2026 NBA Offseason

[Superbone]

[TOO]

Kawhi is part of all of this and should be suspended. Just because it may not have been his idea doesn't mean he didn't know what was happening. Adam Silver is still a soft ass.

[wpmiller42]

I also just think in that specific trade mentioned, the 1st round pick is a bad one(it’s like the worst of 4 teams) and Ryan Dunn seems likely to be out of the rotation. Even for those who like Green, Garland is a better fit and I’d love to hear an argument for Green over Garland. They haven’t been particularly close production wise…though Garland has had some health concerns.

I don't think anybody is arguing that Green is a better fit than Garland.

But they are arguing it’s a bad trade and it’s basically spare change plus Green for Garland…you have to be valuing Green at or near the level of Garland to be against it.

Or I guess just really high on Dunn

I get that Garland is a better fit on paper than Jalen Green, but I suppose I'm not thinking about it exactly that way. I think CG gets Booker off the ball and is 80-90% of the player Garland is, and just a better overall shooter. Jalen Green needs to come off the bench and be the 6th man of the year like Eddie Johnson was for us back in the day. And I do think Jalen Green is just better than Garland in my opinion, though I can see where folks can reasonably disagree.

So I suppose that if we're just limiting ourselves to a starting backcourt of Booker and Green, then yes, Garland makes more sense. But if we're looking up and down the roster, and utilize a starting backcourt of Booker and CG, and Green coming off the bench, that's way better than a starting backcourt of Booker and Garland and CG off the bench?

Anyways, that's my reasoning.

[O_Gardino]

I also just think in that specific trade mentioned, the 1st round pick is a bad one(it’s like the worst of 4 teams) and Ryan Dunn seems likely to be out of the rotation. Even for those who like Green, Garland is a better fit and I’d love to hear an argument for Green over Garland. They haven’t been particularly close production wise…though Garland has had some health concerns.

I don't think anybody is arguing that Green is a better fit than Garland.

But they are arguing it’s a bad trade and it’s basically spare change plus Green for Garland…you have to be valuing Green at or near the level of Garland to be against it.

Or I guess just really high on Dunn

Personally, I'm just tired of sending out picks. The worst of 4 teams could still be the best pick we have in the next decade. Plus, I don't think we need to replace Green. We'd honestly be better off getting the best draft value we can for him - preferably good picks in a few years when we are rebuilding post Booker.

[Shabazz]

I also just think in that specific trade mentioned, the 1st round pick is a bad one(it’s like the worst of 4 teams) and Ryan Dunn seems likely to be out of the rotation. Even for those who like Green, Garland is a better fit and I’d love to hear an argument for Green over Garland. They haven’t been particularly close production wise…though Garland has had some health concerns.

I don't think anybody is arguing that Green is a better fit than Garland.

But they are arguing it’s a bad trade and it’s basically spare change plus Green for Garland…you have to be valuing Green at or near the level of Garland to be against it.

Or I guess just really high on Dunn

You are conveniently forgetting the first round pick.

I imagine it's a pick in the 20s, given all the swaps attached to it. And I'm higher than most on Dunn, but he's buried on our depth chart right now without a clear path to playing time.

I don't hate Green. I just don't think he's a good fit with the starting lineup, especially after adding Bridges. We were a better team without him last year. There's some context there, but guys like Gillespie and Goody provide much more of what we need next to the other starters. Green's also probably not much better than a Jordan Poole/Mathurin-type and the market doesn't value that kind of player very highly right now.

[Mori Chu]

Ben Simmons signs with the Kings.

[O_Gardino]

Kings are at an all time low.

[Split T]

I also just think in that specific trade mentioned, the 1st round pick is a bad one(it’s like the worst of 4 teams) and Ryan Dunn seems likely to be out of the rotation. Even for those who like Green, Garland is a better fit and I’d love to hear an argument for Green over Garland. They haven’t been particularly close production wise…though Garland has had some health concerns.

I don't think anybody is arguing that Green is a better fit than Garland.

But they are arguing it’s a bad trade and it’s basically spare change plus Green for Garland…you have to be valuing Green at or near the level of Garland to be against it.

Or I guess just really high on Dunn

You are conveniently forgetting the first round pick.

No, I addressed it…just a couple posts back. But, I should have included overvaluing a bad 1st.

[Superbone]

I also just think in that specific trade mentioned, the 1st round pick is a bad one(it’s like the worst of 4 teams) and Ryan Dunn seems likely to be out of the rotation. Even for those who like Green, Garland is a better fit and I’d love to hear an argument for Green over Garland. They haven’t been particularly close production wise…though Garland has had some health concerns.

I don't think anybody is arguing that Green is a better fit than Garland.

But they are arguing it’s a bad trade and it’s basically spare change plus Green for Garland…you have to be valuing Green at or near the level of Garland to be against it.

Or I guess just really high on Dunn

You are conveniently forgetting the first round pick.

No, I addressed it…just a couple posts back. But, I should have included overvaluing a bad 1st.

Spare change it is not. You are undervaluing the pick. We've gotten some good value late in the first and even later.

[Split T]

I also just think in that specific trade mentioned, the 1st round pick is a bad one(it’s like the worst of 4 teams) and Ryan Dunn seems likely to be out of the rotation. Even for those who like Green, Garland is a better fit and I’d love to hear an argument for Green over Garland. They haven’t been particularly close production wise…though Garland has had some health concerns.

I don't think anybody is arguing that Green is a better fit than Garland.

But they are arguing it’s a bad trade and it’s basically spare change plus Green for Garland…you have to be valuing Green at or near the level of Garland to be against it.

Or I guess just really high on Dunn

I get that Garland is a better fit on paper than Jalen Green, but I suppose I'm not thinking about it exactly that way. I think CG gets Booker off the ball and is 80-90% of the player Garland is, and just a better overall shooter. Jalen Green needs to come off the bench and be the 6th man of the year like Eddie Johnson was for us back in the day. And I do think Jalen Green is just better than Garland in my opinion, though I can see where folks can reasonably disagree.

So I suppose that if we're just limiting ourselves to a starting backcourt of Booker and Green, then yes, Garland makes more sense. But if we're looking up and down the roster, and utilize a starting backcourt of Booker and CG, and Green coming off the bench, that's way better than a starting backcourt of Booker and Garland and CG off the bench?

Anyways, that's my reasoning.

I think CG gets a little overrated on what he can do at the 1. He’s a zero threat going to the rim(and very little of a threat in the mid range). That greatly limits his playmaking ability. He’s great in getting a screener open in the short roll due to the threat of his pull-up 3 and he can make that pass, but it requires someone being a threat in the short roll…which is basically just Oso…and maybe now Miles Bridges.

I do think he’s a better starting option than Green, but mostly because he’s a better shooter. He’s a better passer, but Green creates a lot more passing opportunities by putting actual pressure on the defense at places other than from 3…he just struggles to make those passes consistently.

Garland gets to the rim and into the paint nearly 4X as much as Gillespie and shoots a much higher percentage. He’s also a better mid range shooter. This allows him to use his playmaking all over the court. He can get Williams and Maluach shots at the rim, he can get Booker and others open 3s…Gillespie can only reliably get Oso open in the short roll and maybe some swings to open shooters.

I want Green to be good, but it really feels like we are evaluating him at his best and trying to extrapolate that out. Ya he’ll look awesome when he shoots 5/7 from 3 and drops 28 on 15 shots…but he also goes 1/7 and drops 11 points on 15 shots, way more often. And again, he creates passing opportunities, but struggles to make those passes.

All this means Booker is the only player on the team who can reliably create scoring opportunities for everyone. It would be really nice to have a 2nd player who could do that and I’d easily be willing to part with a middling 1st and a young player with a limited ceiling who has likely been passed in the rotation by 2 even younger wings to get that.

I’d give up both 1sts…I think we’re already committed to being a mediocre team for the next 5 years and holding onto picks in the 20s isn’t going to change that. Garland won’t make us contenders, but he’d at least make the last few prime Booker years more fun.

[The Bobster]

Ben Simmons signs with the Kings.

A one-year deal at the league minimum isn't a huge risk.

He's got to stay healthy enough to prove he's dependable though (but if there were no risk involved he could have signed for a lot more money).

Right now I guess I would describe him as an extreme version of Boris Diaw - more reluctant to shoot (even layups), great passer, but a better defender and rebounder (if he's not healthy, you can forget it though).

[pickle]

[Mori Chu]

I don't have an NYT account. Kawhi's deal is sketchy, but is it a crime? What crime would it be, fraud? Is it illegal to get an "endorsement" deal and get paid to do basically nothing? Aren't there a lot of people (you see this in nepotism and political circles) who are employed as "consultants" at random companies who do nothing at all, where it's basically just a cash funnel to them?

[JJ Slim]

I don't have an NYT account. Kawhi's deal is sketchy, but is it a crime? What crime would it be, fraud? Is it illegal to get an "endorsement" deal and get paid to do basically nothing? Aren't there a lot of people (you see this in nepotism and political circles) who are employed as "consultants" at random companies who do nothing at all, where it's basically just a cash funnel to them?

I think that part of the reason is that at least one of the companies involved is a publicly traded company and the SEC is now involved. Since the 2000's financial crisis and Sarbanes-Oxley things like that are not looked upon kindly.