What's new
By:
Filters

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.
 
stitches said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, but it is a two sided thing. Again it’s two things: 1) can a deal be done without it and 2) is that deal more likely to be completed. I’ve also said Ainge should ask for everything, but when it comes to deal time I don’t think 29 is likely included.
 
KqWIN said:
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.
Click to expand...
If we allow them to put protections on the best picks then their package gets so much less sexy. Danny wants em unprotected. I don't think there is a deal with protections on the 27 and 29 picks. I think they view Don as the "first star" and that those picks will not be lotto picks... I also think Knicks FO are looking to save their jobs rather than think that long term.

I "scoffed" ( a very strong word to use given I said "the knicks deal may not be there") at the idea that the Knicks would come forward because at the time the noise was that they didn't see Don and Jalen as a fit and also that they weren't on Don's list... so if in that time Don said, actually I'd rather go there and their motivations changed then great. Basically I said the Knicks package may not be there... and if it isn't now... then why would it be later. Why drag it out. Honestly if they are giving 23/25 and protected 27 with their other less sexy picks I am again not sure the Miami package is worse depending on if the Heat can get 2 protected picks for Herro and amend the OKC protections. So I said basically we should push forward on the Miami deal as if we will execute to bring the best offers to surface... and if they aren't better... then execute (assuming we valued Herro or could get more draft capital).
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
If we allow them to put protections on the best picks then their package gets so much less sexy. Danny wants em unprotected. I don't think there is a deal with protections on the 27 and 29 picks. I think they view Don as the "first star" and that those picks will not be lotto picks... I also think Knicks FO are looking to save their jobs rather than think that long term.

I "scoffed" ( a very strong word to use given I said "the knicks deal may not be there") at the idea that the Knicks would come forward because at the time the noise was that they didn't see Don and Jalen as a fit and also that they weren't on Don's list... so if in that time Don said, actually I'd rather go there and their motivations changed then great. Basically I said the Knicks package may not be there... and if it isn't now... then why would it be later. Why drag it out. Honestly if they are giving 23/25 and protected 27 with their other less sexy picks I am again not sure the Miami package is worse depending on if the Heat can get 2 protected picks for Herro and amend the OKC protections. So I said basically we should push forward on the Miami deal as if we will execute to bring the best offers to surface... and if they aren't better... then execute (assuming we valued Herro or could get more draft capital).
Click to expand...

It is really not that hard to understand.
 
I would say the non-negotiable from our side is either unprotected picks in 23/25/27/29 or 24/26/28 and swaps in between.

Grimes, Toppin, Quickley are all fun prospects but even if we got them I am not convinced they increase the asset base the way the Knicks picks do. The other picks are nice but the Knicks picks are the steak in this dinner platter and we shouldn't take less steak and substitute some additional sides.

I'd love to have it resolved in a day or two... but the true deadline is training camp for me. I don't want this hanging over us during the season and don't see an offer getting so much better than where it is now. If the Knicks picks are on the table and we are fighting over a player and/or one of their other picks then I'd probably execute the trade in a week or two if they aren't moving much or at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top