Dunc'd On Prime | Nate's latest Discord chat (7/15)

Should Wolves fans be nervous or excited about Glen Taylor selling the wolves to Marc Lore and Alex Rodriguez?

I think probably excited to the extent that Taylor was a bottom-5 owner. I certainly have concerns about the slow purchase timeline (apparently part of that was the tag along rights from Orbach needing to be minimized), their financial fitness, and ultimate willingness to keep the team in Minnesota (which I don't care much about but Wolves fans certainly should). But you'd think that simple regression to the mean would result in better ownership.

What are your thoughts on the idea behind this rule change? Is this an issue (players being out due to 6 foul limit) that could use some correcting,

I've never hated the foul-out as much as some. I have noticed that stance is a little more popular among those who haven't played. Certainly at the youth level, it's very important because kids have to learn how to not foul, and "you don't get to play anymore" is a better incentive than "you just cost your team 2 points". I also think that fouling in general is bad, and there should be a huge deterrent to it. It would also make things more complicated for fans to follow, tracking which player has 6 fouls already and therefore now that he's fouled there's an elevated penalty, etc. However, I am absolutely in favor of an extra foul being given for any players who haven't fouled out by double overtime if you think of it as 6 fouls per 48 mins or 1 foul every 8 mins, then when you're expected to play another 8 minutes you should get another foul.

Considering the Bulls have already committed the original sin of the Vuc trade - if they were able to find a 3 team deal where the only asset they would give up besides matching salary (or enough for it to work as unbalanced deal) was Patrick Williams in a Simmons trade would you consider that for them to max the Vuc/LaVine window or should they treat the Vuc trade as a sunk cost and not leverage the future any further?

Well you'd probably also be getting off bad salary in a simmons trade to make the math work. I'm not nearly as high on Williams as some are, but it's also worth noting that he's kind of their only potential ticket right now to a player who could make them relevant again. I think I'd pull the trigger on that though. They could also play Simmons at PG and hopefully have LaVine be their smallest player, which would help the defense around Vuc

WATFO the Knicks are worse than last year?

Obviously it's hard to know without seeing their free agent moves. However, I think they have a pretty decent floor with Thibs and the defense. They might have somewhat worse shooting luck defensively than last year but that largely normalized by the end of the year. If we assume that they bring back most of their free agents and make another signing in the $20-$25m a year range, I think they could potentially be a better team next year and even have a better win percentage but still be worse than 4th in the East. So to put odds on it...if they bring back the same crew I'd say 65% chance they're worse. If they make a solid free agent signing at guard or get some more shooting in the frontcourt, then I'd say 55% chance they're better

I think Dame to the Warriors is likely a pipe dream. If it did happen, though, what would you think of Steph/Dame/Klay/Dray core? Contenders? Any way to play enough defense to win in the playoffs?

Klay's health would of course be paramount, perhaps even more on defense. You'd probably have to play a traditional rim protecting center and more of a conventional PnR scheme because they'd be too small on the perimeter to switch and play Draymond at C too much. If they make the Dame trade, I assume that's most of their assets plus Wiggins going back. So you're looking at those 4 guys, not much else other than MMLE to grab another player. I think they'd be right up there with the Nets offensively, but with less depth and even more vulnerable to injury. I don't think there's a great player they could add to that group with the MMLE so they could just flame out due to having to play a bunch of Kent Bazemores next to the Core 4. But sometimes when you get that much talent together it just works. If they get a reasonable version of Klay, it could possibly be a title team. They'd be helped by the fact there doesn't really project to be a superteam and things are kinda wide open these days.

Is #7 and #14 for Wood a no brainer for both Houston and Golden State? Why and why not?

Probably too much to give up for him with 2 years left on his deal. I'd be VERY interested in moving Wood as Houston right now though. Just 7 for Wood (and Looney maybe) and that's maybe a fairer deal, although I haven't evaluated who is in that range right now to draft. I'm concerned about Wood defensively still, and he struggled to stay healthy. He hasn't played on a real team in the playoffs yet. How does he defend AD or Jokic? Is he wasted because you have to play Draymond on the ball and GSW doesn't run that much PnR? Also, what happens with Wiseman? I'd obviously offer Wiseman for Wood first if I were GSW. That'd be an interesting one.

How much, if any, has your opinion changed on the Pat Connaughton extension and the Bobby Portis/Bryn Forbes signings? As a Bucks fan, I will say Pat Connaughton's postseason has been incredible. I never thought he'd be an effective role player, but his heart, hustle, and at times irrational confidence to shoot 27 ft 3ptrs really has changed my tune about him and the extension

I recall that much of my hesitation with the Connaughton new contract was how they messed up the rules and had to give him a 3rd year because they couldn't pay him enough. But any player who can be in your rotation, switch somewhat adequately and hit some 3s in the playoffs is obviously well worth that deal. I think there was more of a concern of the opportunity cost with his contract against the hard cap. His shooting has also been much more reliable all year than previously so that makes it a lot more palatable as well.

What are some under the radar teams that may try to trade into the top 5?

Can't say I've heard much about this, these draft trades are always very hard to get a read on. But NOP and OKC are the ones with the assets going forward. Memphis also has 2 extra picks in the future, but probably no premium asset to get a team in the top 5 to bite. I'm also not sure who they'd like there. If we're talking about trading up to 4 or 5, that's a lot easier to do than 3, and IMO that's way easier to do than 2 or 1.

Have you heard of Alperen Sengun yet and do you think you'll get a chance to watch any of his tape?

I'm not too "Sengun" about his prospects..........but no I haven't watched him yet. He'll be a target of a mini scout though.

WATFO in the 24 Olympics Team USA arrives with the 4th best player in the competition as their best player? (My picks for 1-3 would probably look something like Doncic Giannis Jokic) Also, if you have time, who would you name their coach going forward, assuming Pop retires after these Olympics?

Seems like Kerr might be the heir apparent. And he'd do well with the emotional aspects you'd think, and be a good ambassador, but some of his more complex offense wouldn't work great. He could easily just.....not run that stuff though. Spolestra seems like the other one, he's been around with the Select Team I think. And I'd say the odds of USA not having the top player in '24 are about 50/50. There's such depth of talent that someone could emerge. Giannis will probably be on the downside by then to me. I think that whoever the best American player is will be better than Jokic as an NBA player. Jokic is probably better in FIBA with no defensive 3 though. You certainly make a good point that there aren't many great American players from the 2013-2018 drafts.

It’s not uncommon for a company’s HR department to give an exit interview to a person leaving the company to hear opinions on supervisors, the organization and more. I think it’d be awesome to hear discussion as each team is eliminated from title contention about how the past year went. Rather than a look forward a look backward. Did the front office achieve its goals for the year. Was this a successful year for the team relative to expectations or the general teams plan going into the season. Was it a success for the players or the coaches? Would this be a worthwhile podcast? I’d be curious to hear how you feel about team don’t make the play-in as their seasons is essentially over relative to expectations (like the wolves) and teams that exceed expectations (like the hawks).

Yeah, Danny and I kinda of did that during the pandemic shutdown, and I had some guests on for a few of those like the Pacers. Definitely a worthy idea. But there probably just isn't really time to do it. For the first month of the playoffs that needs to be the entire focus, then we have to do all 30 offseasons, plus 10 draft prospects, mock offseason, etc. I'm not sure how interested people are to review the Cavs' season, plus we were keeping tabs on all the teams throughout the year so we might just be repeating a lot of the same points.. I do think that the 30 team previews in some respect function as a look back though as we're comparing their outlook to last year. As do our looks at how the young players were in summer league.

WATFO conley returns to Utah?

I'd put it on 75%

What would Houston have to send to Detroit to move up from 2 to 1?

I'm not sure on that. the most recent trade of #1 pick involved that LaKings pick, protected to go only if 2-5 in 2018 (Lakers) and then unprotected SAC in 2019. That ended up being 14, which sucked for the Celtics. Most thought the pick would end up a lot higher. I'd guess they thought it'd be top-10 at least. That was from 3 to 1, not 2 to 1 though. But so much depends on how much each team values Cade. Rockets own unprotected pick in 22 would probably be a starting point. oh sorry, LaKings pick was top-1 protected in 2019

How would you feel about replacing the draft with free agency, but give every team an exception against the cap that corresponds to whatever the salary of the rookie picked at what their draft slot would have been? To keep the viability of future trades, you could set those exceptions up so they could be traded like picks, make it so that unused money could be rolled over up to whatever the rookie max is, or whatever other constraints/modifications to keep the exceptions as useful assets. I just find the draft somewhat morally dubious, and watching Zion potentially agitate his way out of NOLA makes me wish he could have just picked wherever he wanted to go.

I once had a somewhat similar idea, with the idea that cap space could be used to bid on draft slots. I think the draft is working reasonably well these days though so I'm not sure I'd want to change it. A lot of other issues I'd rather fix first. I think the draft is doing a good job balancing anti tanking, along with the play-in, and also fulfilling the goal of giving fans of bad teams some hope

Given how well the Warriors have sold the fanbase on the idea a team with Steph Curry should pursue a “dual” strategy of “trying to win” while developing prospects,……is Ray Ridder the best PR man of all time?

I wouldn't give Ridder much credit for that personally, to the extend that's occurred. Most PR stuff is pretty station to station.

Is there a better team than the Raptors to take advantage of the Jazz’s assumed desire to unload Derrick Favors as discussed on the pod? Maybe Favors+30 into space for 46?

If the Raps strike out on some other options, then maybe. But I think Favors might be done, not sure he helps the Raps too much.

This is the last bastion for cold, hard basketball analysis, WATFO that Oubre resigns with the Warriors? WATFO the Warriors move 1 or both draft picks for this draft?

Oubre re-sign, I'd say 35%. (we're not counting a S&T here). Both sides may realize they need each other, Warriors for the salary slot and Oubre to get paid more than the MLE. Odds GSW moves at least 1 pick, 70%

Best and Worse coach hires, in your opinion, for this coaching cycle so far?

Can't argue much with Carlisle in Indiana. Kidd I'd say is probably the worst. McMillan and Finch, not sure if they count but both did well so far. I don't think there are any others who aren't first-time head coaches, so tough to evaluate those.

I assume you’re not going to scout Josh Giddey - but if you caught the Aus v Nigeria game, let us know what you think of him? I think he’ll go before 12 (where he is on some mock draft boards)

I think we'll do a mini-scout on him

Thoughts on Eric Gordon (and House) to the Clips? Trade framework something like Kennard (or Bev) + Rondo + 25 + Future Detroit Second for the two players

Like Gordon on the Clips. Kennard gives Houston some shooting to help their other guys develop, because holy shit did their shooting suck last year. Rondo would presumably get bought out or moved again. That's not a bad one. Gordon as someone who can shoot and switch for the Clips is solid. House can step in some for Leonard. I'm a little bleary-eyed but I think that one is pretty good. What do y'all think?

Nate, I love the mock off season and am very excited about it. But my biggest complaint is that Danny, Dan and KP act too rationally and like themselves rather than the teams they’re supposed to be. That’s how we get Jordan McLaughlin at 4/16mil. The guys definitely need to try and become irrational and act like some of the GMs who may get fired soon!

I think they do a pretty good job of straddling the line between their own rationality and doing what teams do. It's tough to be intentionally irrational, because those are so hard to predict. I think overall the current format does a decent job of predicting where things might go which is the main purpose.

If you were 7'0" with acceptable health, 7'5" wingspan and reasonably quick lateral movement - would you have made the NBA? How good would you have been?

Are we assuming my current level of coordination and skill level transfers into a 7'0 body? Because that's what a lot of smaller people don't get about being 6'6 like me, not to mention 7'0. When you hear guys at the playground saying "awww, if I had your height," they don't really factor in that you're naturally slower and less athletic as well. But yeah, if you put my athleticism in that body you've probably got an NBA player. But you could say that about a shitload of 6'6 guys. My skill level wasn't special because I just didn't work hard enough at it when I was younger--if I had I could have played D-1 at a mid major probably.

How much did you take into consideration that Suggs has only playing basketball solely for 1 year in your review of his draft stock? I would think that some of the weaknesses that you pointed out in the review could be fixed more easily with additional reps while someone like Green has been mono-focused on basketball for much longer and might not not be able to improve on his weaknesses as easily. Thanks!

I didn't factor it in at all. Generally stuff like that is an ancillary consideration at best. You always hear the "he's only playing basketball for X amount of time" thing with prospects, but in the absence of any analysis on whether those players do tend to develop more, I just try to stick to what I see on film and the age as a proxy for future development. Moving beyond that probably ends up confounding my analysis in the end.

You get to start an NBA team in Seattle. Pick one of the following to start out with. Which do you choose?

1. The best owner in the league (whoever you think that is) with your choice of current GM

2. Luka Doncic

3. All young players and draft picks that the Thunder have, with an average Gm

Best owner and choice of GM I think--although the change to the lottery format makes me think Thunder as a possibility. Luka is probably the most ephemeral of those, and if I'm starting a team I've got a decades-long time horizon.

Draft question: How do you decide who to scout/how many players to scout? Can you let us know who else you are going to release reports on before the draft? How about letting the duncd on community vote on one player?

Pretty much just look at the mock drafts and go as far down the list as we have time to. If there are guys who really intrigue or really interest us after the top 6-9 we'll maybe prioritize them

Much ado has been made of how the buyout market negatively impacts teams in small markets, but I'm curious how you feel about the case of a guy like Batum. He got a huge contract in Charlotte, did absolutely nothing for them over the last three or so years of that contract, and then was all of a sudden a high level contributor on a team with reasonable championship aspirations this year in Los Angeles. I realize that nobody forced Charlotte to give Batum that contract, and the surrounding talent in Los Angeles is clearly vastly superior to what he had in Charlotte, but it really pissed me off, way more so than the Andre Drummond/Blake Griffin stuff. Is there anything that can or should be done about this sort of thing?

Charlotte basically stopped playing him at all by 2019-20. I think the year before that he had some injuries. I don't think you can do anything about this with guaranteed contracts though, he clearly was a different player this year, and then a different player beyond that in the playoffs. I guess the lesson for Charlotte is never sign someone French.

Nate, I remember you dominating the media game a couple years back. Do you ever give Sherwood any guff for his terrible jumpshot form?

nah, that shit goes in.

also, realized I missed a bit of this. Sure, we'll do a mini-scout on a player selected by the community as long as it's a real player. I don't like to say who we're doing ahead of time since some players take longer and some take less time, and we also might run out of time, so don't want to overpromise and underdeliver. But usually we'll at least get to the top-6 at minimum. It's probably about 8 hours of work on each guy for a full scout, but I think it's worth it for the league-changing decisions at the top of the draft.

At what point to the Bucks move on from this starting 2 Centers? It works in the regular season but in the playoffs, they always seem to run into issues due to the lack of shooting

I wouldn't consider Giannis a center, and Lopez on offense I think is a good enough shooter you can get away with it. Starting Giannis with a Greg Monroe type was obviously foolish. I think one of their bigger issues now is playing Tucker at the 3 as far as scoring is concerned, but the defense has been incredible so it's worked out.