Wild What Ifs of 2023 WNBA Free Agency

Recent WNBA offseasons have taken a host of unexpected turns. We take a look at some of the crazy - but possible - moves that could shake up 2023.

Thanks for reading the Her Hoop Stats Newsletter. If you like our work, be sure to check out our stats site, our podcast, and our social media accounts on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. You can also buy Her Hoop Stats gear, such as laptop stickers, mugs, and shirts!

Haven’t subscribed to the Her Hoop Stats Newsletter yet?

---

For three years now at Her Hoop Stats, we've recorded our WNBA Mock Offseason podcast. We do our very best both to make it as realistic as possible, and to make bold and aggressive moves that we think would improve our franchises. However, every time, it turns out that we weren't crazy enough. Reality consistently defeats our best attempts to come up with crazy nonsense that might set #WNBATwitter aflame during the offseason. So let's go a little bit nuts. I want to be clear: I'm not saying that anything below is definitively likely. Each one, on its own, is probably unlikely. But they're all at least vaguely possible (and within the rules). Also, because it's me writing this article, some of them are just offseason things that I wanted to make a point about.

Core Designation Roulette

Most years, one of the regular debates heading into free agency is "Who's going to get cored?" Like how Seattle and Chicago had to decide between their stars last year, or how Connecticut resisted coring Alyssa Thomas two years ago to make sure their core spot was available for Jonquel Jones a year later. These often aren't straightforward decisions. You may have noticed the distinct lack of coverage on this issue for 2023. That's because there (seemingly) isn't anyone to core. Some players have hit the two-year limit for being cored (Brittney Griner, Candace Parker, Nneka Ogwumike, Tina Charles) but more crucially the teams that might want to core players already have someone in their spot. If you place the designation on a player and then sign them for multiple years, the player counts as your core player for the length of that deal (as long as they're still on your roster). So Chicago (Kahleah Copper), Connecticut (Jonquel Jones) and Seattle (Jewell Loyd) are all in a position where they're not allowed to core anyone. Connecticut also don't have the cap space, just to double up on the coring blocks.

So when I looked around for "most likely player to be cored" this year, it was tough to even come up with someone. I think my pick was eventually Diana Taurasi, just in case Phoenix thought she might want to finish her career back home in California. However, with someone like Taurasi, coring her might make her more likely to demand a move, just out of disgust at her team trying to restrict her. Then I realised that, of course, the most likely people to be cored are people who currently can't be.

Free agency goes in windows. They moved the dates around a little this year but we're currently in the period where teams send out qualifying offers, including core qualifying offers in order to core players. If Chicago, Connecticut or Seattle were to trade away their current core player before January 21, the spot opens up and they can use it on someone else. So if Seattle thinks Breanna Stewart is going to walk away for nothing, and they decide to lean into a full-out rebuild, do you trade Jewell Loyd this week, core Stewart, then demand a king's ransom from whichever team she wants to go to? If Connecticut are genuinely determined to re-shape their team under their new regime, is the first step to trade away Jonquel Jones, thereby opening up both the core spot and the cap space to tag Brionna Jones? Might Chicago even contemplate moving Copper in order to core Courtney Vandersloot?

Photo Credit: Chris Poss

All of these potential moves require knowledge we don't have. Each of the teams involved would likely bring everyone back as their first choice, so knowing which way their players are leaning has a huge impact on whether you make the moves first. But they have to be open to the options. All I'm saying is, despite the lack of discussion in the build-up to free agency, don't be totally surprised if someone ends up getting cored after all.

Deals, Deals, Deals

This is linked to the last point. January trades are unusual in the WNBA. According to Across the Timeline, last year's minor deal for Kia Vaughn (on the very last day of January) was the first in five years, and only 2017 and 2015 had January deals in the preceding decade. Teams usually wait until the negotiation period with free agents is over and they have more of an idea of what they're working with to make moves.

This year, they're not going to wait. Whether it's movement around those cored players mentioned above, teams shifting cap space to make moves possible with free agents, or franchises making use of the new rules on dealing picks - the pieces are going to be moving around the board. Why wait? As long as you're not trading people who need to sign contracts as part of the deal (i.e. current free agents), there's nothing to stop trades from happening right now. Let's make a deal!

Regrets, I've had a few

Who's gonna pull the trigger first? Because as mentioned above, we have new pick-trading rules, and with greater opportunity comes greater risk. You're now allowed to deal draft picks from another year into the future, so three years of picks are in play. And as we've seen in the NBA, restrictions on how many you can send just lead to teams working out ways to get around those rules. WNBA teams must retain at least one first-round pick in the three-year window, but not necessarily their own. So the full boat deal seems likely to be two first-rounders plus a first-round swap where you still hold a first-round pick, but the other team gets the higher one between the two of you. Not that the current GM is likely to still be in charge by that point if things have gone badly since the trade.

That's the problem with letting general managers deal assets from a distant future. The attitude can easily become "well either we're really good and I don't care about the picks because they're late firsts anyway, or we're bad and I don't care about the picks because I've already been fired". Often, bad deals don't need nearly that long to reveal themselves. Who's going to be the first team to throw a load of picks into a deal for a middling starter and realise within six months that the player wasn't remotely worth it? We've had teams waste cap space in recent years with free agent deals that looked awful before the ink was dry (step forward Indiana and Dallas, among others), but no one's ever been able to drop three years of draft capital into a deal before. It's going to happen; it's just a question of when. Even if it's for a superstar it'll be scary, because supposed contenders get derailed all the time by unforeseen circumstances. But it's that deal you have to talk yourself into that you need to look out for. The player who isn't quite worth the cost but is going to "change the culture" or "fit really well in our scheme". The overpay is coming. Just hope it's not your team.

Not Going Anywhere

So far, this has mostly been about people moving, so let's throw in one from the other side. When we ran our Mock Offseason, the consensus was that after all the unrest in Phoenix last year, Skylar Diggins-Smith is going somewhere - the only question is where. So my vaguely 'wild' prediction is that she'll still be drawing her checks from the Mercury come the start of the 2023 season.

There are multiple issues with trying to move Diggins-Smith. She only has one year left on her contract. She's pregnant, so how much she plays in 2023 - if at all - remains to be seen. That supermax contract figure hits her team's cap, whether she plays or not. She's at the core limit, so can't be cored by whichever team she's on at the end of 2023. All of that's before even considering that she now appears to have had issues in both Dallas and Phoenix, and has turned 32 years old.

Diggins-Smith is obviously still a very good player. She's carried the Mercury for large chunks of recent seasons, often playing at an All-WNBA level. But teams just wouldn't know what they're trading for, and she'd be a rental for a season where her availability is a glaring question mark. Maybe Phoenix decide to try to cash her in for whatever they can get, and the price gets so low that someone decides they might as well jump. But that supermax deal is a big piece of your cap space, and most teams who think they're contenders don't have space to spare. Maybe someone thinks it's worth bringing her in this year to sell her on their team, so she'll stick around for her next deal - but then you have to worry about how much you're paying a player in their mid-30s who might well be about to decline.

I'm just not convinced Phoenix are going to find a deal. But we'll see.

Vegas Doesn't Sleep

The easy prediction for the Las Vegas Aces this offseason is that they don't do much. Most of the core of their championship team signed extensions last year, locking them in through 2024. So you offer A'ja Wilson an extension, try to find a cheap replacement big if Kiah Stokes won't take the scrap of cap space you have left, and run it back. Right? Well, maybe.

When you win a title, the temptation is always to try to keep everything the same. With a relatively young core - Riquna Williams is the only meaningful rotation player over 30 - and everyone under reasonable contracts, you could definitely understand Las Vegas trying to do that. However, Dearica Hamby is pregnant again, so they don't know what they'll get from her in 2023 or when she'll be available. The lack of cap space means they might lose Stokes, and the French-ness of Iliana Rupert (in a EuroBasket Women year) means the uncertainty in the post is even greater. Thinking beyond 2023, their single-most vital player, Wilson, only has one year left on her contract. They can core her, but should they already be thinking about ways to make her as happy as possible to increase the likelihood that she sticks around for a long, long time?

So if you're the Aces, maybe you start dealing. I've asked this before in certain circles, but which side turns down Jackie Young for Allisha Gray, straight up? Young was so good for Vegas last year that I'd understand them being reluctant, especially considering the chemistry their rotation has built. But Gray's really good too, and a teammate and friend of Wilson's from their time at South Carolina. Between her friendship with Wilson and the winning culture in Vegas, they might even convince Gray to sign an extension as part of the trade, locking her in on a contract nearly as team-friendly as Young's. From Dallas's side, Young might be easily the best player they'd get back for Gray, who apparently still wants out even after they changed head coach. The Wings might well be willing to throw in an extra asset or two to get that deal done.

The most obvious potential move for Vegas would be to sacrifice Riquna Williams in order to help that thin post rotation. Williams is valuable to them, but maybe someone like a Tiffany Mitchell or Shatori Walker-Kimbrough-type could be had for the veteran minimum and provide a reasonable impersonation. Then you either get something back for Williams in a deal or use the cap space opened up to sign a big or two. It could even be as simple as replacing Williams with the cheaper option, allowing them to re-sign Stokes. The Aces may not be as quiet as we're expecting.

Coaching Carousel

This one's not really a free agency prediction, I admit. It just seems worth mentioning that there are a lot of young and/or new head coaches in the league right now. The law of averages says one or two of them are going to suck. Or, more to the point, it's going to look like one or two of them suck due to limited rosters, bad luck, or whatever else. Winning and losing is a zero-sum game in this league - they're going to have to share out 240 losses somewhere. Even beyond the five teams who hired new leaders this offseason, coaches like Noelle Quinn, Vanessa Nygaard and Tanisha Wright are still somewhat unproven.

Usually, coaches get two years, or at least one-and-a-half, before franchises give up on them. Fans tend to turn much more quickly. Expect speedy unrest somewhere, especially if the fanbase isn't convinced that their inexperienced head coach really knows what they're doing.

Stewie walks... to parts unknown

Credit to my colleague Gabe Ibrahim for this one. As the Mock GM of Chicago in our podcast, I wasn't expecting to have a shot at Breanna Stewart. Like virtually everyone else, I've heard all the chatter about Seattle or New York, and it was fixed in my head. Then he opened the negotiations as Stewart's 'agent' by wanting to talk to a host of teams, including Chicago. Because why wouldn't she? Yes, Seattle's been her WNBA home for several years, and the New York area was where she grew up, but top-level athletes like winning. Stewart in particular has become rather accustomed to it at every level, but discovered that she can't do it completely on her own in the WNBA. So why not consider franchises and coaches like those in Chicago or Minnesota? And Brooklyn's so far away from where she actually grew up that Connecticut or Washington might as well be thrown in if that's a key consideration.

So why should the choice be binary? And if it's not, why Seattle or New York? The Storm have Jewell Loyd, the promise of Ezi Magbegor, and right now not much else. The Liberty's 16-20 squad from last year has the space to add Stewart and that's about it. Feels like there might be better options available for arguably the best player on the planet in the middle of her prime. Talking of which...

Superteams!

We've seen plenty of this in the NBA. Guys talk, and plan, and eventually manage to finagle their way to playing together on top-heavy, star-dependent teams. You can certainly argue that the WNBA has had its own variants in recent times, but they've mostly happened organically, built with at least a player or two who was drafted by the franchise and then supplemented over time.

This year offers genuine opportunities for players to essentially build their teams themselves. Why wouldn't, say, Breanna Stewart, Courtney Vandersloot and Nneka Ogwumike discuss the possibility of their own Heatles-style team-up? Vandersloot reportedly just signed for Fenerbahçe in Turkey, who have their own superteam collective already featuring Stewart, so they wouldn't even have to pay for the phone call.

The easy route might be for a superstar to join another who stays home (like Vandersloot taking the oft-suggested journey to join Stewart in Seattle), but it wouldn't even have to be that way. Some players don't like joining a squad where they'll always be seen as the additional sidekick to the player that already 'owns' the team. A franchise like Atlanta has the cap space to pitch a whole cadre of stars to join up together. Now that would be a free agency splash.

And Finally...

Tell me which part of this scenario seems impossible:

a) "Hey Diana, would you mind waiting a while to sign your contract, just so that we have more room to maneuver trying to get people in to help you out?" "Sure, no problem."

b) The Mercury strike out on the big fish, can't move Diggins-Smith for anything useful for all the reasons discussed earlier, and spend weeks revelling in the positive PR from handing Brittney Griner a new supermax deal.

c) "Hey Diana, we've got this deal in place for [a middling overpaid backup] that we think could help us out, but we'd need you to take a little bit less than the max to make it happen. You cool with that?" "Umm..."

d) *ring ring* "Diana, I have Curt Miller and Karen Bryant on the line? They said something about playing back home in Cali with Nneka, Brionna Jones and the other big pickups attracted by LA's bright lights." "Hmm..."

We've seen plenty of 'one-team' superstars finish off their careers with a quick sojourn elsewhere. I'm not saying it's likely. But it's WNBA free agency. Expect wild.

---

Thanks for reading the Her Hoop Stats Newsletter. If you like our work, be sure to check out our stats site, our podcast, and our social media accounts on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram.