Historically speaking, the peak of trade season comes at the NBA Draft. There’s a common sense to that. Win-now teams frequently want to turn their picks into immediate players, and that becomes harder once the pick becomes an actual player who other teams may not be interested in. Free agency offers the chance to replace players who were dealt. Teams are at their most flexible on draft night. They have the whole offseason in front of them to figure out any roster problems that arise that night.
But, at least from a veteran standpoint, the 2024 NBA Draft was relatively light on the trade front. No active players were traded during the first round. The Mikal Bridges blockbuster came before, as did the Deni Avdija trade, but once the picks started coming, the player-based trades largely stopped. Thursday’s second round saw no-names like Wendell Moore and Lindy Waters move, but nobody of real substance.
And so, trade season has yet to peak in the NBA. All 30 teams could probably afford a tune up or two, but five teams stand out at the moment for specific reasons. These aren’t the five teams that need trades most in the entire NBA. They are the five teams that, as a direct result of their choices before and during the draft, have a specific sort of trade they need to make sooner rather than later. Ideally, these moves will come either before the free agency frenzy begins or soon afterward, because the longer these teams wait, the harder things are going to become.
The Knicks made their splash already when they landed Bridges. Now comes the more tedious part: filling out the roster around him. In theory, the Knicks could stick with what they have. They are currently below the first-apron hard cap that the Bridges trade, in its current incarnation, set for them. The only rotation piece from last season missing would be free agent Isaiah Hartenstein, who they were going to struggle to re-sign anyway because of Early Bird Rights restrictions. As it stands right now, the Knicks have a path to a starting lineup of Bridges, Jalen Brunson, OG Anunoby, Julius Randle and Mitchell Robinson with Donte DiVincenzo, Josh Hart and Deuce McBride off of the bench. That’s a contender.
It’s just a risky one. Hartenstein was essential last year partially because of how good he was, but also because of how injury-prone Robinson is. He has averaged around 48 games played per year over the past four seasons. The Knicks could live with this when they had a second starting-caliber center in Hartenstein, but New York cannot reasonably expect to go into next season with Robinson as the only viable center. They need an insurance policy of some sort, and retaining Precious Achiuwa isn’t going to cut it.
That leaves them with two viable options, all of which are going to require a trade of some sort:
- In a perfect world, the Knicks would re-sign Hartenstein. He would have to take a slight discount by accepting a four-year, $72.5 million deal, but if he’s willing to do it, the Knicks are going to have to expand the Bridges trade so that they send out more money than they take in. This would allow them to use the second apron (roughly $189.5 million) as a hard cap instead of the first (roughly $178.7 million). Bridges makes roughly $4.3 million more than Bojan Bogdanovic, so the Knicks would have to make up the difference in some other way. They could potentially trade Deuce McBride and his $4.7 million salary to do so, but McBride’s three-year extension is so cheap that the Knicks are going to want to keep him for when everyone else gets expensive. More likely, the Knicks are trading either Robinson ($14.3 million) or Randle ($30.3 million) to facilitate Hartenstein. These deals could potentially bring back other players. The Knicks would just have to send out less cumulative money in the expanded trade than they take in.
- Let’s say the Knicks lose Hartenstein. Do they want to go into next season with a health risk in Robinson as their only center? They could potentially get out ahead of this now by trading Robinson or Randle preemptively for a center. Let’s say, for instance, the Knicks traded Randle, a $30 million player, for someone’s $20 million center. That would restore their two-headed center rotation with a proper Hartenstein rotation, unlock the second apron hard cap and wipe $10 million off the books that could be reallocated to other players. You’d likely be taking a talent downgrade by giving Randle away, but considering how far the Knicks made it without him, their preference may be to stick with the “four perimeter players and one big man” approach moving forward. The alternative here would to try to trade Robinson for a cheaper center in the $9-10 million range. There are fewer options at this price point, but doing so would at least give the Knicks potential access to the tax-payer mid-level exception. Would you rather have Robinson alone, or two decent but inferior centers? That is a question New York is asking itself right now. At the most extreme end of this spectrum, the Knicks could try to dump Randle outright into someone’s cap space to unlock the full non-taxpayer mid-level exception at around $13 million. This could be used to pursue a starting-caliber big man like Jonas Valanciunas on the open market.
There are dozens of possible moves that could spring out of these scenarios, and for now, it all hinges on what sort of offers Hartenstein gets.
If the Knicks decide they want to have a presence in New York, they surely have a plan to make it financially feasible. If not, they need to address their center rotation to ensure a reliable backup for Robinson, whose health is too risky to pair with a significantly downgraded backup.
The Nets, on the other hand, have signaled their intention to aggressively tank for the next two years by offloading veterans and losing games. Players like Cam Johnson and Dorian Finney-Smith could be targets for contenders due to their 3-and-D skills. Acting quickly is crucial for the Nets to maximize their value in potential trades.
The Pistons, with a roster full of non-shooters, need to rebuild quickly and acquire core pieces that can complement their existing players. Holding onto players who can’t shoot is developmentally irresponsible and hinders the team’s progress.
Someone from the Pistons’ non-shooting core needs to be moved to bring in a player who can hit 3-pointers and provide space for development. Portland, facing a logjam at the center position, needs to make a decision on how to distribute minutes among Ayton, Clingan, and Williams to ensure optimal development for their young guards.
Portland may argue that Ayton’s mid-range shooting makes him a viable power forward, but his lack of 3-point shooting limits his spacing ability. Williams seems like the obvious player to move, as the Knicks have shown the benefits of having a strong center duo. The NBA offseason is in full swing, and teams like the Portland Trail Blazers and Denver Nuggets are facing important decisions regarding their rosters.
In Portland, the trio of Clingan, Ayton, and Williams presents a dilemma. While Clingan could thrive in the NBA without starting minutes, Ayton may benefit from a reduced workload to boost his defensive energy. Williams, despite injury concerns, could be a valuable asset for a team looking for a bargain deal. However, keeping all three players might not be feasible for the Blazers, especially considering Ayton’s expensive contract.
On the other hand, the Nuggets have a strong starting lineup but lack depth on the bench. With Caldwell-Pope opting out of his contract, Denver faces a salary cap challenge. One potential solution is trading Nnaji to free up cap space for re-signing Caldwell-Pope or acquiring a replacement. Whether through dumping Nnaji for additional cap space, leveraging their first-round pick for a promising young player, or using the mid-level exception to add depth, the Nuggets must make strategic moves to strengthen their roster.
In any scenario, it is crucial for both teams to make proactive decisions to address their roster needs and maintain competitiveness in the NBA. sentence in a different way:
“Please remember to bring your ID card with you to the event.”
“Don’t forget to bring your ID card to the event.”