You don’t have to I just think it’s so much better. You trade Rudy for established win now players with low likelihood of working out and then a year later Donovan asks out… don’s value slides unless he improves because there is one year less on his deal… there’s also the chance of catastrophic injury and his value craters… but let’s say that doesn’t happen… and let’s say they win 45 games and he asks out… now you need to cash in on him, Collins, and whatever other established pieces for future facing pieces. In a Rudy trade you may have gotten a better package a year ago if you had gone the prospects and picks route.
Uhh...I'm struggling to understand the points made here. I don't understand why Don's value slides outside of an injury. His value doesn't slide if the team wins less, that's not how trade value has ever worked for star players. If you're going to make the argument that Don as an individual player looks better because Rudy made him look better (good screens)....I suppose that could be true, but there's also a chance Donovan improves as a player and increases his value. Don had a good year this season, but the championship expectation and magnifier glass on his defense did not help his stock. A team without much expectation is ideal for his trade value.
The second part is what I really don't understand though. You need to trade the package you get for Rudy again? Huh??? Why does that happen because you didn't trade Don? I just used John Collings as an example because I think ATL is the most likely trade destination, but you can insert any trade package there. If you look at any of the rumored teams, they almost exclusively playoff teams and we're unlikely to get a package with more distant future type assets....but that is independent of our decision to trade Mitchell.
Then you also lose out on cashing in on one or two of the established pieces already on the roster. You miss out on any value by taking on less desirable contracts… you miss out on landing a top 5 pick in a really good draft.
I don't think it does. I think the well established players on the roster should be moved even if both are back, but if you just traded Rudy there's really no reason why you can't do any of the above outside of tanking immediately (tanking is a permanent, standing option that is always available).
It has a low likelihood of working out as you stated… and even if you win say 50+ and end up in the second round… are we sure Don says he would rather stick around.
It is a low likelihood of working out. I don't think Don will stay in that scenario, maybe he asks out a year later. But the option of trading him is still there at that time. Like I said, I think it's incredibly unlikely that his value drops. That just doesn't happen when it comes to stars being traded. I don't see examples of this. Even in situations where it is brutally obvious that players will be traded, teams have waited it out and it's worked out for them. The Pelicans had Anthony Davis with one year left and could basically only trade him to one team, and yet they still got maximum value from. Don's value dropping is not a concern for me, and I actually think you're more likely to get a better deal by waiting to see what offers you get over a longer period of time. Even if you don't think Don is going to finish out his contract here, hold that leverage against teams as long as you can. If you commit to trading him this summer, I'm really not sure that means you get the best deal. In fact, I'd be surprised if you did. Wait for the godfather offer.
Whatever small chance there is of things working out well with Don, I'd take that given that the opportunity cost is simply trading him later.
To keep its like knowing you need knee surgery on both knees… Doc says he can do both now and you rehab for 6 months… or he can do one you can rehab for 6 months then he can do the other and you can rehab for 6 months. Having one good leg might provide some quality of life that is slightly better… there is a small chance maybe the other knee doesn’t end up needing surgery… but it’s very likely at some point both knees need to be done. I’d do them both at the same time… others might not.
I can see the benefits to each path… my preference is very much to move hard in the one direction I feel is inevitable. Good luck convincing a guy to stay… good luck making moves that are simultaneously good for the franchise and appease a star player.
The best competitive path is to keep them both… the best rebuild path is to trade them both… pick a direction.
I don't agree with this analogy. The end goal in your scenario is to get healthy, but getting rid of Don and Rudy is not the equivalent of getting healthy. In other words, trading Mitchell and Gobert is not success, getting two players of their caliber is success. Logically, surgery would imply that it would leave your knee's healthy. But if you trade Mitchell and Gobert, getting a player of their caliber is not likely.
I think you have a better shot of getting two stars by keeping one and using whatever you get in trade for the other. But what makes this a clear decision for me is that if that plan fails, the other plan is still available. You can always be bad, but you can't always have Donovan Mitchell. If Donovan Mitchell decides he doesn't want to be here, it is incredibly easy to be bad but not easy to get another Donovan Mitchell just because you're bad. That's why I think having Mitchell is a much stronger position. You essentially keep both options open for very little risk.
If you get the godfather offer for Mitchell today, of course you take it. I wouldn't say he's unavailable for trade...but what you absolutely can't do is back yourself into a corner and think that you have to trade Donovan. I wouldn't have urgency to tank because that option is always available. One of the biggest complaints that people have about FO's is that they are impatient...I think people need to be patient with the Don inevitable Don trade.
