Imagine this: A championship-caliber team like the Denver Nuggets cruising through the NBA season without a single trade rumor swirling around them. It's a rare feat in today's cutthroat league, where most franchises are scrambling to tweak their rosters before the February deadline. But what if they did decide to make a move? Buckle up, because we're diving into who might be the most likely player to get traded—and trust me, it's not who you think. Let's explore this intriguing scenario and why it could reshape Denver's future.
First off, for those new to NBA lingo, think of the trade deadline as a critical checkpoint in the season, usually around mid-February, where teams can swap players, draft picks, or cash to strengthen their squad for playoffs. The Nuggets are currently sitting pretty at 18-6 after 24 games in the 2025-26 campaign, and remarkably, they're one of the few squads flying under the radar with no trade whispers. They seem deeply invested in their existing lineup, especially when everyone's healthy, so why rock the boat mid-season? Still, basketball is unpredictable, and if management senses a need for change, who tops the list?
According to Bleacher Report's Grant Hughes, the top candidate is none other than sixth-year forward Zeke Nnaji, a former first-round pick whose story has taken a bittersweet turn. And this is the part most people miss: despite his draft pedigree, Nnaji hasn't lived up to the hype in Denver. Selected 22nd overall in the 2020 NBA Draft, this 6-foot-10 power forward was supposed to be a long-term cornerstone. But this season? He's logging a paltry 8.3 minutes per game, chipping in just 2.3 points and 1.5 rebounds while shooting an efficient 54.5% from the field. In simpler terms, he's barely on the court, relegated to the sidelines while others shine.
What makes this even more puzzling is his contract status. He's midway through a four-year, $32 million deal, which, for a beginner's guide, means he's locked in at a hefty salary even though he's not contributing much. This turns him into one of the priciest bench players in the league—a luxury most teams can't afford when building a winning squad. His trade value? Basically zero, since no team is clamoring for a player who's out of rotation and costly. But here's where it gets controversial: some argue that even if Nnaji had performed well, the Nuggets might still shop him around just to shed that mid-tier salary and free up cap space. As Bailey points out, finding a trade partner has been tough, and Denver might need to sweeten the deal with an extra asset to offload him. Ultimately, any move involving Nnaji would likely be about trimming expenses, a strategy the Nuggets have leaned on in recent years to stay competitive without overpaying underperformers.
Of course, Nnaji isn't the only name in the conversation. What about other potential trade chips? For instance, Peyton Watson has been a revelation this year, stepping up big time for the Nuggets. But with his contract expiring and no signs of a new deal in Denver, trading him could net some value instead of losing him for nothing in free agency. That said, with a title run on the horizon, keeping him might be the smarter play to bolster their depth. Then there's backup guard Jalen Pickett, whose limited upside probably makes him too low-value to bother trading. And don't forget young forward DaRon Holmes II, who's still proving himself after missing his rookie season entirely. Rushing to trade him for peanuts might be a misstep; the Nuggets could gain more by giving him time to develop and potentially bloom into a key piece.
So, there you have it—a peek into the Nuggets' potential trade landscape, where decisions hinge on balancing performance, contracts, and championship ambitions. But what do you think? Is trading a disappointing first-rounder like Nnaji a savvy business move, or does it risk long-term talent drain? Some might say the Nuggets should hold onto guys like Watson for the playoff push, even if it means parting ways later. Weigh in below: Do you agree the team should prioritize cost-cutting, or is loyalty to the roster more important? Let's discuss—share your thoughts in the comments!
