To the well-trained eye, Denver figured to be one of the epicenters of this NBA offseason.

With two starters due for a combined $25.8 million salary increase, and with a potential rising star on the bench determined to land a lucrative contract extension, something had to give. The Nuggets were about to get too expensive for owner Stan Kroenke to stomach. Especially after their debacle of a playoff run, which ended before it could begin.

This was the prevailing sentiment for two months leading up to free agency. Almost all Nuggets-related chatter, both inside and outside Ball Arena, was about which player(s) they would sacrifice in a trade. Team president Josh Kroenke poured jet fuel on the rumor mill when he declared in May that “everything is on the table” except trading three-time MVP center Nikola Jokic.

Another high-ranking official in the Kroenke sports empire, Kevin Demoff, had hinted months earlier that Denver’s inclination might be to avoid the luxury tax entirely next season as to avoid paying the NBA’s punitive “repeater tax” rates. That was long before the Nuggets revealed to their power brokers that they were nowhere close to championship-worthy.

So, uh, what’s going on in Denver?

More than a week since the league’s free agency period began, most teams have completed their offseason business. The Nuggets have been puzzlingly idle. A few highlights so far: Tim Hardaway Jr. leaving for Miami as expected, Jonas Valanciunas getting waived for salary cap relief as expected, Marvin Bagley III and Tyus Jones signing one-year deals.

Going all-in or playing it conservatively?

Something doesn’t add up. As in, it adds up to a sum that continues to leave most NBA observers skeptical. Denver is leaving everyone guessing right now, even other teams.

Should fans be frustrated by the lack of action? Encouraged by it? Or is everything simply on hold?

There are two sides to this to unpack: the financial and basketball perspectives. They’re obviously intertwined, but when trying to make sense of this situation, it’s best to start with the financial side, because that was an obstacle that seemed to be motivating Denver’s roster decisions even before the on-court problems that emerged against Minnesota.

Before last season, the Nuggets were choosing between two extension-eligible 2022 draftees who had one year remaining on their rookie contracts: Christian Braun and Peyton Watson. They chose Braun, the more proven player at that point, an efficient 15-point-per-game starter the previous season, and a strong (if flawed) defender. They signed him to a five-year deal that would go into effect in 2026. They felt comfortable taking Watson to restricted free agency and maybe even losing him. Three years into his career, he seemed to be developing into a solid 3-and-D bench player, and maybe not much more than that.

The Nuggets were looking ahead to their 2026-27 payroll and didn’t want to commit large chunks of money to both players. Watson told The Denver Post in October: “From what I understand, it was just a financial business decision. Obviously, with the new CBA and the second apron, things of that nature, they wanted to stay out of that.”

Braun went on to have an injury-riddled season, the worst of his career. Watson had the best season of his career, particularly by showcasing his off-the-dribble ability when Jokic was hurt in January.

And so the Nuggets knew they would be entering the 2026 offseason with six starter-level players whose combined salary would result in a roster payroll above all three tax thresholds: the luxury tax ($200.4 million), first apron ($209 million) and second apron ($221.7 million). They wanted to keep Watson, recognizing the importance of his two-way talent and athleticism. They signaled as much to other teams.

If their previous actions had already indicated they were prepared to sacrifice him to stay under the second apron, then changing course and keeping him would surely mean sacrificing someone else.

This was the foundational logic that led people around the NBA to believe they were almost guaranteed to trade a starter. An oversimplification of the salary cap math looked like this: Lose one of your six starter-level players to get under the second apron, or lose two to duck the tax entirely. Perhaps other creative ways to shed salary would emerge, but this was the basic state of the union. Jon Wallace and Ben Tenzer would be tasked with threading the needle between cutting payroll and improving the roster.

From this perspective, the fact that Denver has not traded any of the six starter-level players yet can ironically be interpreted as an aggressive stance, not a conservative one. The moves that were expected to have happened by now would’ve been motivated primarily by money, not purely by basketball. Could it be that the Kroenkes are going all-in to chase a second championship? Suddenly, in the last few days, there’s been reporting from national media outlets such as The Athletic that “Denver’s ownership has not given its front office a mandate to cut costs.” The Post has been told similarly.

But that didn’t seem to be the case three weeks ago when the Nuggets were actively exploring the trade market for Braun and Cam Johnson, as The Post and other outlets reported.

What can it mean? Maybe there’s been a change of heart, and an executive decision has been made to spend lavishly. Maybe it’s connected to the team’s pursuit of LeBron James in free agency (how do you even begin to pitch him on coming to Denver if you’re not willing to pay up?), or maybe it’s a reaction to Jokic’s decision to wait one more year to sign a new extension. As direct as he was in publicly stating his plan to sign next summer, maybe the pressure of him entering the last guaranteed season of his current contract scared the Nuggets straight.

Maybe this is an earnest, full-throttle statement of championship intent.

Or maybe the abrupt timing of this leakage is a little too convenient.

Gauging the Watson market

The Nuggets have multiple reasons to want the rest of the NBA to believe they’re working with a blank check right now. One of those reasons: Watson.

Negotiations have clearly not gone smoothly. The line of demarcation is $25 million. That’s Braun’s average annual value on his new contract — the deal Denver prioritized over Watson — and now it’s the number Watson’s camp can fixate on. His side can point to last season and claim that going forward, he is worth the same amount or more. The Nuggets can point to the previous three years and say Braun’s overall body of work is better so far. As this is happening, another team is reportedly lingering, with a desire to poach Watson. The Clippers reside in his hometown, and they’ve already made moves this summer to get younger and clear their books.

Watson is a restricted free agent, meaning the Clippers must extend him an offer sheet, the terms of which Denver can match to retain him. Offer-sheeting a player can be risky because it ties down your cap until the situation is resolved, with no guarantee that you will successfully land the player you’re targeting. The Nuggets are saying behind the scenes that they’re prepared to match any offer sheet. Basically, they’re trying to scare off LA (and any other suitor) by indicating the offer sheet would be a waste of time, and the only real way to get Watson from them is to execute a sign-and-trade, sending Denver other assets in exchange for the right to sign the RFA. Utah just did this with Walker Kessler, who ended up with the Lakers via sign-and-trade. How can you bolster your leverage in a situation like this? By signaling publicly that you’re willing to pay an exorbitant payroll and tax bill to keep Watson and everyone else.

This also sends a message that you aren’t desperate to trade a starter (or two) to keep Watson — that you’re more than happy to hold on to Johnson, Braun, Aaron Gordon, or Jamal Murray if the offer isn’t strong enough.

If there is a spending mandate, then other teams might look to take advantage with low-ball trade offers.

So maybe the lack of a spending mandate could turn out to be a bluff for leverage. Or maybe it’s a real edict, a genuine commitment to competitiveness at all costs. There’s almost no way to know for sure until the Nuggets take an action to back up their words. For now, inaction has the appearance of aggression, as Denver attempts to feel out the market.

Certainly, it seems like the key domino will be how the Watson dilemma works itself out — either in the form of a contract extension, or an unmatched offer sheet, or a sign-and-trade, or a begrudgingly accepted qualifying offer ($6.5 million).

ESPN front office expert Bobby Marks (a former NBA executive) projected this week that if the Nuggets retain Watson at a $25 million cap hit and don’t trade any starters, their luxury tax bill next season would exceed $170 million — an almost unprecedented amount that includes second apron and repeater tax penalties. That’s in addition to what the raw roster payroll would be.

Between player salaries and taxes, it would be a $400 million team.

Which finally brings us to the basketball perspective on Denver’s offseason holding pattern. It would be one thing to pay that much if the Nuggets had just lost the NBA Finals in a tight six-game series with their current roster — if they knew for a fact that a championship was barely out of reach last season.

But the Nuggets didn’t make the Finals. They didn’t win a single playoff series. They lost in the first round to an injured opponent. They weren’t close.