Trade & Free Agency 2026/2027

[HoosierDaddyKid]

Bobby Marks: OKC will create 2 trade exceptions from the Wiggins and Joe trade. Because they are will be created post July 1, both are available despite OKC a second apron team.

x.com

[KillerLeft]

Think it was cow who suggested Grimes. Given the dearth of options, that might be the move in SNT.

I think I'm out on Grimes. This is never a popular opinion around here, but I stand by it: When players just can't ever find themselves a consistent role and stick with a team for a while...when they just continuously bounce around like Grimes has, there's usually good reason for that. After watching Grimes here in person, and then watching him Philly right after, I feel like HE wants to be a star. More power to him, but I just don't think he's interested in being the connector/defender fans and teams want him to be.

[Scott41theMavs]

I think I'm out on Grimes. This is never a popular opinion around here, but I stand by it: When players just can't ever find themselves a consistent role and stick with a team for a while...when they just continuously bounce around like Grimes has, there's usually good reason for that. After watching Grimes here in person, and then watching him Philly right after, I feel like HE wants to be a star. More power to him, but I just don't think he's interested in being the connector/defender fans and teams want him to be.

I’m not sure they are in a position to be out on anyone given their situation. Unless they want to get to the point that Old Maid/Queen of Spades Schroeder becomes a plausible option.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

This trade, which can’t be official until July 6 since the Bulls required cap space to acquire Nic Claxton, will be expanded to include the Wolves’ acquisition of Ball for several reasons. The first is that Reid’s $23.3 million salary isn’t enough to match Ball’s $41.25 million individually. Randle’s $33.3 million salary is ($9,098,000 trade exception). Then they could simply trade Reid for Green and create a trade exception worth the difference in their salaries. However, the Wolves can no longer function as a below-apron team. Ball’s $41.25 million salary is too high for them to field a roster below the first apron while factoring in Ayo Dosunmu’s new five-year, $112 million contract. It is expected to start at $19.3 million, the lowest it could be with standard raises. They now must operate as an above-apron team so they can fill the rest of the roster, meaning they must do a 100 percent salary match.

Third Apron

[cow]

I think I'm out on Grimes. This is never a popular opinion around here, but I stand by it: When players just can't ever find themselves a consistent role and stick with a team for a while...when they just continuously bounce around like Grimes has, there's usually good reason for that. After watching Grimes here in person, and then watching him Philly right after, I feel like HE wants to be a star. More power to him, but I just don't think he's interested in being the connector/defender fans and teams want him to be.

Considering my stance on Herro, this might sound odd, but I like Grimes belief in himself.  I don't know if I agree with the sentiment that he wants to be a star, but I do think he wants to belong and knows that he is a capable scorer.  Wanting to belong might work against us landing him (again), as I'd probably want to do a 2+1 for him.  Unless his contract demands are crazy, which they very well may be, I think he's probably has one of the better value to on-court-impact ratios.

[HoosierDaddyKid]

The once supersized Wolves are now looking very thin in the frontline. They will have a difficult time finding an upgrade with no draft picks left to trade. They might need to part with one of Terrence Shannon Jr. or Joan Beringer to get a team interested. Otherwise, they’re looking at starting a lineup featuring LaMelo Ball, Ayo Dosunmu, Anthony Edwards, Jaden McDaniels, and Rudy Gobert. The Wolves would have limited options for upgrading the frontcourt. They will no longer create a $33 million trade exception and lose access to all trade exceptions created last season, including the $10.8 million one. They also lose the $5.5 million bi-annual exception and get the reduced $6 million taxpayer mid-level exception instead of the $15.5 million one. They are highly unlikely to get a starter with that amount.

Third Apron

[KillerLeft]

I’m not sure they are in a position to be out on anyone given their situation. Unless they want to get to the point that Old Maid/Queen of Spades Schroeder becomes a plausible option.

Devil's advocate: yes, they need guards, and yes, Grimes can handle the ball a bit, but it's not a positive if you're putting someone next to Flagg you don't want in your locker room. Just saying.

[RoyTarpleysGhost]

Isn't Robinson the worst FT shooter in the league? Can a team have him out there in key situations without hack a Robinson happening?

[KillerLeft]

Considering my stance on Herro, this might sound odd, but I like Grimes belief in himself.  I don't know if I agree with the sentiment that he wants to be a star, but I do think he wants to belong and knows that he is a capable scorer.  Wanting to belong might work against us landing him (again), as I'd probably want to do a 2+1 for him.  Unless his contract demands are crazy, which they very well may be, I think he's probably has one of the better value to on-court-impact ratios.

I get it. So much about it is in the eye of the beholder. My argument against Grimes is basically the same as the argument against Jerami Grant. Back when the team was building around Luka, I long pined over the ideal fit of the DENVER version of Grant next to Luka and others argued that version was gone, never to return. I feel like NY Grimes is similarly extinct. If the argument is to bring Grimes here to let him handle the ball and score, well...I suppose there's an argument for that, but I don't love it. 

I'm not advocating for this, but I think I'd even prefer the Monk option to that one, personally.

[Smitty]

Obviously. I don't know what you're trying to communicate here. 

Is it that you think my pushback against certain opinions equates to me having "a problem" with those who offer those opinions? As you said, that's what this place is here for - to offer opinions. 

I guess I just don't understand the point of the above, sorry. Over my head.

Mostly. I guess I took it as you were tired of me and/or others suggesting that Gafford could be worth a first round pick, and if/when they don't receive that value at a particular deadline you don't want me/others to continue with that line of thinking? Maybe I misread what your point was there.

[cow]

I get it. So much about it is in the eye of the beholder. My argument against Grimes is basically the same as the argument against Jerami Grant. Back when the team was building around Luka, I long pined over the ideal fit of the DENVER version of Grant next to Luka and others argued that version was gone, never to return. I feel like NY Grimes is similarly extinct. If the argument is to bring Grimes here to let him handle the ball and score, well...I suppose there's an argument for that, but I don't love it. 

I'm not advocating for this, but I think I'd even prefer the Monk option to that one, personally.

I wouldn't mind Monk either or even both of them.  This team needs some offensive punch and after Kyrie, I don't trust our guard rotation.

edit: I know I'm MUCH lower on Christie than most of the board.

[KillerLeft]

Mostly. I guess I took it as you were tired of me and/or others suggesting that Gafford could be worth a first round pick, and if/when they don't receive that value at a particular deadline you don't want me/others to continue with that line of thinking? Maybe I misread what your point was there.

If I am "tired of" anything, that (to me, at least) is not remotely close to the same as suggesting others shouldn't have or are not entitled to their own opinions. 

You made the point that "what we think doesn't matter." That's true, but what I think is even more true is that what we want doesn't matter. I have been part of this community for over 20 years at this point, and I believe some of us have had the same arguments (with people flipping sides all the time) for about that entire time. I think we all have different levels of resistance built up against the annoyance that comes from disagreement, but at the end of the day the disagreement is probably the main thing that brings us all back, when you think about it. 

I personally feel like I'm one of the thicker-skinned people around, so maybe I'm desensitized to how my words affect others, but I promise I try to separate the subject matter and opinions from how I treat people, which is basically the only rule we have here. There are obviously some who don't, even among our better, smarter contributors, but 99.9% of those still around "get it." 

Still, tone is a difficult thing to convey through text, and I'm reminded of that around here constantly. If it helps, MY approach is to quote and respond to people I RESPECT and WANT to engage with, whether it's to disagree or just to further the conversation (which is what I was doing in the post you quoted). I'd add that my agreement/disagreement with what they think has very little impact on my level of respect for their contributions. When I wrote that, I wasn't even thinking about whether or not YOU, specifically had even pulled the "wait until next transaction window" line...it wasn't about criticizing anyone who's said/thought that. I simply think there comes a point when a player is so overtly out of place that this strategy stops being viable, so I said as much. That's it. It should go without saying that many elements of that statement are my opinion...well, because I was the one who wrote it.

[KillerLeft]

edit:  I know I'm MUCH lower on Christie than most of the board.

I do think you're a bit low on Christie, but I'd hope we're ALL in agreement that he isn't going to solve any of the ball-handling/creation issues. I'm sure we're all on the same page about that.

[Smitty]

If I am "tired of" anything, that (to me, at least) is not remotely close to the same as suggesting others shouldn't have or are not entitled to their own opinions. 

You made the point that "what we think doesn't matter." That's true, but what I think is even more true is that what we want doesn't matter. I have been part of this community for over 20 years at this point, and I believe some of us have had the same arguments (with people flipping sides all the time) for about that entire time. I think we all have different levels of resistance built up against the annoyance that comes from disagreement, but at the end of the day the disagreement is probably the main thing that brings us all back, when you think about it. 

I personally feel like I'm one of the thicker-skinned people around, so maybe I'm desensitized to how my words affect others, but I promise I try to separate the subject matter and opinions from how I treat people, which is basically the only rule we have here. There are obviously some who don't, even among our better, smarter contributors, but 99.9% of those still around "get it." 

Still, tone is a difficult thing to convey through text, and I'm reminded of that around here constantly. If it helps, MY approach is to quote and respond to people I RESPECT and WANT to engage with, whether it's to disagree or just to further the conversation (which is what I was doing in the post you quoted). I'd add that my agreement/disagreement with what they think has very little impact on my level of respect for their contributions. When I wrote that, I wasn't even thinking about whether or not YOU, specifically had even pulled the "wait until next transaction window" line...it wasn't about criticizing anyone who's said/though that. I simply think there comes a point when a player is so overtly out of place that this strategy stops being viable, so I said as much. That's it. It should go without saying that many elements of that statement are my opinion...well, because I was the one who wrote it.

I went back and reread it, and it was definitely "my bad". I misinterpreted what you were saying. All good. Apologies. 

I too have been around for a while. Too long... What was the old Fish site called -- before this one?

[KillerLeft]

I went back and reread it, and it was definitely "my bad". I misinterpreted what you were saying. All good. Apologies. 

I too have been around for a while. Too long... What was the old Fish site called -- before this one?

No need to apologize! I'm not even sure anyone has to be "wrong" in this situation. I just got a vibe like you felt attacked, and it confused me. I definitely don't want anyone to feel that way because of something I write around here. 

Dallasbasketball.com. We still have sooooo many folks around from back in the day. Some are only readers, but they're here.

[dirkfansince1998]

https://x.com/ShamsCharania/status/2070613366364656024

New York guard Jose Alvarado is declining his $4.5 million player option and intends to sign a new three-year, $14-plus million deal to return to the Knicks, sources tell ESPN. Knicks made it a priority to retain the NY native who played key role on a historic championship team.

That's a steal. Less than five million per year. Basically what he made this season. Helps them to avoid the 2nd apron.

[Scott41theMavs]

I like Monk, and his contract isn’t horrendous. What do we have that Sacramento would want beyond the “Kangs gonna Kang” argument?

[Scott41theMavs]

https://x.com/ShamsCharania/status/2070613366364656024



That's a steal. Less than five million per year. Basically what he made this season. Helps them to avoid the 2nd apron.

Gigantic hometown discount. Although Alvarado doesn’t offer much of O, he’s a poor man’s younger Caruso on D.

[Reunion Mav]

Yes we do and I for one still love this site. I get most of my Mavs news here. I too have been around for a long time. I bought my season tickets in 1981, the day after they drafted Mark, Ro and Jay.

[KillerLeft]

I like Monk, and his contract isn’t horrendous. What do we have that Sacramento would want beyond the “Kangs gonna Kang” argument?

Ah...but it's such a GOOD argument!