Denver Post Nuggets beat writer Bennett Durando opens up the Nuggets Mailbag periodically during the season. You can submit a Nuggets- or NBA-related question here.
Peyton Watson has shown that he can defend, block shots, shoot 3s and create his own shots. Most experts seem to think his value will be too high, and the Nuggets will lose him to free agency. I might argue that his ceiling is higher than Christian Braun and perhaps Cam Johnson. Could the Nuggets trade one of them to create cap space to sign Watson?
— Dave, Denver
Bennett: No one questioned the Nuggets prioritizing Braun’s contract extension over Watson in the off-season, nor should they have. Given their respective performances to that time, the choice was obvious. Now, though, so much has changed. It’s clear that someone significant needs to go in the offseason. Cam Johnson seems like the obvious choice, though he would bring the least back. Still, the cap relief is more important, if it allows the team to retain Watson. Is it possible that Braun could be dealt? I know he’s a management favorite, but his regression to start the year was alarming, and he seems to still always be in his head in terms of shooting confidence. … I don’t want to see Braun go, but I don’t think the team can afford to lose Watson’s offense given Gordon’s injury problems. They need that third option. How do you see all this playing out?
— David, Charlotte
Thanks for the thoughtful questions, Daves. This is the first mailbag I’ve done since Watson’s breakout stretch in January, so I had a feeling this would be the most popular topic. It will occupy most of our space today.
I’ll start by saying this: Nobody Աto go. The Nuggets possess both Watson’s full Bird rights and the right to match any offer sheet he receives as a restricted free agent. In theory, they could sign him to an extension without needing to sacrifice another starter if the Kroenkes are willing to incur the roster-building and tax penalties of the second apron. It feels important to point out that if they claim their hands are tied, it’s by a knot they’re choosing not to untangle.
As we know, the Nuggets’ actions so far under the current CBA indicate they’re not willing to be a second-apron team. And in fairness to them, it’s also worth noting that the second apron has been treated as a quasi-hard cap by most of the league. Only one team exceeds it right now (Cleveland). Back in October, Watson directly referenced it as a driving factor in why the Nuggets didn’t extend him before the season. “From what I understand,” he told The Denver Post, “it was just a financial business decision.” At that point, I wrote that retaining Watson beyond this year seemed highly unlikely. Denver knew that not extending him meant being prepared to lose him.
Everything has changed since then. Watson has made himself impossible to ignore with his fourth-year leap offensively. The likelihood was always that he would price himself out of the Nuggets’ range, but ironically, I think he’s played so well that he’s forced them to reconsider their offseason priorities, making it more likely that they ultimately keep him. They’re certainly planning to try, league sources have indicated. Other front offices are eyeing Watson as well. I can think of one team that plays in his hometown, has cap space to spare this offseason and desperately needs an athletic wing defender in the starting lineup.
But there are a lot of variables. Forget the second apron for now; the Nuggets have also evaded the luxury tax entirely this month, which could incentivize them to do so again next season to avoid a repeater tax bill. Without getting into a detailed breakdown of the cap sheet — there will be plenty of time for that when the offseason begins — I don’t see how they can do it without eviscerating their roster, frankly. But the point is this: To one degree or another financially, a sacrifice of a key player is almost guaranteed this summer.
The question is whether Watson has done enough to convince the front office it shouldn’t be him. I want to urge that nothing is final in this regard. Playoff basketball tends to strongly inform decision-making in the NBA, so a lot can still change, just like how a lot changed in the last two months. As of this dispatch, I believe the Nuggets want to prioritize retaining Watson, even if that means trading a starter to make room for him (both financially and in the lineup). People I’ve spoken to around the league view Cam Johnson as the most likely candidate to go, which would make sense as Watson could replace him as Denver’s starting small forward.
I would push back at your assertion that Johnson can’t net a good return, David. He’ll be a fairly modest expiring salary of $23 million next year — an estimated 13.9% of the cap — and he’s a 6-foot-8 wing shooting 43% from three with decent off-the-dribble ability. I actually think he would be a big loss. He’s been very solid for most of this season when healthy.
If you’re another team trading for Braun this summer, you’re taking on an ascending five-year payroll commitment, starting at $21.6 million. Most front offices don’t want to do that in the current landscape. And anyway, the Nuggets should want to be patient with Braun. He’s five years younger than Johnson, his defensive ability fits the roster’s biggest need, and his season was derailed by the first serious injury of his life before he had any chance to work through a shaky start. In the last few games since his return, he’s already starting to look more like the 2024-25 version of himself. Gordon also needs to at least be mentioned here, as cold-hearted as that would be. The fan favorite will be 31 years old and making $32 million next season, in the same salary range as the other trade candidates our mailbag inquirers have listed.
Whatever happens, Watson has turned this into a more intriguing Nuggets offseason than it was going to be. I’m curious to see how he looks when he returns from his hamstring injury and whether that might impact the direction Denver eventually chooses.
Hey Bennett, hope all is well. Do you think the Nuggets for sure sign someone to fill out that last roster spot, and if so what are you hearing on that front?
— Joseph, Parts Unknown
Hey, Joseph. Again, “for sure” is a dangerous phrase until someone has signed on the dotted line. But yes, I’m still under the impression that Denver is confident it can add a 15th player in the next few weeks. Converting Spencer Jones at the minimum ensured that there’s enough space under the tax to take on another rest-of-season minimum contract. (Jones’ exact prorated salary is just under $624,000, .)
As for what they’re looking for, I’d expect them to eventually add size on the wing, based on what I’ve heard from multiple league sources. The fact that they just used their third two-way spot to sign an extra point guard is an indication that backcourt ball-handling was a box they wanted to check, but also a slightly lower priority than forward depth. There was a lot of Lonzo Ball buzz when he initially became available, but I don’t expect Denver to end up going that direction.
Haywood Highsmith would have been a nice fit, but he was scooped up by the Phoenix Suns this week, and he would have been a risk because of his health this season. Options are pretty limited. The Nuggets are still hoping to watch the market play out and see who else emerges, according to one source.
Is there really any way to fix the NBA’s tanking problem? It seems worse than ever this year, especially with what Utah was doing, pulling star players in the fourth quarter. I feel like whatever the league tries, teams will always find new loopholes to new rules.
— Lucas, Denver
I tend to agree with that last point. But I’ll be completely honest with you, Lucas. I just can’t find it within myself to care that much. That’s right. I have a case of Tanking Discourse Fatigue. Tanking is what it is. It’s not ideal, but I don’t consider it an affront to the sport as much as a lot of people seem to. I can’t blame anyone for making objectively smart strategic decisions for the future of their franchise. As for this year, would you rather Utah play Lauri Markkanen for the first three quarters then conveniently rest him the fourth? Or not play him at all?
I invite you to read the ideas presented by a number of intelligent and creative national NBA writers . As for me, I don’t cover a tanking team at this time. Maybe that will change someday. I hope to have the energy for it when that day comes, so I’m doing some load management right now.
Do the Nuggets avoid letting Spencer start seven more games so he doesn’t qualify for the starter RFA rate?
— Bruce, Twitter
Do you think the Nuggets can keep Spencer Jones this summer and will they keep their first-round pick or offload it?
— John, Twitter
Jones is also a popular topic, understandably. The Nuggets have a legitimate enough basketball excuse not to start him for now: Julian Strawther was starting before the All-Star break and playing some of the best basketball of his career. It carried over Thursday with an efficient 18-point performance against the Clippers. He’s earned his spot as the fifth starter recently, and Johnson is a functional four next to Nikola Jokic. It’s not like the current starting unit is a four-guard lineup.
But if the Nuggets need to replace another wing in that lineup anytime soon and they suddenly go with, say, Zeke Nnaji instead of Jones, then it qualifies as funny business. I talked with a couple of agents this week about the “starter criteria” and how Denver is obviously incentivized to use Jones off the bench. One pointed out to me that if the Nuggets blatantly went out of their way to prevent Jones from starting in scenarios where he normally would, it could tick off the NBA Players Association. So there may be limits to how Denver can handle it.
Even if Jones does start seven more games and his qualifying offer increases to more than $5 million, that’s not a bad price to pay for a reliable 3-and-D player. But it’s fair to wonder if Jones might be a downwind casualty of other decisions this summer. As I outlined earlier, the Nuggets will have a difficult time filling out their roster with cheap contracts if they want to stay under either apron — even more difficult if they want to duck the tax. (For that reason, to John’s other question, I would guess they’ll want to use their pick. I haven’t looked into that closely yet, but a late first-rounder means a cost-controlled roster spot.)
