What's new
By:

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

jom2003 said:
Grimes and Toppin are basically the “Vanderbilt” and “Mcdaniels” in this conversation. If Knicks wanna keep one of them then fine, give us more picks.
Click to expand...
I think Grimes/Barrett are the guys they need most imo.
 
infection said:
Deron Williams always wanted to win.

AK didn’t care much about winning. He cared about himself, but not in a narcissistic way.

Boozer… was too easy going but too hard to hate now.

Gobert cared about winning, and not just winning, but winning here.

Donovan wants to be 6’1” Carmelo. Let’s oblige him.
Click to expand...
I hated Boozer’s hamstring.
 
I always check the board in the morning and then at lunch time, see like 10 new pages and I'm hoping something exciting happens but nope, just a bunch of nonsense. ;) Just want to get it done and move on with the offseason!
 
stitches said:
Yes, it is EASIER to work out a deal without the 2029 pick involved, because it would mean the Jazz have given up leverage. Why would the Jazz do that when they have ALL THE LEVERAGE in the world? Ainge's job is not to make this trade easier to do. It's to get the best possible return and the 2029 pick is one of the premier assets in this deal. Of course the Knicks wouldn't want to include it. Just like they wouldn't want to include any of the good stuff in that deal. If it were up to the Knicks they would give up the 4 protected picks + 2 of their own and Randle+Fournier. But we should not be aiming at what's easier for the Knicks to stomach. Get everything you can possibly get, the best stuff... the stuff that can actually turn into something good. And if they are not willing to do it. Let them be in the 9th-10th seed in December and we can revisit. Or deal with a team that's actually willing to give you more valuable pieces than the Knicks.

First it was Barrett is a non-starter... then it became Quickley and Topin are untouchable... now we are haggling over whether we should let them get away with not including Grimes and the 2029 pick. NO! We should NOT let them get away with not including some of the most valuable possible pieces. Press until they cave... or make another team cave. It's not like we have to do that deal by next week.
Click to expand...

I never said it’s a non starter. I just believe there’s a deal that both teams say yes to without it, and because such a deal exists it’s more likely to happen.

I really don’t care to argue about how valuable or how important 2029 is. That’s not the point at all. The point is 1) a deal can be done without it 2) that deal os more likely to happen.

You tell me, is it more likely it’s involved or not? How much you value it or how much you want it included is irrelevant. Everyone getting confused and telling me how great that pick is….not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying it’s just less likely that pick is included because of the difficulties associated with trading a distant pick.
 
KqWIN said:
I never said it’s a non starter. I just believe there’s a deal that both teams say yes to without it, and because such a deal exists it’s more likely to happen.

I really don’t care to argue about how valuable or how important 2029 is. That’s not the point at all. The point is 1) a deal can be done without it 2) that deal os more likely to happen.

You tell me, is it more likely it’s involved or not? How much you value it or how much you want it included is irrelevant. Everyone getting confused and telling me how great that pick is….not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying it’s just less likely that pick is included because of the difficulties associated with trading a distant pick.
Click to expand...
How valuable we/Ainge think this pick is is important about what is likely and what is not likely to happen. If Ainge thinks this is the most valuable asset the Knicks are willing to send back, he should not do a deal without it... in addition to everything else that they will be sending. What Ainge values most from the Knicks assortment of assets is important, because we hold the biggest joker of them all and the piece that is so much above all that Ainge should feel pretty comfortable asking for pretty much everything that the knicks can conceivably be willing to part ways with.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I didn’t blast you on the Miami NY thing. My point was the Miami package is acceptable if you can get some value for Herro and you need to make a deal before the season starts. I was implying that the NY offer may not be there if it hasn’t come yet. That you could get farther down the road with Miami to make NY show their cards… and if they didn’t I’d value a clean break rather than squeezing a team that didn’t come to the table. If they don’t bring their best offer now why do it in 6 months… and how much better is it? That was the point was the Miami offer is acceptable if we have nothing else better.

Projecting a pick 5 years out has maybe a smidge more certainty than 7 years out… and to say NY would put 27 in but 29 is too hard is weird. Both those picks are “tough to value”. If that’s really what is giving them pause then they should protect the 27 pick too. They have other stuff to give… sure, but not premium stuff that they are willing to give. I don’t think that is what they are most concerned about… and I doubt that is something Danny compromises on. We can get prospects like Toppin, Quickly, Grimes with our other stuff we have on the roster… we can get the protected picks they have too… we likely can’t get unprotected picks though.. so those will be the biggest priority imo.
Click to expand...

You scoffed at the idea that NYK would make a deal. Like I said, you can use your own reasoning to see why NYK would be hesitant to do such a thing.

Man….I already explained why 2027 is included. This really is going in circles, no idea why I choose to repeat myself but work is boring IG. For one, it’s obviously less uncertain. Secondly, what’s the deal without 2027? Is there a deal without 27 and 29 that gets done? I’m not sure.

Trading 2029 also makes 2027 have to be protected. By not trading 29, they can put a protection on 27. So yeah, that could be a big difference in risk for the Knicks.

But say there is no difference between 27 and 29. There is, but for arguments sake let’s go with it. Is it riskier to do it twice, or just once? Like if there’s a busy road, is there not a difference between running across it once versus running across it twice? There is IMO. The Knicks don’t have to run across twice to get a deal done, but they probably have to run across once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top