'm not interested in doing the GMs job for them on a forum,

That's not a real thing bud. 

This is a thought experiment in how real/actual/specific players fill whatever roles you would like to see whether from a cost or talent perspective.

It's ok if you don't want to play.

[JeffS17]

5 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

This is a thought experiment in how real/actual/specific players fill whatever roles you would like to see whether from a cost or talent perspective.

It's really not, though.  That's not the conversation I was having -- it's where you want the conversation to go, sure, but I don't see why we cannot discuss the strategic rationale of roster building without going into the day to day tactics of discussing specific players.  A natural next step to the conversation I was having is not discussing specific players, but what you might feel like a good balance is for how much money you spend at each position.  I suspect if you went through that exercise, you would not land on $50M+ for a center rotation, but you're refusing to go there for whatever reason.  

And there's no reason to be so condescending, not quite sure where that energy is coming from.

[JayBirdHawk]

2 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

It's really not, though.  That's not the conversation I was having -- it's where you want the conversation to go, sure, but I don't see why we cannot discuss the strategic rationale of roster building without going into the day to day tactics of discussing specific players.  A natural next step to the conversation I was having is not discussing specific players, but what you might feel like a good balance is for how much money you spend at each position.  I suspect if you went through that exercise, you would not land on $50M+ for a center rotation, but you're refusing to go there for whatever reason.  

And there's no reason to be so condescending, not quite sure where that energy is coming from.

1. There is no condescension intended

2.  To your point regarding $50+ million in the center position. Here is where you are wrong: Clint is making $20 and $22 million over the next 2 seasons.  I'm anticipating OO gets at most $20 mill per so that's a total of $42 million (NOT $50M+) at the Center position. The overlap of their contracts will be for 1 year only and I don't see that as overly expensive. 

Yes I agree, ideally you want to spend more on certain positions, but when you take a look at a team like Phoenix trading Ayton, they can afford to do that when their star wing is making more than our 2 centers combined. 

And again, I'm not saying not to trade him it just can't be a Huerter or Collins type trade where it's more about money.  We can't have a constant revolving door shedding talent for not much in return.

[thecampster]

4 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

1. There is no condescension intended

2.  To your point regarding $50+ million in the center position. Here is where you are wrong: Clint is making $20 and $22 million over the next 2 seasons.  I'm anticipating OO gets at most $20 mill per so that's a total of $42 million (NOT $50M+) at the Center position. The overlap of their contracts will be for 1 year only and I don't see that as overly expensive. 

Yes I agree, ideally you want to spend more on certain positions, but when you take a look at a team like Phoenix trading Ayton, they can afford to do that when their star wing is making more than our 2 centers combined. 

And again, I'm not saying not to trade him it just can't be a Huerter or Collins type trade where it's more about money.  We can't have a constant revolving door shedding talent for not much in return.

Jeff's has a point.

You can have both Capela and OO for $50 mil or you could of had a top 5 center for $35-$40 mil and Bruno. He's taking the "get the best starting 5 you can and hope no one gets hurt" team building philosophy.

[JayBirdHawk]

53 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Jeff's has a point.

You can have both Capela and OO for $50 mil or you could of had a top 5 center for $35-$40 mil and Bruno. He's taking the "get the best starting 5 you can and hope no one gets hurt" team building philosophy.

Except his point started with trading Capela to start OO at C and get a stretch 5 to backup him up, so that top 5 center for $40 million leaves OO where?

[thecampster]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Except his point started with trading Capela to start OO at C and get a stretch 5 to backup him up, so that top 5 center for $40 million leaves OO where?

The migrated like a crane in winter, you're right but the point on its own stands....but that's trade both, not just 1.

[Diesel]

23 minutes ago, thecampster said:

The migrated like a crane in winter, you're right but the point on its own stands....but that's trade both, not just 1.

This was the same problem with trading for Ayton (aside from his overall sorriness).   Bringing in an Ayton for a CC would put OO where?  We have a very good Center rotation and everybody is so quick to blow it up because of personal preference.    It's absurd.  Keep the both of them.  Rotate them to our strength, i.e. matchup rotation.  And when a good trade comes or when it's time to say goodbye to one, we do that.    Where's the problem?

 

[JayBirdHawk]

30 minutes ago, thecampster said:

The migrated like a crane in winter, you're right but the point on its own stands....but that's trade both, not just 1.

Ha.

There is only one Center who is making $30+ mil, I'll willing trade BOTH CC and OO for and that is Jokic. End/

Not Embiid, Not Towns, Not Goberated, Not Sabonis, Not Ayton, Not Bam, Not Porzy.

[AHF]

51 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Ha.

There is only one Center who is making $30+ mil, I'll willing trade BOTH CC and OO for and that is Jokic. End/

Not Embiid, Not Towns, Not Goberated, Not Sabonis, Not Ayton, Not Bam, Not Porzy.

Also relevant, I'm pretty sure Philly would laugh if we offered CC and OO for Embiid and he is the one guy on that list who stands out as someone I'd love to trade for with that kind of package.  (Cue kg to remind me that Embiid limps in the playoffs.  I do get that but I also think he is clearly the second best center in the game.  A travesty that he was MVP over Jokic last year but still well worth it if we could pair him with Trae.)

Not sure whether any of those other teams would be keen on that deal but I can at least see people having different views on whether they'd like CC+OO or KAT, etc.

[JeffS17]

3 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Except his point started with trading Capela to start OO at C and get a stretch 5 to backup him up, so that top 5 center for $40 million leaves OO where?

My point started with having $50M tied up in 3 centers, none of which can share the court with one another, doesn't make sense... I gave hypothetical scenarios where we trade for a stretch 5 backup (among a backup PG, or PF, or wing depth) that would all make more sense roster construction wise.  You have way more versatility with your rotations when your strongest bench players are wings or versatile PFs. I believe I also mentioned a consolidation trade could make sense for the right player. 

But moving forward with Capela and OO on the roster, however, does not make any sense.  I'd be willing to bet a lifetime flair bet that both Capela and OO will not be on the roster at the start of the 2024-2025 season, because I have that much conviction how little sense keeping both of them on the roster (after OO is paid) makes.  And I have faith that our FO will be using the same logic and reasoning I'm putting forward.  So sometime between now and game 1 of the 2024-2025 season, either Capela or OO will be traded.  We can debate whether or not that happens, but to me it is inevitable.  The only scenario where I could see them both on the roster is if OO turns into a PF over the course of this season, but that is extremely low likelihood.