Nuggets' offseason comes down to this: Is Peyton Watson worth $25 million? 91%

By Troy Renck100% Sean Keeler100%

7/20/2026, 7:04:38 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Anchoring Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with False Dilemma as the most egregious example at 32.9% saturation with 264 hits. Analysis detected 2,399 faulty-reasoning hits from 802 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.2% and a BS Rank of 91% (1,931 of 21,203 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.90% of the article peer group.

Troy Renck: The Nuggets’ offseason feels like a documentary on Netflix, and we all know it is not going to end well (spoiler alert, they don’t get LeBron James). 
With Nikola Jokic on the roster, championships remain the expectation. 
Yet, the Nuggets have done little to nothing to improve the team around him. 
It can be argued that the inactivity is aggressive because they are going for it with a veteran team. 
It can also be argued that this premise made a lot more sense in 2023 and 2024. 
The biggest move comes down to this: Is Peyton Watson worth $25 million or should the Nuggets sign and trade him? 
Sean Keeler: The Nuggets’ summer so far could be described as “A Series of Unfortunate Events,” my friend. 
Here’s the thing: There’s the open market, what everybody else thinks your players are worth; and there’s the Nuggets’ internal “reward our dudes” market. 
Steph Noh's salary projection pegs Watson's worth at $17.2 million per season while the site BasketballValues.com has that number between $14-18 million. 
The latter also notes, though, that it thinks P-Swat will actually get something along the lines of a four-year deal at $80 million to $100 million, or $20-25 million per season. 
Which would be in line with what his teammates are getting and should justifiably exceed that. 
If Cam Johnson (12.2 points per game, 43% 3-point shooting rate) is worth $23 million and Christian Braun (12.0 ppg, 30.1% on treys) is worth $21.55 million, then it’s an easy argument from Watson's camp that their guy (14.6 ppg, 41.1% on treys) should make more, based on last season's production. 
Renck: Watson is everything the Nuggets need: a bouncy, young player  just 23  with defensive prowess and offensive upside. 
Once Watson showed he could create his own shot, he was worth it. 
The sample size is chillingly small, but when Nikola Jokic missed 16 games with a knee injury, Watson averaged 22.8 points, 5.8 rebounds, 2.8 assists, 1.1 steals and 1.5 blocks. 
He emerged as a big reason Denver posted a 10-6 record in Jokic's absence. 
It is uncomfortable to pay Watson $25 million per season  heck, it will likely take more  after Christian Braun became injured and ineffective on the same salary last season. 
But it is not fair to hold Braun's performance against Watson. 
Braun might end up as a bench player because of his suspect shooting. 
Watson has a much higher ceiling after draining 41.1% of his 3-pointers a year ago. 
Keeler: The Kroenkes are playing the long game here, which is holding everything else up, and assuming everyone else is as scared of the second apron as they are. 
That makes sense and cents: Per SalarySwish.com, only seven NBA franchises as of Monday were projected to be $20 million or more below the second apron line ($221.69 million) while also not being hard-capped by the first apron ($209.02 million). 
The Lu Dort trade to Atlanta only makes Watson's market for potential suitors smaller. 
Renck: Agent Rich Paul is using every angle to create interest in his client. 
But with Lu Dort going to the Hawks, it appears the Clippers and Bucks are the only teams left who can realistically give Watson a hefty offer sheet for between $25 and $30 million. 
The Nuggets appear ready to match or call Paul's bluff. 
I want Watson back, and would be willing to overspend. 
It also means trading Cam Johnson because there is no reason the Nuggets should become the only team to go into the second apron this season. 
Don’t like going big for Watson? 
Here’s what I like even less: executing a sign-and-trade for Watson for another vagabond player  the Nuggets have cornered the market on those this offseason  for draft picks to use when Jokic is in his mid-30s. 
I would rather risk whiffing on Watson than give Jokic a reason for leaving. 
Keeler: Aren’t we looking at this backward, though? 
In terms of potential and upside, of course you’d be loco to try and move Watson now. 
But the reality is this: Of the new P-Swat, Cam and CB contracts, the Nuggets are only realistically keeping two of them so as to avoid that dreaded second salary-cap apron. 
If you want to make a “win-now” statement to Jokic, you keep everybody, eat the money and keep on trucking. 
But that’s not the KSE Way. 
So the premise becomes this: Which of those three could I leverage in a trade to get the most return back? 
Given Braun's shooting and Cam's ceiling, there’s only one answer. 
And it’s the awful, uncomfortable one. 
Want more Nuggets news? 
Sign up for the Nuggets Insider to get all our NBA analysis. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.4%Troy Renck: 10.3%Baltimore Sun: 1.8%Confirmation Bias7.4%This article: 20.9%Troy Renck: 14.5%Baltimore Sun: 1.0%Anchoring Bias20.9%This article: 8.0%Troy Renck: 5.2%Baltimore Sun: 2.6%Availability Heuristic8.0%This article: 8.2%Troy Renck: 2.7%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic8.2%This article: 1.6%Troy Renck: 1.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Hindsight Bias1.6%This article: 1.2%Troy Renck: 2.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias1.2%This article: 10.0%Troy Renck: 10.4%Baltimore Sun: 4.4%Framing Effect10.0%This article: 6.9%Troy Renck: 7.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Loss Aversion6.9%This article: 4.0%Troy Renck: 3.7%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 4.7%Troy Renck: 1.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect4.7%This article: 6.0%Troy Renck: 6.4%Baltimore Sun: 2.3%Optimism Bias6.0%This article: 14.0%Troy Renck: 6.6%Baltimore Sun: 1.2%Pessimism Bias14.0%This article: 17.0%Troy Renck: 12.8%Baltimore Sun: 7.5%Negativity Bias17.0%This article: 7.6%Troy Renck: 3.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias7.6%This article: 5.4%Troy Renck: 5.6%Baltimore Sun: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error5.4%This article: 1.7%Troy Renck: 0.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 1.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Troy Renck: 1.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.0%This article: 5.9%Troy Renck: 5.2%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%Halo Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.9%Troy Renck: 7.3%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Recency Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Troy Renck: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.6%Troy Renck: 3.9%Baltimore Sun: 2.4%Appeal to Authority11.6%This article: 32.9%Troy Renck: 15.8%Baltimore Sun: 1.2%False Dilemma32.9%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 2.7%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.0%Troy Renck: 1.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning2.0%This article: 16.5%Troy Renck: 13.1%Baltimore Sun: 3.2%Hasty Generalization16.5%This article: 1.7%Troy Renck: 0.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Red Herring1.7%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 2.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.6%Troy Renck: 16.6%Baltimore Sun: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion27.6%This article: 10.6%Troy Renck: 5.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Begging the Question10.6%This article: 14.6%Troy Renck: 6.6%Baltimore Sun: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.6%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.2%Troy Renck: 2.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Composition/Division1.2%This article: 5.6%Troy Renck: 4.4%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%Anecdotal5.6%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%Troy Renck: 3.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.8%Troy Renck: 21.3%Baltimore Sun: 3.3%Biased Writer Voice17.8%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Troy Renck: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Troy Renck: 1.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.0%

802 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers29%attributed speech572writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTroy Renck • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSean Keeler • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageTroy Renck • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSean Keeler • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageTroy Renck • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSean Keeler • 8 words • 0.0% coverageSean Keeler • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSean Keeler • 31 words • 100.0% coverageSean Keeler • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSean Keeler • 6 words • 0.0% coverageSean Keeler • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSean Keeler • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSean Keeler • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Troy Renck

100%flagged-word coverage
64 attributed words28% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Biased Writer Voice+71.5 ptsWriter: 6.6%Troy Renck: 78.1%78.1%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Troy Renck: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.