The Raptors and KD. Let's discuss.

[golden]

Can you link to those details? I never read anything about the final 2 years of their deals being unguaranteed if they don't play enough games the first 2 years.

Embiid

Contract Notes:

Extension assumes $101 million cap for 2018-19

• If misses 25+ games or plays fewer than 1,650 minutes due to injury (back, feet) PHI has right to waive and reduce g'teed amount:
• $84.2 million if waived after 2018-19
• $98.2 million if waived after 2019-20
• $113.3 million if waived after 2020-21
• $129.4 million if waived after 2021-22
• If plays 1,650 minutes three consecutive seasons or three of four season (including 2017-18) lose right to waive with savings
• If reaches 1st Team All-NBA or NBA MVP would be elgible for 30% max [not elligible, 2017-18 All-NBA 2nd Team]

Contract specifics via Adrian Wojnarowski and Bobby Marks of ESPN

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/philadel...-embiid-15355/

[TrueTorontoFan]

I mean the Knicks.
They already signed their saviour Brunson for gazillions of $$$

yeah and... they can acquire mitchell via trade

[JawsGT]

For us it's better to trade picks instead of core pieces because we're trying to win a championship right now. Sending back fair value in players kinda leaves us in the same spot.

I agree, the more picks we add the less core we have to move, but there is a line, and trading even 5 picks for a single player seems shortsighted to me. Even if it's 3 picks and 2 swaps, seems like lot for Mitchell. The swaps I'm not concerned with as much, cause you still retain a pick, but no way I want to trade a 1st in 4 or 5 years down the road. We still have to consider how to contend in 3, 4, 5 + years down the road when scottie is the clear cut best player on the team and possibly one of the best in the league. I have little interest in sacrificing Scottie's prime for a chance in the next couple of seasons. Mitchell is interesting because he's much younger than Durant, but as I outlined it may require a gobert type package from us to get him, and I have little stomach for that. Honestly, a lot of the risk associated with these potential trades involving Mitchell or Durant would make more sense to me if Scottie wasn't on the roster. But he is, and I don't want to include him, which I think most posters agree with.

[Primer]

Embiid



https://www.spotrac.com/nba/philadel...-embiid-15355/

Here's how a perfect storm of calamity would have to unfold for Embiid to earn any less than the full $146.5 million: Across each of the final four seasons of the extension, ending with the 2022-23 season, the 76ers could waive Embiid for a financial benefit if he's lost because of a contractually agreed-upon injury that causes him to miss 25 or more regular-season games and if he plays fewer than 1,650 minutes, league sources said.

Specific injuries are laid out in the contract and include only past problem areas with Embiid's feet and back, sources said.


The specifics really matter in how reasonable the contract offer is. Kyrie doesn't have a recurring injury so I'm not sure how the deal was written. It could have been fair, or could have been terrible. If you look at his injury history he's missed games for just about every single part of his body. So agreeing to something general and not specific is almost certainly agreeing to not getting paid.

[Primer]

I agree, the more picks we add the less core we have to move, but there is a line, and trading even 5 picks for a single player seems shortsighted to me. Even if it's 3 picks and 2 swaps, seems like lot for Mitchell. The swaps I'm not concerned with as much, cause you still retain a pick, but no way I want to trade a 1st in 4 or 5 years down the road. We still have to consider how to contend in 3, 4, 5 + years down the road when scottie is the clear cut best player on the team and possibly one of the best in the league. I have little interest in sacrificing Scottie's prime for a chance in the next couple of seasons. Mitchell is interesting because he's much younger than Durant, but as I outlined it may require a gobert type package from us to get him, and I have little stomach for that. Honestly, a lot of the risk associated with these potential trades involving Mitchell or Durant would make more sense to me if Scottie wasn't on the roster. But he is, and I don't want to include him, which I think most posters agree with.

The most you can trade is 4 picks in non consecutive years, because there is a 7 year limit on how far out you can trade 1st round picks.

There is risk and making a trade like that, but there is also a huge risk in every draft pick, they could all be busts. Bruno, Delon, Flynn, we've had our fair share.

[JawsGT]

The most you can trade is 4 picks in non consecutive years, because there is a 7 year limit on how far out you can trade 1st round picks.

There is risk and making a trade like that, but there is also a huge risk in every draft pick, they could all be busts. Bruno, Delon, Flynn, we've had our fair share.

Ok, so we could in theory trade koloko, 3 future 1sts, and 3 swaps, which is madness to me for a 34 yr old durant or even the younger Mitchell. And, it's not just about the quality of the pick, it's also about filling out the roster with cheap talent. Bruno may be the only bust actually, the rest had/have their utility, and even Bruno had his ( my belief being they took a massive swing to help convince the necessary folks that an investment in a g-league team was required for long term success, hard to make that case with a player that can consume minutes with the big team). I know most here don't like Flynn, but he's got NBA talent and we don't use a PnR offence much, which he is more suited for.

Honestly Primer, if I'm not mistaken you were a big believer in this team prior to last season. I think you thought they could crack 50 wins. And as far as I'm concerned you were right, as there were plenty of half assed performances last season that prevented the team from eclipsing that total. So I'm a little surprised you might be willing to part with so many assets to secure one of these guys. I figured you might want to run it back, or at least, support a less risky trade.

[planetmars]

The picks aren't just for finding talent in the draft.. its how you get guys like Serge, PJ (although they were two 2nd rounders, but still), Thad. I mean Boston basically just stole Brogdon for a first. They used a first to get White last year. You give up all your picks and its super hard to get better in the short term. There will always be an injury. Depth will always be important. Can't give up every pick. And with pick swaps you retain the pick, but can't trade it because of the Stepien rule.

Even if the picks are low 20's, they are very important assets.

[TrueTorontoFan]

Ok, so we could in theory trade koloko, 3 future 1sts, and 3 swaps, which is madness to me for a 34 yr old durant or even the younger Mitchell. And, it's not just about the quality of the pick, it's also about filling out the roster with cheap talent. Bruno may be the only bust actually, the rest had/have their utility, and even Bruno had his ( my belief being they took a massive swing to help convince the necessary folks that an investment in a g-league team was required for long term success, hard to make that case with a player that can consume minutes with the big team). I know most here don't like Flynn, but he's got NBA talent and we don't use a PnR offence much, which he is more suited for.

Honestly Primer, if I'm not mistaken you were a big believer in this team prior to last season. I think you thought they could crack 50 wins. And as far as I'm concerned you were right, as there were plenty of half assed performances last season that prevented the team from eclipsing that total. So I'm a little surprised you might be willing to part with so many assets to secure one of these guys. I figured you might want to run it back, or at least, support a less risky trade.

being part of the believer crowd myself from last year... its simple.... boston got better and as long as you aren't giving up too much its worth the potential risk at the right price.


the issue is its hard to use picks if you trade ALL your picks .... to maintain your bench strength beyond one year.

[JawsGT]

being part of the believer crowd myself from last year... its simple.... boston got better and as long as you aren't giving up too much its worth the potential risk at the right price.


the issue is its hard to use picks if you trade ALL your picks .... to maintain your bench strength beyond one year.

I was a believer too, I mean, not at primers level if I remember his thoughts correctly, but its definitely not simple. The idea that we have to go all in this season because Boston got better is exactly how you screw your franchise for half a decade or so. And of course it's worth it for the right price, but what is the right price? That's the question, and for me, 2 picks + 2 swaps is the limit on pick capital.

[LJ2]

KD, Kyrie, Gobert, Westbrook, Wall, Ayton, Murray and now Mitchell. I don't think I remember ann offseason when so many big news were being offered up on trades.

[TrueTorontoFan]

has the ayton thing figured itself out yet?

[TrueTorontoFan]

I was a believer too, I mean, not at primers level if I remember his thoughts correctly, but its definitely not simple. The idea that we have to go all in this season because Boston got better is exactly how you screw your franchise for half a decade or so. And of course it's worth it for the right price, but what is the right price? That's the question, and for me, 2 picks + 2 swaps is the limit on pick capital.

Is it going all in if you aren't trading pascal or scottie?


I agree with you in terms of pick equity I would stop at 4 now that I have had time to think. Before I was saying between 5-7... but now seeing the other offers I think we can give the best player assets so why are we outbidding ourselves?


I think 4 picks could be acombination of picks and pick swaps so maybe its 3 picks one swap.. realistically the swaps are effectively meaningless so I dont think they shift a deal for us.

[JawsGT]

Is it going all in if you aren't trading pascal or scottie?


I agree with you in terms of pick equity I would stop at 4 now that I have had time to think. Before I was saying between 5-7... but now seeing the other offers I think we can give the best player assets so why are we outbidding ourselves?


I think 4 picks could be acombination of picks and pick swaps so maybe its 3 picks one swap.. realistically the swaps are effectively meaningless so I dont think they shift a deal for us.

Yeah the swaps likely don't move the needle. Trading for KD is going all in and that absolutely requires keeping scottie and pascal. I think we need to keep those moreso than any other players in order to contend. But it's the fat stacks of picks that demonstrate an all in move. We make a deal like minny did for gobert and that's all in. The only thing left for minny is fringe moves, so they better be hoping that lineup can contend as is. And again, trading a lot of picks concerns me for team building when scottie reaches his prime.

[Primer]

Ok, so we could in theory trade koloko, 3 future 1sts, and 3 swaps, which is madness to me for a 34 yr old durant or even the younger Mitchell. And, it's not just about the quality of the pick, it's also about filling out the roster with cheap talent. Bruno may be the only bust actually, the rest had/have their utility, and even Bruno had his ( my belief being they took a massive swing to help convince the necessary folks that an investment in a g-league team was required for long term success, hard to make that case with a player that can consume minutes with the big team). I know most here don't like Flynn, but he's got NBA talent and we don't use a PnR offence much, which he is more suited for.

Honestly Primer, if I'm not mistaken you were a big believer in this team prior to last season. I think you thought they could crack 50 wins. And as far as I'm concerned you were right, as there were plenty of half assed performances last season that prevented the team from eclipsing that total. So I'm a little surprised you might be willing to part with so many assets to secure one of these guys. I figured you might want to run it back, or at least, support a less risky trade.

I do think we're 50 win team as constructed but I don't think we win the championship as constructed. I think adding KD gets us there depending on what we give up. I share Masai's thinking that we're playing for championships not just to be pretty good. A trade for a star is what got us there last time and I think that's what will be required again. Our roster and contracts are setup perfectly to make one of those trades. I think we need to do our best to make a trade for a superstar happen when it's available.

I'm much higher on a KD trade than Mitchell. I think KD puts us over the top and a player of his caliber doesn't come available very often, and the timing is even better now because very few teams have the ability to make an offer due to the Rookie max deal rule and Simmons being on the Nets.

[Mapko]

I think it's sorta fair because Irving is a headcase but I can see how Irving thinks it was a shitty offer. NBA players want contract certainty when the deal is for term. If he gets hurt hes completely fucked by that kind of deal. I'm not sure there's an example of anyone in the NBA ever accepting a deal like that.

So good faith according to Eric Slater (whoever the hell that is) but any agent worth a shit would say hard no.

Embiid for different reasons (major injury history).
As for Irving, Im sure actual physical injury can be eliminated (not included). Quite simply: If not injured -he has to be available to play (no nonsense, taking few days in mid season to....)