What's new
By:

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

margodydek said:
I'm still really confused by that sequence of events that happened. Did we ever get a good explanation? I know he (PK) addressed it the following day, but even then he didn't back down from what he said. Although he kind of danced around things and tried to maintain that he was just saying that he got a text from someone who would know that the deal was done, while simultaneously saying that he was in no way reporting the deal was done. It was weird, right?
Click to expand...
If it's the Donovan thing, Andy Larsen noted he heard both ways but wouldn't go forward until he was a 100%. Think PK just got some bad info.
 
margodydek said:
I'm still really confused by that sequence of events that happened. Did we ever get a good explanation? I know he (PK) addressed it the following day, but even then he didn't back down from what he said. Although he kind of danced around things and tried to maintain that he was just saying that he got a text from someone who would know that the deal was done, while simultaneously saying that he was in no way reporting the deal was done. It was weird, right?
Click to expand...
He talked out of both sides of his mouth... it was hilarious.
 
Seems like Tony/Shams typically like to send out their vague "update" tweets on Monday to initiate their news cycle for the week. Nothing today though...
 
SoberasHotRod said:
We want to trade those guys for expiring contracts, so taking back Westbrook isn't really a burden for us. We also probably want to be able to trade multiple players for 1 in order to prepare for a Don trade. This helps us too.

I think this sentiment is mostly built out of spite for the Lakers, who seem stuck, and don't deserve a helping hand. I'm all for that sentiment, it's going to feel pretty awful if they win another title based on us helping them out.

Logically speaking, however, it really makes sense for both sides. If the Lakers can provide, unprotected picks that far in the future, it gets us a shot at a super premium pick vs the protected picks we would likely garner for our players individually.
Click to expand...
No there comes a point where you say "our offer is our offer. You can take it or enjoy Westbrook for another season." Lakers really have no interest in trading 2 unprotected picks, so we shouldn't humor them with endless fetch quests to rebuild their roster. The Pacers aren't. Do you think Danny is less hard *** than them? There is no point in building a roster for another team on the off chance of a #9 pick 8 years from now.
 
framer said:
No there comes a point where you say "our offer is our offer. You can take it or enjoy Westbrook for another season." Lakers really have no interest in trading 2 unprotected picks, so we shouldn't humor them with endless fetch quests to rebuild their roster. The Pacers aren't. Do you think Danny is less hard *** than them? There is no point in building a roster for another team on the off chance of a #9 pick 8 years from now.
Click to expand...

No, I think when both sides have a ton to gain there should be some compromise.

Your last sentence is particularly funny. What else do you propose we do with Bogey? Trade him for a first that’s closer that doesn’t have as much upside? Like that logic doesn’t make any sense.
 
Elizah Huge said:
No, I think when both sides have a ton to gain there should be some compromise.

Your last sentence is particularly funny. What else do you propose we do with Bogey? Trade him for a first that’s closer that doesn’t have as much upside? Like that logic doesn’t make any sense.
Click to expand...
A pick like the suggested Lakers trade netted us an All-Star (hayward) it also netted Ainge the two all-stars he built his last team around... I'm guessing he very much wants those picks.

There is no point to retaining talent that will hurt the tank and won't be under contract in a year or two.

We are seeing the difference in trade value for unprotected picks and protected picks right before our eyes in the Knicks trade. We'd rather have the far out unprotected pick than the protected picks (they'd willing part with).

Even if you don't wait the full 5-7 years... those picks have a ton more trade value. So if the core of this team is ready to go in 3 years you can use those picks to add something important.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
A pick like the suggested Lakers trade netted us an All-Star (hayward) it also netted Ainge the two all-stars he built his last team around... I'm guessing he very much wants those picks.

There is no point to retaining talent that will hurt the tank and won't be under contract in a year or two.

We are seeing the difference in trade value for unprotected picks and protected picks right before our eyes in the Knicks trade. We'd rather have the far out unprotected pick than the protected picks (they'd willing part with).

Even if you don't wait the full 5-7 years... those picks have a ton more trade value. So if the core of this team is ready to go in 3 years you can use those picks to add something important.
Click to expand...

Why would we gain an extremely valuable asset and help our tank when we can retain talent that hurts our own pick?
 
I also want to add that HH is spot on with that last part. Maybe we use one to move up in the draft or use one in a deal to get a star player when it is our time.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I don't know. I think the point is to win ~41 games forever, right?
Click to expand...
I also think we get in a trap thinking if we don't help LA then no one else will... someone will benefit... we have a great offer. We should just go ahead and benefit even if it mean helping the Lakers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top