Speaker 1: The volume.
Speaker 2: The NBA Finals are here. This is your last chance
Speaker 2: to bet on the NBA until next season, and DraftKings
Speaker 2: Sportsbook and official sports betting partner of the NBA is
Speaker 2: pulling out all the stops to make this a finals.
Speaker 2: To remember, one team will be crown champ and the
Speaker 2: other will be lost to history. Who you got winning
Speaker 2: at all? Put your hoops expertise to the test. All
Speaker 2: season long, DraftKings has been the go to spot for
Speaker 2: NBA player props and that doesn't stop now. Who's going
Speaker 2: to carry their team to the chip? Try placing a
Speaker 2: bet on your personal MVP to drop thirty, forty or
Speaker 2: maybe even over fifty. Ready to place your own bet,
Speaker 2: download the DraftKings sports Book app, lock in your bets
Speaker 2: and finish the season as a winner. Here's something special
Speaker 2: for first timers. New DraftKings customers. Bet five dollars to
Speaker 2: get three hundred dollars in bonus bets if your bet wins.
Speaker 2: Don't miss your last chance to bet on the NBA
Speaker 2: this season. Download the DraftKings sports Book app and use
Speaker 2: code hoops that's hoop. That's code hoops for new customers
Speaker 2: to get three hundred dollars in bonus bets if your
Speaker 2: bet wins. When you bet five bucks only on DraftKings,
Speaker 2: the Crown is yours. Gambling problem called one hundred gambler
Speaker 2: In New York call eight seven seven eight Hope and why,
Speaker 2: or text hope and Why to four six seven three
Speaker 2: sixty nine and Connecticut help is available for problem gambling
Speaker 2: Call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven
Speaker 2: seven or visit CCPG dot org. Please play responsibly on
Speaker 2: behalf of Boothill Casino and Resort in Kansas twenty one plus.
Speaker 2: Age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction void in Ontario. Bet
Speaker 2: must win to receive reward. Minimum minus five hundred odds required.
Speaker 2: Bonus bets expire one hundred and sixty eight hours after issuance.
Speaker 2: For additional terms and responsible gaming resources, see dkang dot co,
Speaker 2: slash audio. Well go on hoops tonight Here at the
Speaker 2: volume heavy Saturday. Everybody hope everyone's having a great start
Speaker 2: to their weekend. As promised, we're going to be covering
Speaker 2: a mail bag today. A bunch of you guys dropped
Speaker 2: a bunch of really good questions over on Twitter, a
Speaker 2: bunch of stuff on the NBA Finals. We'll be talking
Speaker 2: about some big picture concepts within that series. And then
Speaker 2: at the tail end of the show, I have about
Speaker 2: a half dozen questions surrounding some big picture stuff around
Speaker 2: the league, some Detroit Pistons, some New York mix, some
Speaker 2: who's gonna trade for Kevin Duran, who's gonna trade for Giannis?
Speaker 2: Some fun stuff at the tail end of the show.
Speaker 2: You guys are the joke before we get started. Subscribe
Speaker 2: to the Hoops Toight YouTube channels. You don't miss any
Speaker 2: more of our videos. Follow me on Twitter, Underscore, json LTC,
Speaker 2: you guys don't miss show announcements. Don't forget about a
Speaker 2: podcast feed wherever you get your podcast und Hoops Tonight.
Speaker 2: It's also super helpful if you leave your rating and
Speaker 2: a review on that front. Jackson is doing great work
Speaker 2: on our social media feeds on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook
Speaker 2: and TikTok. Make sure you guys follow us there. And
Speaker 2: the last but not least, keep dropping mailbag questions in
Speaker 2: our YouTube comments. We can hit them in our weekly
Speaker 2: mail bags throughout the remainder of the year. All right,
Speaker 2: let's talk some basketball. First question, Hey, Jason Shay took
Speaker 2: thirty shots and only had thirty one points on those shots,
Speaker 2: not including free throws, while only dishing out three assists.
Speaker 2: It sort of felt like he tried to be Superman
Speaker 2: and it played right into the PACER's hands. What do
Speaker 2: you think Shay has to do differently in game two?
Speaker 2: Love the show, Thanks again for supporting the show. So
Speaker 2: I those of you guys who watched yesterday's film session,
Speaker 2: we'll have a little bit of an understanding of this
Speaker 2: concept from the film. But I talked after Game one
Speaker 2: about how it felt to me like Shae was trying
Speaker 2: to kind of force his way into rhythm under the
Speaker 2: NBA Finals environment, and after rewatching the game, and I
Speaker 2: talked about this in the film session, actually ended up
Speaker 2: disliking a lot of the shots that he took early.
Speaker 2: You know, I talked about in the film session the
Speaker 2: idea of investing in rhythm, and that, to me is
Speaker 2: such an important part of a point guard's job. You
Speaker 2: are the ultimate decision maker on a possession by possession
Speaker 2: basis on the offensive end of the floor, and if
Speaker 2: you invest in rhythm by moving the ball, it's more
Speaker 2: like that later in the game when you need people
Speaker 2: to be involved, when you need guys to make shots,
Speaker 2: it's more likely that they lock them down. We've jokingly
Speaker 2: been talking about the Indiana Pacers and the damage that
Speaker 2: they've done in this postseason run with crazy shot making
Speaker 2: at the end of games, and would jokingly call it
Speaker 2: like devil magic or voodoo or whatever it is. And
Speaker 2: there's a certain amount of like, yeah, it's pretty wild
Speaker 2: that they've hit as many tough shots as they have hit.
Speaker 2: But as as is always the case, variance or randomness
Speaker 2: is going to be pretty far down the list in
Speaker 2: what plays into that outcome compared to real basketball concepts.
Speaker 2: And if there's something to be said about the way
Speaker 2: the Pacers play, it's that they keep everyone involved throughout
Speaker 2: the game. The usage rate for their top player, and
Speaker 2: Tyrese Haliburton, is about twenty one percent in the regular season,
Speaker 2: right that's way below what you see from a typical
Speaker 2: on ball guard who is usually determining the outcome of
Speaker 2: every single possession. Starts from Tyrese and Rick Carlyle on
Speaker 2: the identity they breed in the team, and then from
Speaker 2: there it's just the group of players all trusting each
Speaker 2: other and keeping the ball moving from side to side
Speaker 2: and keeping everyone involved as a result, like Let's look
Speaker 2: at those tough shots that got made down the stretch
Speaker 2: that game. I saw Miles Turner hit a contested three
Speaker 2: over Hartenstein on the right wing, a contested step back
Speaker 2: three over chet Holmgren on the left wing, a really
Speaker 2: tough leaning kind of drop cover like a pick and
Speaker 2: roll popped the short roll shot around the right elbow
Speaker 2: that he hit. They're down the stretch. Who else hit
Speaker 2: a tough shot? Aaron Nesmith flying into that left corner
Speaker 2: off of the move right, who else hit a tough shot?
Speaker 2: Andrew Nemhard hitting off the dribble, crazy step back against
Speaker 2: shake Yild, Justs Alexander right then Tyrese Haliburton hits the
Speaker 2: game winner. A bunch of different guys hit tough shots
Speaker 2: because a bunch of different guys are involved throughout the
Speaker 2: game with shake Yield, Justs Alexander randomly. We got some
Speaker 2: good rhythm for lou Dort, who had a lot of
Speaker 2: pretty tough contested shots in that game. But no other
Speaker 2: Thunder player outside of Shae or lou Dort was in
Speaker 2: any sort of rhythm. And that is the downside of
Speaker 2: approaching the game the way that Shaye did. Again, if
Speaker 2: you guys want to see visual examples of what I'm
Speaker 2: talking about, go to our film session that we released yesterday.
Speaker 2: But the long and short of it is, Shay came
Speaker 2: into this game and took a ton of mediocre shots
Speaker 2: that he could have got later in the clock. Go
Speaker 2: move the ball around. If Indiana closes out well and
Speaker 2: dudes don't get good looks, it'll work its way back
Speaker 2: to you. Go take that, saying contested eighteen footer, but
Speaker 2: I thought he took a lot of those shots early
Speaker 2: in the clock and kind of bailed the Pacers out
Speaker 2: and prevented his team from getting into the rhythm that
Speaker 2: they needed to get into to be better on the
Speaker 2: offensive end of the floor. Next question, who is the
Speaker 2: most important role player moving forward in this series? This
Speaker 2: is an interesting question, So I think on the Pacers front,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna stick with exactly what I said in the
Speaker 2: series preview, and I thought it showed again last night, Miles.
Speaker 2: When Miles Turner is hitting threes and when he's beating
Speaker 2: post mismatches or beating offensive rebounding mismatches, he is deadly impactful.
Speaker 2: In this particular matchup against a Thunder team that can't
Speaker 2: match up with his size, even with their biggs, who
Speaker 2: can be a little small right compared to him. So
Speaker 2: like Miles Turner, to me, is the key to everything
Speaker 2: for Indiana in terms of their role player talent. If
Speaker 2: he's hitting picking pop threes and he's successfully beating post
Speaker 2: mismatches and rebounding mismatches, he is the catalyst for their
Speaker 2: ability to score against this Oklahoma City defense. On the
Speaker 2: Oklahoma City front, it's really all of their spot up shooters.
Speaker 2: But I'm gonna focus on lou Dort just so that
Speaker 2: I can give you one specific player. But it's really
Speaker 2: all of their their spot up shooters. As you guys
Speaker 2: saw in the film session yesterday, really really overreacting to
Speaker 2: Shay and JDub drives sometimes three even four helpers meeting
Speaker 2: in the lane. The kickouts were there. Cason Wallace got
Speaker 2: good looks late, he missed. Jadub got good looks late.
Speaker 2: Miss lou Dort is going to be the consistent guy
Speaker 2: because jadeb I don't think counts as a role player.
Speaker 2: He's the co star. Cason might not be on the
Speaker 2: floor when they go big with Isaiah Hartenstein and Cheded Holmgren. Right,
Speaker 2: So the consistent guy who's probably gonna keep getting those
Speaker 2: clean catch and shoot looks throughout the series and needs
Speaker 2: to hit them is Lou Dort. So those are who
Speaker 2: I think are the two most important role players in
Speaker 2: the series for either team. Other question. Also, one thing
Speaker 2: that stood out, especially after that first avalanche of turnovers,
Speaker 2: is that Indiana starters outplayed Okac's pretty consistent, pretty convincingly
Speaker 2: in that second half startling trend, considering the massive success,
Speaker 2: the massive success that Turner, Hallie, Nemhardeni, Smith, and Pascal
Speaker 2: have already had. So here's the thing. I agree that
Speaker 2: Indiana's starters out played Oklahoma City starters, especially in the
Speaker 2: second half of that game. But I think it's pretty
Speaker 2: clear that there was an order of operations problem with
Speaker 2: Indiana or with Oklahoma City, with Shay and Jadub not
Speaker 2: investing in their their role players more frequently throughout the game,
Speaker 2: Like there's a chance that you get more out of Chet,
Speaker 2: you get more out of Case and Wallace, you get
Speaker 2: more out of Jadab, even if the ball just is
Speaker 2: flowing more throughout the game. And so I think in general,
Speaker 2: Oklahoma City starters didn't play well and so they're capable
Speaker 2: of playing a lot better heading into a Game two,
Speaker 2: but I do agree that Indiana starters outplayed them in
Speaker 2: game one. How rare is it that the Pacers play
Speaker 2: with this consistent effort throughout the series and games going
Speaker 2: against the traditional flow of playoffs. Usually stealing game one
Speaker 2: on the road would definitely mean the team will get
Speaker 2: blown out in game two. But you know that's not
Speaker 2: going to be the case. So I've thought a lot
Speaker 2: about this within the concept of game two. Right, So
Speaker 2: in game two we have typically seen in this sort
Speaker 2: of situation, the team that's down one zero bring a
Speaker 2: ton of energy, and it's like a kind of a
Speaker 2: two very powerful forces of energy clashing here, because on
Speaker 2: the one hand, we have an Indiana Pacers team that
Speaker 2: stole Game one against Milwaukee and then one game two,
Speaker 2: and then stole game one against the Calves, and then
Speaker 2: one game two and then well, I guess they actually
Speaker 2: get the games that they actually stole in the Cave
Speaker 2: series was game two. But the point is is they
Speaker 2: won game two after going up one, oh right, against
Speaker 2: the Knicks. Same thing. They steal game one in crazy fashion,
Speaker 2: they still come back and win game two. So Indiana
Speaker 2: is stolen game two after going up one oh on
Speaker 2: the road in all three series. But actually I think
Speaker 2: in the Indiana series they were at home for the
Speaker 2: first two games. But the point is they won up
Speaker 2: two to oh in all three series, and in the
Speaker 2: Calves matchup, and in the Knicks matchup they managed to
Speaker 2: win game two on the road despite going up one oh.
Speaker 2: But then we on the other side of it, we
Speaker 2: have Oklahoma City who against Denver toasted off game one
Speaker 2: and then they came out and beat the shit out
Speaker 2: of the Nuggets in Game two. Right, So which of
Speaker 2: those forces is going to win in this particular matchup. Well,
Speaker 2: let's talk about each team. What do we expect from
Speaker 2: Indiana in game two Pacers basketball? I expect Pacers basketball
Speaker 2: with fewer turnovers than they had in Game one, So
Speaker 2: I'd argue that Pacers will probably play a little bit
Speaker 2: better in Game two than they played in Game one.
Speaker 2: That said, as we saw in the film session, as
Speaker 2: we've talked about ad nauseum over the last couple of days,
Speaker 2: Shay can play a much better floor game just keeping
Speaker 2: his teammates involved. J Dubb needs to not settle for
Speaker 2: so many jump shots earlier in the game and look
Speaker 2: to attack and guys are certainly capable of doing a
Speaker 2: better job knocking down the open catch and shoot threes
Speaker 2: that those guys generate. Oklahoma City can play much better,
Speaker 2: and I do believe they will play much better in
Speaker 2: Game two. I'm fascinated by TJ McConnell. Is he the
Speaker 2: least athletic gifted rotation player on an NBA Finals roster
Speaker 2: in the modern era? Also, I thought nemhard bringing the
Speaker 2: ball up in the fourth quarter allowed the Pacers to
Speaker 2: get into their actions much earlier. How does Oklahoma City
Speaker 2: counter this in Game two? Great questions? First of all,
Speaker 2: TJ McConnell, to me, is actually a much better athlete
Speaker 2: than he gets credit for. He's a pretty damn big,
Speaker 2: strong guard like he's got a lot of power to
Speaker 2: his game. But he's very good at changing directions, especially
Speaker 2: at full speed. He plays with a lot of pace.
Speaker 2: He's always attacking already on the move instead of attacking
Speaker 2: a set defender. And then he's very good at changing
Speaker 2: direction while going full speed with crossovers and spins and
Speaker 2: things along those lines. So I actually think TJ McConnell
Speaker 2: is a very gifted athlete. He has been, in my opinion.
Speaker 2: One of the best like dribble drive guards in the
Speaker 2: league for a while in terms of just beating people
Speaker 2: off the dribble. I don't think that he's a poor
Speaker 2: athlete or a guy who lacks athletic gifts. I think
Speaker 2: he's a guy that is actually a pretty underrated athlete
Speaker 2: at his position. The pace in general with the Pacers,
Speaker 2: I thought they did a nice job pushing the ball
Speaker 2: off the floor consistently in the second half without turning
Speaker 2: the ball over, which forced a lot of transition cross matches.
Speaker 2: I didn't think it was just nemhard bringing the ball
Speaker 2: off the floor. I thought it was just kick ahead
Speaker 2: passes and just playing with a lot of pace and
Speaker 2: guys running and just playing Pacers basketball. Oklahoma City can
Speaker 2: only do so much to stop that. With the way
Speaker 2: that Indiana plays. They did stop easy runouts. There's a
Speaker 2: few of them, like Siakam snuck past Chet for an
Speaker 2: easy layup at one point in the second half, but
Speaker 2: overall it's not like they were giving up like easy
Speaker 2: stuff in the early part of transition. It's just the
Speaker 2: cross matches that come from that. In Indiana's ability to
Speaker 2: punish mismatches, I thought the main thing that Oklahoma City
Speaker 2: can clean up defensively heading into Game two is just
Speaker 2: their overhelp. There's just too many examples of them, like
Speaker 2: sending two three guys at a dude in the paint,
Speaker 2: and when Indiana is not turning the ball over and
Speaker 2: they're spraying the ball out, there's the easy open shots
Speaker 2: and it's like, yeah, like Toppin's gonna knock that down.
Speaker 2: You know, Turner is gonna knock that down. The Nie
Speaker 2: Smith's gonna knock that down. So there's a certain amount
Speaker 2: of like they've got to be a little bit more decided,
Speaker 2: like a little bit more Hickey I should say about
Speaker 2: when they decide to help in those situations in Game two?
Speaker 2: Did Mark Dagnall blow his wad too early by adapting
Speaker 2: to pacer style basketball before trying to play thunderstyle back squad?
Speaker 2: What adjustments does he have left? Seems like he doesn't
Speaker 2: think they can get into their half court set against
Speaker 2: this team. I don't think Mark's worried about their ability
Speaker 2: to get into their offense. I think he knows that
Speaker 2: Shane and j Dubb played a poor game, and I
Speaker 2: think he's gonna go over with them in film, and
Speaker 2: I think they're going to clean it up. I think
Speaker 2: Shane and j dub are both going to be way
Speaker 2: better in Game two now. When I look at it
Speaker 2: in terms of adopting the pacer style basketball, the big
Speaker 2: criticism is that Mark Dagnall went slow or went small
Speaker 2: down the stretch. Right when he went small, they started
Speaker 2: giving up a bunch of offensive rebounds to Siakam and
Speaker 2: Turner underneath the basket. Here's the thing, there's a certain
Speaker 2: amount of those offensive rebounds that they're gonna be able
Speaker 2: to get no matter what against switches like it doesn't
Speaker 2: matter if chets on the floor, if chets on the perimeter,
Speaker 2: and Turner's got a small underneath the basket, and so
Speaker 2: to me, it's more just they got to do a
Speaker 2: better job when they're giving up those mismatches of get
Speaker 2: like gang rebounding. Everyone's got a crash. Dudes got to
Speaker 2: come flying in to knock away the ball. Overall, as
Speaker 2: a team, they got to do a better job playing
Speaker 2: winning those contested rebound battles. Right as far as like
Speaker 2: defensive adjustments that are available to them, the only big
Speaker 2: one that I see is just those help and recover
Speaker 2: decisions that we talked about earlier, just being a little
Speaker 2: bit more picky about when they offer a ton of
Speaker 2: help and leaf shooters open in the process. Next question,
Speaker 2: why didn't Indy take the ball out of SGA's hands
Speaker 2: and double So this is complicated. They weren't doubling that much.
Speaker 2: They were throwing some pretty aggressive hedges in the second half,
Speaker 2: and they gave up some slips and some rolls out
Speaker 2: of that, But for the most part, they were offering
Speaker 2: all that extra defensive attention at Shay after he beat
Speaker 2: his man off the dribble, Like there was a play
Speaker 2: where he split a ball screen against Obi Toppen when
Speaker 2: he went to hedge and got right downhill and then
Speaker 2: three pacers just met him right in the lane. The
Speaker 2: double team, so to speak. The getting the ball out
Speaker 2: of Shay's hands, so to speak, came late in the
Speaker 2: form of sending aggressive help at the rim, and they're
Speaker 2: being kickout opportunities, And honestly, I thought Shaye did a
Speaker 2: nice job down the stretch of making those kickouts. Dudes
Speaker 2: just got to make shots. And the second piece of
Speaker 2: it is if Shay invests more early in the game
Speaker 2: at getting those guys shots, they might be more comfortable
Speaker 2: and more able to knock down those shots when they
Speaker 2: get into crunch time late. Next question, how did the
Speaker 2: Celtics out clutch the Pacers four times last playoffs? Granted
Speaker 2: without Halley for part of it. Couldn't that loss or
Speaker 2: could that loss be part of Carlisle's inspiration to build
Speaker 2: the most clutch and resilient team I've seen in recent history?
Speaker 2: A couple things. First of all, that Celtics team was
Speaker 2: a special team, very very very good team that had
Speaker 2: the ability to consistently generate great shots down the stretch, punishmentsmatches,
Speaker 2: and they were such a high level defensive team last
Speaker 2: year in the postseason. The second piece of it is
Speaker 2: I think Haliburton is the key. Like in these games
Speaker 2: that they've stolen, who's been the guy that's had the
Speaker 2: magic late. It's been Tyrese Haliburton in his ability to
Speaker 2: beat Giannis off of the dribble for Iso scooping layup right.
Speaker 2: It's been Tyre's Halliburton hitting that step back at the
Speaker 2: top of the key in Game two over ty Jerome
Speaker 2: to win Game two against the Calves. It was Tyrese
Speaker 2: Halliburton hitting the step back foot on the line jump
Speaker 2: shot against the Knicks in Game one that sent that
Speaker 2: game to overtime. It was Tyrese Halliburton last night hitting
Speaker 2: the off the dribble jump shot. Like Tyrese Halliburton brings
Speaker 2: the upside because he's just a better player now than
Speaker 2: he was last year, because he's healthier, he has his
Speaker 2: hamstring underneath him, and he's just in a better physical
Speaker 2: position to be impactful down the stretch of these games.
Speaker 2: Then down the roster, everyone was just a little better.
Speaker 2: And Mark's a little better than he was last year.
Speaker 2: Meie Smith is considerably better than he was last year.
Speaker 2: Turner's playing the best basketball of his career. All these
Speaker 2: dudes are just playing better, and so they're a better
Speaker 2: version of what that Pacers team was last year. Last
Speaker 2: question on this series, and then we'll move on to
Speaker 2: some stuff around the league. After all the talk about
Speaker 2: the Thunder being compared to the KD Warriors, how even
Speaker 2: more laughable is that comparison now? After Game one a
Speaker 2: couple things. I agree that comparing this Thunder team to
Speaker 2: the KD Warriors is silly. That team was obviously better.
Speaker 2: Kevin rant was the third best player in the league
Speaker 2: at that point in time. Steph was the second best
Speaker 2: player in the league at that time. Klay Thompson was
Speaker 2: probably the best three and D guy in the entire
Speaker 2: NBA at that point. Andre Gudala was probably like a
Speaker 2: top two or three like Swiss Army Knife role player
Speaker 2: Ford in the league at that time, and Draymond Green
Speaker 2: was the best defensive player of his era and very
Speaker 2: much at the peak of his powers at that point
Speaker 2: in time. So I think there's a pretty large gap
Speaker 2: between Golden State and the second best champion of this era.
Speaker 2: If Oklahoma City can win the series, which is an
Speaker 2: if obviously, then I think they kind of take that
Speaker 2: second spot in terms of talent and what they have
Speaker 2: defensively and the job they did getting out of that
Speaker 2: Western Conference. But yeah, I think comparing them to the
Speaker 2: KD Warriors is foolishness. That team is the most talented
Speaker 2: roster ever assembled in NBA history. Two of the top
Speaker 2: three players in the league all veteran experienced talent, not
Speaker 2: guys that are new and green and unfamiliar with this stage.
Speaker 2: So I didn't see that comparison. That said, before you
Speaker 2: go burying the thunder, who cares if they will lose
Speaker 2: Game one? If they win the next four and they
Speaker 2: win the series in five, They're still going to be
Speaker 2: looked back at as a team that's one of the
Speaker 2: most dominant teams in NBA history within a single season.
Speaker 2: So don't bury the thunder yet. Even though I don't
Speaker 2: think they're as good as the KDE Warriors, they still
Speaker 2: have a very good chance to win this series, and
Speaker 2: to win convincingly if they can apply themselves.
Speaker 1: Blending Vice's signature dynamic storytelling with the high octane world
Speaker 1: of sports, Vice Sports brings an exciting and diverse range
Speaker 1: of programming that goes beyond the game. From action pack
Speaker 1: live events to gripping behind the scenes documentaries, to hard
Speaker 1: hitting investigative pieces and in depth profiles of athletes, coaches, teams.
Speaker 1: Vice Sports captures the raw energy, drama, and passion that
Speaker 1: makes sports truly unforgettable. Catch live events and other exclusive
Speaker 1: sports programs only on Vice TV. Go to vicetv dot
Speaker 1: com to find your cable channel.
Speaker 2: All right, let's move around league a little bit. This
Speaker 2: is a report. Gary reports that the Knicks are preparing
Speaker 2: a tsunami type offer for Yannis. The question was, what
Speaker 2: offer do you think this is? Maybe McHale and Towns.
Speaker 2: Here's the thing. Also, if they get out bid, should
Speaker 2: they shift towards a more achievable target like Kevin Durant?
Speaker 2: So a couple things. If the Knicks are preparing an
Speaker 2: offer for Yannis, what does it look like? Okay, from
Speaker 2: what I understand, I believe they only have access to
Speaker 2: one first round pick this summer if I'm remembering correctly,
Speaker 2: So they don't have the draft compensation to get into
Speaker 2: a bidding war for a guy like Yiannis. In theory, now,
Speaker 2: if you get a third team involved, or if you
Speaker 2: can convince the Bucks that they want to take back
Speaker 2: of McHale, Bridges or you know, I would argue you
Speaker 2: might want to even look at trading Og because he
Speaker 2: plays the same position as Yannis. But whatever it is,
Speaker 2: if you're gonna look to move one of those guys
Speaker 2: in the Bucks are like, yeah, we want win now, pieces, sure,
Speaker 2: let's do it. That's great. But like I think that
Speaker 2: the Bucks are probably more interested in draft compensation. And
Speaker 2: if that's the case, then you got to get a
Speaker 2: third team involved. And so now you're looking at getting
Speaker 2: a third team involved and trading basically Og or McHale
Speaker 2: or Towns or whoever it is, whatever you decide to
Speaker 2: give up for draft compensation that then gets rerouted towards
Speaker 2: the Bucks in a y honest deal. But like to me,
Speaker 2: it's just the reality is is that there are teams
Speaker 2: that can absolutely outbid everybody with respect to Giannis. Like
Speaker 2: the Spurs just have so many more picks to throw
Speaker 2: on the table, the Rockets have so many more picks
Speaker 2: to throw on the table. If one of those teams
Speaker 2: decides to get involved with Giannis, they can just so
Speaker 2: much easier get that sort of deal done right and
Speaker 2: so viewed as a long shot. But if they do
Speaker 2: get out bid, should they shift towards a more achievable
Speaker 2: target like KDI. Absolutely. Their roster is pretty much guys
Speaker 2: in their late twenties, so they're a bit of a
Speaker 2: shorter window anyway, so I wouldn't be overly concerned about
Speaker 2: tying my self to an older player. Kd's game translates
Speaker 2: super well in the late phase of his career, especially
Speaker 2: in a team like this that has so much talent
Speaker 2: that he wouldn't be depended on as much. And there's
Speaker 2: an easy vehicle in the form of Carl Anthony Towns
Speaker 2: Phoenix really wants a kind of a franchise starting center.
Speaker 2: If that's the framework of the deal, and it's Karl
Speaker 2: Anthony Towns and a first round pick for Kevin Durant
Speaker 2: and the Sons get a younger star that's been back
Speaker 2: to back conference finals, And look, do I think that
Speaker 2: makes the Suns a very interesting team? No, but I
Speaker 2: don't think the Suns are a very interesting team now.
Speaker 2: So at that point, whatever, and if you could somehow
Speaker 2: pull that sort of deal off and get Kevin Durant,
Speaker 2: that that puts you in a pretty damn strong position
Speaker 2: going into next season, especially in an Eastern conference that
Speaker 2: is wide open with Boston falling apart, with Milwaukee falling apart,
Speaker 2: Like this is a winnable conference out East, and I
Speaker 2: would view Kevin Durant as a target there that I
Speaker 2: think would put the Knicks into another echelon in terms
Speaker 2: of reliable scoring talent. Also, Kevin Durant's a very good
Speaker 2: defensive player in a low man context when you can
Speaker 2: protect the rim, be a defensive rebounder, things along those lines.
Speaker 2: So like, again, if you need to get more draft compensation,
Speaker 2: maybe you do end up including like an OG and
Speaker 2: a separate you know three team structure that sends more
Speaker 2: draft compensation towards the Suns. But if you can get
Speaker 2: rid of Towns and keep one of your two forwards,
Speaker 2: and keep Brunson and get Kevin Durant, I think that's
Speaker 2: a very interesting team in a wide open Western Conference
Speaker 2: or Eastern Conference. Excuse me, not quite related to this finals,
Speaker 2: but seeing how far the Knicks went and how open
Speaker 2: the East is next year, should the Pistons consider going
Speaker 2: in a bit harder next year seeing that they might
Speaker 2: not actually be that far away? In general, what's a
Speaker 2: realistic move for them this summer? So again, I if
Speaker 2: I'm remembering correctly, if the Pistons let all of their
Speaker 2: cap holds walk, so if they let like Dennis Walk
Speaker 2: and Tim Hardaway Junior walk and all these guys, I
Speaker 2: think the max cap space they can put together is
Speaker 2: about nineteen millions, like nineteen twenty million something along those lines.
Speaker 2: That's not enough to bring in a super high level
Speaker 2: free agent, right, especially when I would argue that Tim
Speaker 2: Hardaway Junior and Dennis Schroeder kind of if you can
Speaker 2: bring them back on team friendly deals, that's actually better
Speaker 2: than going out to get a free agent. I would
Speaker 2: try to get those guys tied up on relatively short
Speaker 2: term mid level contracts, meaning around two years or less,
Speaker 2: or like a team option for the third year shirt
Speaker 2: that you have some flexibility, but like a two year
Speaker 2: deal somewhere in the fifteen to twenty million range. If
Speaker 2: you can do something like that for those guys where
Speaker 2: there are mid level contracts where like, you know, one
Speaker 2: of them's in the you know, five to ten million
Speaker 2: range and the other ones in the ten to fifteen
Speaker 2: million range or something, they become trade pieces at that point,
Speaker 2: trade filler if the right sort of move just kind
Speaker 2: of materializes this summer for you to jump on. But again,
Speaker 2: don't jump the gun on a player that is going
Speaker 2: to shorten your window. Caid is a franchise altering type
Speaker 2: of talent. He is roven that he can succeed at
Speaker 2: the highest levels of basketball. I'm a believer in him.
Speaker 2: You have Jade and Ivy coming back, You've got young
Speaker 2: role player talent and Nasar Thompson. You like, you have
Speaker 2: the ability to be patient here while also having guys
Speaker 2: like Tobias Harris, guys like Malik Beasley, guys like Tim
Speaker 2: Hardaway Junior on team friendly deals. That you can still
Speaker 2: be competitive in the short term, but then turn your
Speaker 2: attention in the draft towards off ball scoring talent. That's
Speaker 2: the big one with the you know, I think sar
Speaker 2: Thompson obviously has the ability to be one of the
Speaker 2: better kind of like perimeter like d and three types
Speaker 2: of players in the league right as a guy that
Speaker 2: can guard the opposing best player. He's a guy that obviously,
Speaker 2: if they can unlock some of the vertical spacing stuff
Speaker 2: that the Rockets do with the men Thompson, he can
Speaker 2: become a better offensive player and we'll see how his
Speaker 2: jump shot develops over time. Ron Holladay obviously is like
Speaker 2: another kind of like athletic type of young wing. What
Speaker 2: they're missing is like older college talent, So like guys
Speaker 2: that are in you know, three four year college guys
Speaker 2: that you can find in the middle of the first round,
Speaker 2: late first round, guys that can that have been playing
Speaker 2: in a winning context as like weak side scorers, guy
Speaker 2: that can knock down jump shots and drive closeouts, things
Speaker 2: along those lines. I think there's a lot of opportunity
Speaker 2: in the draft for that sort of talent. So the
Speaker 2: point is is like let this thing grow slowly. Don't
Speaker 2: jump the gun for an Eastern Conference Finals appearance that
Speaker 2: ends up shortening your window. Don't make the mistake that
Speaker 2: the Cavs did with Lebron in early you know, in
Speaker 2: the early part of his career, where they kept making
Speaker 2: these kind of mediocre aggressive deals and getting guys like Antoine,
Speaker 2: Damson Jamison and Mo Williams that were good players, made
Speaker 2: team better, but didn't make them a championship team. And
Speaker 2: so patience is the name of the game. The specific
Speaker 2: type of talent they need. I like where they're at
Speaker 2: at center. I like where they're at with their shot creators.
Speaker 2: I like where they're at in terms of having athletic
Speaker 2: guys on the perimeter that can guard and fly up
Speaker 2: and down the floor. What they're missing is just off
Speaker 2: ball skill, basically, guys that you can phase out Tim
Speaker 2: Hardaway and Malik Beasley and phase in younger versions of
Speaker 2: those players that you find in the middle to late
Speaker 2: portion of the first round in the draft. We have
Speaker 2: five more questions. I heard san Vassini suggests the framework
Speaker 2: of an Austin Reeves Derek Lively trade. What are your
Speaker 2: thoughts on that? From both sides? I said this a
Speaker 2: while back, and it's kind of my current stance with
Speaker 2: respect to an Austin Reeves trade. I think it makes
Speaker 2: sense to trade Austin Reeves as long as you get
Speaker 2: back either one a very good ball handler that can
Speaker 2: be that secondary ball handler next to Luca and is
Speaker 2: a better athlete, okay, or two two high level starters. Okay.
Speaker 2: If I can turn Austin into Derek Lively and a
Speaker 2: guy like a PJ. Washington, then sure, I think it
Speaker 2: starts to make some sense. But if I'm just getting
Speaker 2: Derek Lively, I feel like Austin Reeves just a better player,
Speaker 2: a better asset, even though I think Lively obviously fits
Speaker 2: the big picture goals of the Lakers, and so I
Speaker 2: would trade Austin for Derek as long as I also
Speaker 2: got PJ back as a legitimate starting caliber piece of
Speaker 2: forward depth, right, And that's a guy that when Lebron retires, PJ.
Speaker 2: Washington could just slide in at the four, you know,
Speaker 2: And obviously it brings a death piece in that regard
Speaker 2: in the short term, right, But like just flipping Austin
Speaker 2: for like a starter, he's a better starter, that doesn't
Speaker 2: make any sense. I think it makes some sense. To
Speaker 2: at least look around trading Austin, because I don't think
Speaker 2: it makes a ton of sense to have two unathletic
Speaker 2: guards in Austin and Luca as foundational players in your
Speaker 2: starting lineup. But you don't just get rid of him
Speaker 2: for the sake of getting rid of him. You get
Speaker 2: rid of him for high value and nothing less than that. Alright,
Speaker 2: I changed my mind. I actually doubled up the Yannis question,
Speaker 2: so we actually have we actually only have three questions
Speaker 2: left looking at this Pacers and Thunder team. What could
Speaker 2: they do in the offseason to further push them to
Speaker 2: the chip. Both have a good amount of draft picks,
Speaker 2: and it seems the Thunder needs scoring and playmaking help. Well.
Speaker 2: I think the Pacers could use an upgrade at the
Speaker 2: two to three position. So I actually disagree with this.
Speaker 2: I don't think the Thunder should make a move for Giannis.
Speaker 2: They're obviously very they're either a championship team, which the
Speaker 2: series isn't over, or they're very very close to being
Speaker 2: a championship team. And Chet's gonna get better, j Deb's
Speaker 2: gonna get better. They're young, the sky's the limit. Like,
Speaker 2: I don't think it makes a ton of sense to
Speaker 2: shorten your window to make to give you a better
Speaker 2: chance at you know, one single championship in this regard
Speaker 2: like I then also I just think it'd be bad
Speaker 2: for the league if Yannis went to Oklahoma City. So
Speaker 2: I don't think Oklahoma City should do anything. As far
Speaker 2: as the Pacers go, like like, honestly, there's a bit
Speaker 2: of a five out spacing concept with the guy like Siakam,
Speaker 2: where even though Siakam's not as good as Jiannis, I
Speaker 2: think there's a little bit of a diminishing return. The
Speaker 2: Pacers are very ball and player movement heavy offense, and
Speaker 2: Giannis is more of like a like brute force, you know,
Speaker 2: just sheer force of will and power type of weapon.
Speaker 2: He's not a guy that is known for being a
Speaker 2: super super high level quick decision read and react player
Speaker 2: and three point shooter and all those things that are
Speaker 2: so important in the Indiana Pacers offense. I don't really
Speaker 2: see that as as a realistic type of move And
Speaker 2: then as far as the two and three goes, I
Speaker 2: think I think them Hard and Smith are strengths in
Speaker 2: this offense as ball pressure guys that can run, action
Speaker 2: and shoot. Like I don't necessarily think an upgrade there
Speaker 2: is something that you look outside the roster for. If anything,
Speaker 2: Ben Matherin in his potential and it continues to grow
Speaker 2: and develop in coming years, and he becomes your upgrade
Speaker 2: at the two and three. In the big picture, highly
Speaker 2: unlikely that this would happen due to the current circumstances
Speaker 2: and the beef, But I feel the Pacers are the
Speaker 2: perfect team for you. He'd elevate the defense, and I
Speaker 2: feel Holley would complement Jannis perfectly with East kind of
Speaker 2: in limbo right now. Thoughts on this, As I mentioned earlier,
Speaker 2: I just don't. I don't think Jannis fits as well
Speaker 2: with Indiana as he does in some other situations. It
Speaker 2: doesn't mean like Giannis would make the Pacers better. He's
Speaker 2: be honest, But the point is is like you'd have
Speaker 2: to give up a ton to get him, and it
Speaker 2: is a little bit of a diminishing return in a
Speaker 2: system that prioritizes three point shooting and read and react quickness,
Speaker 2: which are two kind of weaknesses for Yannis relative to
Speaker 2: his strengths. Last question, did we undervalue Indiana's shot making
Speaker 2: ability to before the series? While weighing While weighing Oklahoma
Speaker 2: City's ability to turn people over too much. Game is
Speaker 2: about getting buckets and making tough jumpers, and if the
Speaker 2: Playoffs is any evidence, they do it better than almost
Speaker 2: anyone we've seen. This is an interesting question, and I
Speaker 2: appreciate you asking it because it's caused me to look
Speaker 2: at things a little bit differently. I would argue that
Speaker 2: Shay and Jadab are better tough shot makers than Halliburton
Speaker 2: and Siakam as a unit, mainly on the strength of
Speaker 2: Shay obviously, but where I think it gets interesting is
Speaker 2: as you go down the roster. I do think the
Speaker 2: Pacers are a better aggregate tough shot making team. Nie
Speaker 2: Smith can make tough shots. Nemhard can make tough shots.
Speaker 2: Turner can make tough shots. TJ McConnell will make tough
Speaker 2: crazy fadeaways, Ben Mathern can make tough shots. Obi Toppin
Speaker 2: can make tough shots. I do think there's an aggregate
Speaker 2: tough shot making piece with the Pacers which is really
Speaker 2: fascinating and has shown in a big way in this
Speaker 2: postseason run. And so honestly, with the way that their
Speaker 2: offense works and all the whirling around looking for great shots,
Speaker 2: it doesn't really matter where the ball ends in the sequence,
Speaker 2: you know, with four or five seconds on the shot, like,
Speaker 2: any of those dudes can put the ball in the
Speaker 2: floor and create a decent look for themselves. And I
Speaker 2: do think that that aggregate shot making talent has been
Speaker 2: a little bit underrated as far as Oklahoma City's ability
Speaker 2: to turn people over and whether or not that's being
Speaker 2: weighed properly. We have one game, and in the first
Speaker 2: half it worked marvelously and in the second half it didn't.
Speaker 2: So I think we just need more data before we
Speaker 2: can really speak, you know, with conviction in that specific regard.
Speaker 2: All right, guys, this all have for today is always
Speaker 2: a sincerely appreciate you guys for supporting me and supporting
Speaker 2: the show again. We will be back tomorrow night after
Speaker 2: the final buzzer of Game two of the NBA Finals
Speaker 2: with Colin Coward, So we'll have a breakdown with Colin,
Speaker 2: then we'll be heading over to play back after then
Speaker 2: on Monday morning, I'll do more of like a detailed breakdown,
Speaker 2: and then we'll do film on Tuesday. All right, I
Speaker 2: appreciate you guys. I will see you tomorrow. What's up guys.
Speaker 2: As always, I appreciate you for listening to and supporting
Speaker 2: OOPS tonight. They would actually be really helpful for us
Speaker 2: if you guys would take a second and leave a
Speaker 2: rating and a review. As always, I appreciate you guys
Speaker 2: supporting us, but if you could take a minute to
Speaker 2: do that, I'd really appreciate it. The volume