What's new
By:

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

The difference between MIN and NYK is that MIN didn’t have much else to give. NYK has many more picks and more interesting young players to get it done.

It’s a two sided thing. I don’t think GM’s love receiving super distant picks, but HH is also right that crappy franchises are/should be wary of trading them. In other words, I think both sides are weary of dealing with that pick.

If the deal can get done without 2029 I think it will, not sure that was the case with MIN. MIN had some pieces they could have added instead, but NYK has a lot of grease. I think it will 23/25/27 + DAL 23 + DET/WAS 23. Some pick swaps in between maybe. Then Toppin+Quickley+Fournier+Grimes.
 
KqWIN said:
The difference between MIN and NYK is that MIN didn’t have much else to give. NYK has many more picks and more interesting young players to get it done.

It’s a two sided thing. I don’t think GM’s love receiving super distant picks, but HH is also right that crappy franchises are/should be wary of trading them. In other words, I think both sides are weary of dealing with that pick.

If the deal can get done without 2029 I think it will, not sure that was the case with MIN. MIN had some pieces they could have added instead, but NYK has a lot of grease. I think it will 23/25/27 + DAL 23 + DET/WAS 23. Some pick swaps in between maybe. Then Toppin+Quickley+Fournier+Grimes.
Click to expand...

There is zero risk on our side from taking a pick that far out. Zero. That doesn’t even make sense.
 
KqWIN said:
The difference between MIN and NYK is that MIN didn’t have much else to give. NYK has many more picks and more interesting young players to get it done.

It’s a two sided thing. I don’t think GM’s love receiving super distant picks, but HH is also right that crappy franchises are/should be wary of trading them. In other words, I think both sides are weary of dealing with that pick.

If the deal can get done without 2029 I think it will, not sure that was the case with MIN. MIN had some pieces they could have added instead, but NYK has a lot of grease. I think it will 23/25/27 + DAL 23 + DET/WAS 23. Some pick swaps in between maybe. Then Toppin+Quickley+Fournier+Grimes.
Click to expand...
Nah as a GM I love it. I can sell that thing off in a trade as a premium asset or hold it long term. Danny will want that more than like the Detroit pick they own because of the protections.
 
Elizah Huge said:
There is zero risk on our side from taking a pick that far out. Zero. That doesn’t even make sense.
Click to expand...

It’s not risk. I never said risk, so that would explain your confusion. You are confused by something that was never said or implied.
 
Elizah Huge said:
There is zero risk on our side from taking a pick that far out. Zero. That doesn’t even make sense.
Click to expand...
We also already have 3 picks in 2023 before the NY trade... you can always do a draft night trade to punt one down the road or consolidate, but I wouldn't want to stack 5 one year and 1 the next if possible. So I'd rather have the 29 pick than the Dallas pick per se. Even though the earth will have burnt by then.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Nah as a GM I love it. I can sell that thing off in a trade as a premium asset or hold it long term. Danny will want that more than like the Detroit pick they own because of the protections.
Click to expand...

Danny might be one of the GM’s that likes the uncertainty, but generally I do think GM’s would rather trade with that are more certain. The “it could turn out to be really good” potential is hard to value in the first place, but I especially think that fans are more hopeful of that potential than GM’s.

In any case, I think of the deal can get done without it, both sides would feel better. And with all of NYK’s assets I think it can, so I’m betting that it will.
 
KqWIN said:
It’s not risk. I never said risk, so that would explain your confusion. You are confused by something that was never said or implied.
Click to expand...

No, you are being extremely dumb about something that isn’t hard. You keep repeating it. There is no reason for us to be weary or scared of a 2029 pick. That is literally dumb logic.
 
KqWIN said:
Danny might be one of the GM’s that likes the uncertainty, but generally I do think GM’s would rather trade with that are more certain. The “it could turn out to be really good” potential is hard to value in the first place, but I especially think that fans are more hopeful of that potential than GM’s.

In any case, I think of the deal can get done without it, both sides would feel better. And with all of NYK’s assets I think it can, so I’m betting that it will.
Click to expand...

This just isn’t true and it is making me dumber by reading it. What exactly about a 2029 unprotected 1st from the Knicks doesn’t scream "it could turn out to be really good" potential.
 
Elizah Huge said:
No, you are being extremely dumb about something that isn’t hard. You keep repeating it. There is no reason for us to be weary or scared of a 2029 pick. That is literally dumb logic.
Click to expand...

You keep making up logic lol.

It’s not risk, it’s not being afraid. It’s uncertainty. It’s difficult to value that pick because it’s so distant. The deal can get done with or without that pick. So another way to look at this is, what are you willing to not have for that 2029 pick? Are you willing up to not have Grimes? Quickley? More than one first?

There’s a package that gets this deal done without 2029, and I think that will ultimately be the one that’s accepted by both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top