What's new
By:
Filters

Jazz and Knicks discussing Donovan Mitchell trade per Shams Charania and Tony Jones

Handlogten's Heros said:
I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Saint Cy of JFC said:
No because we are worried that he would be dealt in a Russ trade to Indiana.

Yes, THT has been on the block, but the KD news means they are more willing to move on with a Russ trade, which means they could be trading multiple players. Jazz secured THT.

THat is a much more reasonable explanation than a "down payment".
Click to expand...

From the FT line
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
From the FT line
Click to expand...
One of the many reasons I gave for us doing the down payment was in part to throw a wrinkle into the potential Indiana deal... Indiana wanting to throw Theis in there and get THT... blocking that or a potential 1 for 1 deal is all supporting down payment theory.

Basically down payment theory is a deal is basically agreed to. We are doing it in two parts... If we don't step in they might have already done the deal with Indiana.

Let it play out.
 
Lakers simply have to go all-in right now. We all know that draft picks aren't as important to them as they'll always be able to attract marquee free agents in hopes of making those draft picks not as valuable.

I'd prefer their 2027 and 2029 though would settle for 2025 and 2027.
 
Avery said:
Lakers simply have to go all-in right now. We all know that draft picks aren't as important to them as they'll always be able to attract marquee free agents in hopes of making those draft picks not as valuable.

I'd prefer their 2027 and 2029 though would settle for 2025 and 2027.
Click to expand...

They can’t trade their 2025 so that’s why it is 27/29. I would settle for 2028 and pick swaps in 27/29 with ours or Minnesota’s picks.
 
Elizah Huge said:
They can’t trade their 2025 so that’s why it is 27/29. I would settle for 2028 and pick swaps in 27/29 with ours or Minnesota’s picks.
Click to expand...
I think there are a couple different variations of the deal... One where we get both... one where we get one and some change. Next week we find out. If there was good middle ground on the Indiana deal I think we would have found out about it.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I think there are a couple different variations of the deal... One where we get both... one where we get one and some change. Next week we find out. If there was good middle ground on the Indiana deal I think we would have found out about it.
Click to expand...

It’s hard for me to see us getting both unless we add a protected 1st that we get from the Knicks. Maybe we get one and a swap or one and two swaps.
 
If we can get 3 unprotected and RJ then I am very happy. But the more important part of that is the 3 unprotected picks.
 
Elizah Huge said:
It’s hard for me to see us getting both unless we add a protected 1st that we get from the Knicks. Maybe we get one and a swap or one and two swaps.
Click to expand...
I think if we can get them Reddish and give up Vando we can get them both. We might also pawn off Fournier and get 1 instead... I think there is a basic structure there to do the deal with the Knicks or without.
 
Elizah Huge said:
It’s hard for me to see us getting both unless we add a protected 1st that we get from the Knicks. Maybe we get one and a swap or one and two swaps.
Click to expand...
I think a player like Quickley is more valuable to them since he’s proven and carries most of the same contractual advantages that the protected first would once drafted.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I think if we can get them Reddish and give up Vando we can get them both. We might also pawn off Fournier and get 1 instead... I think there is a basic structure there to do the deal with the Knicks or without.
Click to expand...
And what’s the advantage in pawning off Fournier for one less pick? Just a fallback if they won’t budge on two?
 
NUMBERICA said:
If we can get 3 unprotected and RJ then I am very happy. But the more important part of that is the 3 unprotected picks.
Click to expand...
I actually think the compromise might end up being we get Grimes+RJ plus 2 unprotected picks and 3 protected picks. I think we might be trying to do a quick rebuild instead of a longer sustained tank. I think we can nab 2 unprotected picks from LA and 2 from NY... then be kinda good with the maniacal gathering of picks for a bit.
 
NUMBERICA said:
And what’s the advantage in pawning off Fournier for one less pick? Just a fallback if they won’t budge on two?
Click to expand...
Yes basically. Like there is no possible deal they will do for both so they get Bogey/Fournier and another player. I'm not sure what their exact plan is but having all expiring should be the goal and we can give that if they pay. They might want JC or Fournier to use the salary in trade next year too... so 1 pick and having one additional year of those contracts may not be so bad.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I actually think the compromise might end up being we get Grimes+RJ plus 2 unprotected picks and 3 protected picks. I think we might be trying to do a quick rebuild instead of a longer sustained tank. I think we can nab 2 unprotected picks from LA and 2 from NY... then be kinda good with the maniacal gathering of picks for a bit.
Click to expand...

I definitely think the compromise is what you said or its 3 unprotected and 2 protected without Grimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top