Proudfeet

I don't know about Robinson and the earlier supporting cast on the Spurs, but Kawhi during their title run was a couple of years before his prime. He was already impressive defensively, but his offense consisted solely of catch and shoot threes or drive and dunk. Its simple and effective to be sure, but that definitely was not prime Kawhi.

Beverley.

The only thing that matters is that Beverley is out. Those late challenges are not good defense, they are just dangerous plays. Think he might be the only player I dislike for his on court performance.

Might need some creativity with the design and purpose. Think the major challenges are plumbing and ventilation. The number and location of toilets and water points are a problem. Not sure if they can be increased to accommodate multiple families on each floor and personally wouldn't like to live where these are communal.

Think the order goes McDaniels, Reid then Gobert in general. Might just be the few games I've watched, but Gobert has been mostly ineffective on the Wolves. McDaniels contributes on both sides, Reid's defense isn't great, but is solid offensively, while Gobert's offense is completely dependent on his team getting him the ball in a good position and his defensive effectiveness seems greatly reduced from his time in Utah.

As I said, I'm not familiar with the Magic. I just think that in general teams trading for Luka should approach with caution, to be careful that he doesn't marginalise their existing star given how much he dominates the ball.

Figured we were reading "one more piece" differently, given that you qualified it with "premier" players. Its just that as I mentioned above, the cost for those players are usually result in giving up a key piece or pieces of your existing team. I feel its a bigger change. And to be fair to Holiday, he was a max player, all-star, and the Bucks did give up decent assets if I recall correctly. I'm not familiar with the Magic, but I wouldn't trade for Luka either unless you're committed to building around him. Luka is kind of like late career LeBron + Harden hybrid, the offense revolves around them and the effort on defense is suspect. And he likely doesn't play well off the ball either. Teams are better off surrounding him with quality role players than putting him in a multiple star set up. Based on recent history, I think the only players I would "sell the farm" on in general would be LeBron/KD/Curry if they were five years younger. Giannis/Embiid/Jokic are great, but they are less malleable and not LeBron. Not sure what the Magic need or who are worth keeping to give team specific suggestions. Anyway, I think its more prudent to build a playoff team and get a solid veteran to fill a gap. Unless you can buy low on the stars, the trade probably necessitates a partial rebuild which is difficult with limited cap space and likely no more picks available. Its why nobody wanted KD in the offseason, the Nets were asking for too much.

Yeah, feel like Gobert's value has cratered. Didn't think he was ever worth the supermax given his severe offensive limitations but you either pay your stars what they qualify for or they walk. And to be fair to the Jazz, they did look possible that one season. Disagree that "one more piece" rarely works though. Its just hard to win. It's not like you can expect KD to Warriors almost certainty. Based on recent history, the Bucks (Holiday) beat the Suns (CP3), the Lakers (AD) won against the Heat (Butler) and the Raptors won with Kawhi (and Ibaka and Gasol). Even the Warriors with Curry/Klay/Draymond started their turnaround with Iguodala. Of course, there are a lot of failures, trades that send teams backwards, but I think that is a separate issue from claiming it doesn't work. Unless you are only counting "premier" players, but even in that case it usually results in the team being reformed instead of being "one more piece".

They get the 10th pick, which a quick google says is 4.5%. Personally hoping that one of the losing teams in the play ins get a top four pick, pushing the Mavs to 11th and consequently lose their pick as it is only top 10 protected. Think they owe it to the Knicks for the Porzingis trade.

To be fair, he is an upgrade on Dimwiddie. Their problem even before the trade was their lack of wings and defense. This is the result of including Finney-Smith in the trade.

Yes, if he does reach the end of his contract, he becomes a free agent and he can sign with any team that has cap space. That team cannot offer the supermax and I think even the regular max is lower than he would get if he stays with his present team though. And its risky forecasting which contender will have cap space because contenders usually have a couple of max contracts already. But usually I think teams want to secure the player and would trade for them before they become free agents. Not much they can do if they still decide to leave like Kawhi did though. At least he left the Raptors a championship before going to the Clippers.

If you make it clear that you're not going to re-sign, its effectively a trade request anyway. Maybe the cost might be a little less steep when you have less years left on the contract, but that is unlikely for a probable MVP candidate and someone will just do the trade anyway. The only way you get to leave without a trade is if your team feels it can contend with you that last year and they might risk it for the championship.

Are you guys expecting the voters to have some robust methodology? They probably just watch their local games, plus some high profile games and highlights and then go look at some stat websites and go with their gut. A bunch of stuff like recency/confirmation bias will be an unconscious influence. Or are we expecting them to watch all the games, scout the players, record their findings and cross reference with stats, and carefully come up with a detailed analysis on how they reached their conclusion? I don't.

Sure, and I'd add that the conference finals were mostly on the back of Murray's heroics, but last year when MPJ and Murray were out for the season, just making the playoffs was an achievement. Also, not sure how accurate it is considering how his closest competitor Embiid doesn't have much playoff success either. Or how Giannis stopped winning it after he got his ring. Or how Tatum has seemingly dropped out of contention for the second half of the season despite his playoff success. To be clear, I'm not advocating for Jokic. I just don't think that a) playoff success has been relevant in deciding the MVP and b) even if it was relevant, losing to the eventual champion when Denver was down two key players and nobody giving them a chance before it began should be a mark against him.

I've said it multiple times, but it bears repeating. Its a pageant. Don't take it too seriously unless you're the player or team where it directly affects the salary. Westbrook got it over Harden because he got a couple more rebounds, not because they were substantively more important, but because averaging a triple double was shiny and pretty. Jokic and Embiid were pretty much tied for the past two seasons. I feel that Jokic got it because he was a fresh look the first year and also Embiid has availability issues which seemed to be the tiebreaker. Anyway, point is, it is up to the votes to decide what they feel is important. It doesn't actually mean anything, and usually all the candidates are at least deserving. In terms of awards, MVP is also better than All-Star because there is only one winner. Rather than saying someone deserves All-Star but never pointing out who they would replace, MVP is very clear on who the alternative candidate you feel is less deserving is. *Also, I don't know about stat padding, but from what I've seen, Malone seems to play Jokic an awful lot with the starters. Maybe it is to maximise his value, but it's interesting because I thought he could prop up the bench and the rest of the starters can help his back up for a more balanced approach. I'd be very interested to see how Jokic's shared starters/bench minutes compare to other stars. It stood out to me but I could be wrong.

I think Poole needs reps to maintain his form, but he doesn't get enough with Curry and Thompson both healthy. And he's a defensive liability which makes it even harder for him to get minutes. His biggest contribution last playoffs was him getting the Warriors their seeding in the regular season. He became more and more of a non-factor as the playoffs went on. Really curious to see what the Warriors do this offseason. Would they part with Thompson to get under the cap and hope that Poole recreates his form instead of it just being a hot stretch? Or do they continue going all in, out of loyalty and maybe a lack of alternative options? Or maybe they can get both Green and Thompson back on lower salaries? Not sure what the CBA allows.

What's wrong with Looney? I think he's pretty steady. I've never rated McGee. Don't see what he contributes besides energy and length. I'd rather have Looney's tortoise than McGee's hare. I think if we are doing parallels, it'd be Livingston/Poole and Barnes/Wiggins. Not in terms of their importance, but their role in creating/finishing. Its a different team with different needs now though.

He's rich and passionate but I can't even name half of them in the first place. There's Jordan, Cuban, Buss, Dolan. I don't know if Myers is the GM or Owner. Wade is a minority owner of the Jazz, and a baseball guy is the same for the Wolves. That's about it off the top of my head. I don't even remember who bought the Suns.

Don't see why Denver traded for Jackson. He's not better than Hyland now and is also older with no upside. Even if they think Hyland can't defend, neither can Jackson. Maybe Jackson is not as trigger happy, but aggressively hunting your own shot is a necessary quality when you're leading the bench. They could have just given Braun his minutes or extended the minutes of Murray/KCP/Brown if they wanted to reduce Hyland's role. Bryant isn't very good either, but that's more of a result of the failed bet on Jordan and Denver's inability to get a backup for Jokic after Plumlee and Millsap. At least they have a good stock of forwards to help fill in. Haven't seen the Clippers play, but looking at the box score the last two games, they have turned from the Paul George and Kawhi show to the Westbrook and Eric Gordon show. Can't see how that is good or sustainable long term. Think they should have just committed to Kawhi being the first option and built synergy from there instead of this equal opportunity making the right play that just ends up being your turn my turn.

It's really unfortunate. He's lost all his confidence and that makes him an active liability on the court. Is he even still reliable defensively?

Sure, but the Nets giving up Allen to help facilitate the trade contributed to their problems, resulting in them having to get Griffin/Aldridge, neither of whom worked out. I'd take it as a lesson learnt instead of using it as a start point. Which was probably why there was no deal over the offseason. Yes, I agree with you on Bridges. But even so, there is value for such players. He's flexible and fits on any team. Even though you can't build around him, he can fit around the rest of the roster or you can move him to most other teams. He's a good defensive player, so even if your stars are solid defensively, you can let them rest while Bridges takes on the other team's star player. And while he's not an offensive star, he's not just a 3 and D either. Plus, he's on a reasonable contract (low 20m for 4 years). Bridges is not Ayton but is still really valuable. KD is worth more than both and the picks, but that is also more than what the Suns can afford. __ I see that the Nuggets traded for a center. Meaning DeAndre Jordan is probably out of the rotation again. Why do they even sign him.

The deadline is today, but Bridges/Johnson/Crowder, 4 first rounders and a swap and you want more? Bridges is a solid foundation piece. Johnson is a decent rotation player. I don't rate Crowder but he has had success with Boston/Miami/Phoenix. What else do you want? An all-star? Edit - Also, at some point, it's not about what you are worth but what others can afford.

It takes a lot of luck and some acumen to get a great team regardless of method. Successful teams are the exception, failures are the norm. There are teams that tried a win now approach from the Rockets to Wizards to the Kings. Their results varied. This is the first year in maybe twenty that the Kings might make playoffs. Not win a championship. Make playoffs. Is that a method that is going to yield results? The Warriors didn't bottom out, but they still had quite a few picks. Draymond was something like their 3rd or 4th pick that year. Celtics haven't won with this roster yet, but their core has largely been drafted by them.

Define successful. Anyway, they don't have to play all their picks. They can use their picks to trade up for a better spot, trade their picks for the next unhappy star/solid rotation players or even kick the can further down the road to use/trade (e.g. trade this year's pick for next year) when they want/need it. Besides, did you think that Monta Ellis and David Lee instilled a winning mentality for the Warriors?

Curious to what the Wolves are thinking, trading for Conley. It pushes them further into win-now mode without doing enough to help them to win. Not sure if it's even an upgrade. I get that they used a lot of assets to get Gobert, but it's sunk cost now, might as well plan for someone who at least fits into Edwards' timeline.