Tatum wouldn't mind being the future face of a franchise? Yes. YES!
Tatum wouldn't mind being the future face of a franchise? Yes. YES!
You're right, of course, but just as you could easily say that in several years, we could be in the worst position in the NBA, you could also easily say we'll be in the best.
For example: If we're in the worst place in the NBA in the next 5 years, how? Well, we could trade all our first round picks for trash players (Hill standards), trade AD to the Lakers for Rondo and McGee, trade Jrue for Corey Brewer, and be absolute sewage.
But say we take the NYK trade, get Zion, then he's all he's cracked up to be, Robinson learns how to not foul, DSJ's recent resurgence in NY is legitimate, and Knox becomes more efficient from the floor, the Mavs crash as Porzingis never comes back the same so we get another top 5 pick in 2021. That's best case scenario.
So depending on the luck, we could either be the number 1 or the number 30 team in 5 years. Odds are is that the luck will fall somewhere in the middle of that. We just have to do the best we can executing on our plan. Of course it could go wrong, but it could go wrong for anyone. Next week, Curry's ankles shatter again and then this summer, Klay and KD walk. All of a sudden GS are a lottery team.
It wasn't him talking. It was a report from a guest on Windorhorts podcast.
https://twitter.com/WoahItsHunter/st...045650945?s=19
I don't think that leverages Boston all that much. We wanted him regardless.
Horford isn't coming
Tatum/smart and pick number 8-16 vs knox/ dsj and pick number 1-3 vs lakers/ suns 3 way us getting TJ Warren/ Kuzma pick 1-3
Am I way off with these? Of course other mid/late round picks can be included but at the core is this what we are leveraging? If not, what is better?
You're saying the value difference between pick 1 and 2/3 are so wide that the value of the total package is totally changes. I guess to reset the question, eliminate pick one and make it 2 or 3 only. Zion is clearly not a part of the Boston scenario.
I guess I'm asking IF Zion in not on the table for Knicks or Lakers either, who offers the best core value?
For me mixing in a bunch of other role players doesn't help anything. Trading Davis for the highest return with the least number of players. Like Davis is a 6, and no other 5's or 6's are available to swap. Is it better to target 4+2, 3+2+1, 2+2+2, etc. Just trying to play with how we can assess the value for a return in the most likely scenarios prior to knowing draft position. Like the Lakers last deal was just a whole bunch of 1's and I think that sucks.
Is the Boston deal is 3 Tatum+2 Smart+1 Mid/Late pick?
Knicks 2 Knox + 2 DSJ + 2 Very Early Pick?
I still don't know how to value a Lakers option because it seems clear a 3rd team would need to be involved.
Also be clear, I want Zion and don't really care what else. Just trying to play with the idea he is not an option. I know this is way too convoluted, please send help.
Ex-Lakers forward Michael Beasley is finalizing a deal with .... Guangdong of the Chinese Basketball Association, sources tell ESPN. Short run of two months, significant cash.
— Adrian Wojnarowski (@wojespn) February 19, 2019
Lakers tried to include this dude as a part of the AD trade as if he would be a benefit.
Now he's playing in China, three weeks later.
Listend to Woj podcast with Travis Schlenk. He said Hawks are building with young guys and have built a large asset pool, but at some point you have to consider whether it's smart to use that to trade for a guy.
IMO, the Hawks have the best potential package if they'd offer it, but they wouldn't even consider it unless they could get a commitment from a free agent to join AD. After listening to Schlenk, I do think they are willing to cash in assets.
Collins, Young, Bazemore, and two lottery picks. I'm not sure Smart/Brown/Tatum and 2 non lottery picks beats that.
It's close. I really like Collins. Bazemore does nothing for me, especially at his salary. Young has been playing well. I think Tatum may have the most potential of that bunch, but the combo of Collins and Young is very good. If AD were to consider Atlanta, that would be a nice deal. However, we all know that he won't.
Only reason they offer that is if getting AD gets them a 2nd star. That's the only way. If they have a chance to lock in two All NBA caliber guys in their prime, I think they'd do it. And I don't think AD would leave if he's playing with a co-star he thinks is on his level and he's on one of the top 4 teams in the East.
Collins I think is very much so on par with Tatum. His offensive game is ahead of where AD was at this point in his career, but he's not the rim protector AD was. I think the players are close, the difference for me is the picks and the pair of Collins/Young being costs controlled for a year longer than Brown/Tatum. I also like the flexibility of Bazemore expiring vs being stuck with Smart if he doesn't fit.
If we know anything from our history with AD, it's that he won't be the one bringing in other superstars.
I understand that, and I'm not entirely against an ATL trade, but I think you have to consider the positions they're in.
Boston has a fair likelihood to give up their assets, because getting AD has a very good chance to secure them Kyrie resigning, and that will make them a finals team, as they look to improve on the recent deep playoff success of recent years.
Knicks have a fair likelihood to give up their young guys because getting AD also has a good chance to get them Kyrie due to Kyrie having named them as a preferred destination in the past, and their long-term failures making them desperate to succeed soon: evidence of that includes them trading Porzingis to acquire more assets.
ATL don't really have a good reason. Unlike Boston and NY, they have no reason specifically to think that Kyrie would be particularly interested in going there. They haven't really attracted big name stars in the past, and they haven't signed a superstar in at least 20 years (probably longer but I can't remember). They also only JUST got really really bad, they were solid for a bunch of years in the 2010s so they shouldn't be in any need to rush a rebuild. They have young, promising talent under contract and they aren't really in a desperate spot.
I just can't see ATL being willing to splash out everything right now.
ATL could do this deal and have about $60m in space. I think what you wrote above focuses on kyrie, but Irving doesn't have to be the other superstar. And like I said, they wouldn't do it unless they had a strong sense (like the Knicks in trading KP) that they could attract the right players to pair with AD.
ATL is only willing to do if they feel they can spend that $60m in a way that makes a splash and puts the team around AD to get them deep into the playoffs.
You could be right, I just don't see it happening.
There's only really three superstars on the market this summer, that I can think of.
Kyrie, who is almost guaranteed to go to either Boston or NY
Durant, who is almost guaranteed to either stay in Golden State or go to NY, with an outside shot for Boston
And Jimmy Butler, who will probably resign in Philly.
Are there others I'm forgetting?
AD is going to Boston to play w/ Kyrie & KD is goin to Knickerbockers to play with Kemba.
The Pels are going to get Tatum, Smart, Laurie Markkanan & Sac Pick.
Chicago is going to get Jaylon Brown, Robert Williams ,Memphis pick & Pels 2021 Pick
Boston will get BetA D .
I'd rather swing Brown and whatever firsts (hopefully both boston picks this year) to the wizards for Beal. Bigs are so easily replaced that unless he's a freak like AD I'm not paying big money.
Jrue
Beal
Tatum
Kenrich
Okafor
Doesn't sound to bad to me. Not counting our draft pick and we should have some money for a decent FA especially if Randle walks. I'd guess about 20 million for a FA.
Am I the only one who wants this trade to be the centrepiece of a legitimate rebuild, rather than just an attempt to poach whatever loose ends other teams are willing to give up?
Like, what originally began (for me) as trading AD to either Boston or NY to get young players and picks, has now turned into a circuitous trade-for-assets-so-we-can-trade-for Lauri Markkanen, Bradley Beal, some people have thrown out Klay Thompson, early in the trade discussions some people suggested trading AD straight to GS for Thompson and Green, etc etc.
Why are we so eager to try and cobble a team together out of whatever we can trade for, rather than build something of our own?
That's not even to say that we should never trade for Beal, or that Markkanen is a bad idea. On their own, I can see any of these. It's just the way the conversation has morphed from ''rebuild'' to ''what can we convince other teams to give us for sixteen first round picks and all our assets from a Boston trade?''
Do you have any idea who Laurie Markkanan is? Hes 21 yrs old & is going to be an All Star. Im not quite sure what you're arguing about. He 21 w/ 3 yrs left on rookie contract.
Cobble ? Lol. Markannan isnt a cobble. He's Barely drinking age. Why does rebuild mean "It has to be the 10th, 14th & 18th picks of the 1st round" ?
Why cant it mean> I can get young players like Tatum, Markkanen & Smart & a pick or two?
Rebuild isnt synonomous with "It has to be YOUR draft pick".:confused:
Did you read the part of my comment where I said ''That's not even to say that we should never trade for Beal, or that Markkanen is a bad idea.''?
Cause I like Markannen. I like him a lot, I think he has a ton of potential and a lot of skill. I'm not against trying to get him, if we can get him. I like him.
My point was, quite clearly and emphatically, that I'm not a fan of the direction of the conversation in general. If you are a big fan of this direction, then cool, cool, good for you.
You are playing checkers & 2 dimensional (Straight Trade is the only acceptable outcome) while others are playing chess & in 3D, by being creative in finding other young talent rather than be restricted to one teams assets.
So, you would rather Memphis pick & Sac pick over Markkanen ? Now thats funny, I dont care who you are !:biglol::biglol:
I agree. There is absolutely no reason to rush this rebuild. The funny thing is we could probably be a pretty decent team next year if we go the Boston route. I wonder if we will make lucrative one year deals that give us flexibility or look for a long term option in the summer. I just hope we don’t rush things.
So,, what your saying is- Lets be a good team, but wait a couple of years?
If you can get Markkanen in a trade, you say NO? O lawdy:nerves:
Not quite sure what rushing you are talking about?
If I can get Laurie Markkanen now, I do it. 3 yrs left on rookie deal.
Keep waiting & NOT RUSHING as you say & watch Jrue & Season Ticket Holders hit the exits.
Seems to me that OKC & Indiana "RUSHED" & they aint too bad.
BTW- pretty decent team? Really, thats the goal? WOW
Good thing I didn't ask you to care :rolleyes:
No it doesn't. You can cobble together something and still have it be pretty good. It just means that you've roughly improvised it from a less-than optimal plan. You can roughly improvise something from a less than optimal plan and still have it end up pretty good.
The reason I'm not in favour of someone like Markkanen being such a big name in the conversation right now is pretty simple. We aren't doing a straight up trade with the Bulls, obviously. So either they would have to get involved in a 3 way trade, as you suggested with Boston, or they would have to be part of a separate trade after. I'm not in favour of going the three-way trade route, because the more teams get involved the trickier discussions become, and either one team would have to consent to being screwed over, or the positive assets would have to be split between teams.
If it would be as a separate trade after, then I don't see why it's being discussed as a priority right now, when there's a much bigger deal at hand (the AD trade) upon which all of this speculation would be contingent.
I will repeat, in case you're not quite catching on: my criticism is not of Markkanen as a player, or Beal, or anyone else. My criticism is of the general direction of the discussion. If you are fine with the direction of the discussion, and you're happy to be double or triple juggling trade ideas so that we can make one trade and then leap-frog off it into another trade, then good for you. Be happy. I don't care. Just me, personally, I do not like that method of dealing with things; or at least, I have my doubts about it.
Uhhh, you cant do separate trades , thus the 3 teamer So,you dont like the direction because its too hard? I got it. I didnt realize that we were talking about the difficulty level of the trade negotiations. I thought we were trying to get the best plausible players. Oh Well.
BTW- Thats funny,I dont care who you are is a "Larry the Cable Guy" reference. Didnt realize it would strike the Sensory nerve. My Bad.
I'm sorry, I don't get Larry the Cable Guy references. I'm not 40 years old, and my hairline hasn't started receding yet.
My point isn't that it's too difficult. I didn't say that, really at all. I noted that the discussions become tricker, sure, and given that we currently don't actually have a GM, I do think that's something to consider, but the next point is actually the key part: either one team would have to consent to being screwed over, or positive assets would have to be split.
In the trade you mentioned, Boston would be giving up Tatum, Brown, Smart, Robert Williams, the Sac pick, and the Memphis pick. They would get back AD.
We would be getting Tatum, Smart, and the Sac pick, in your scenario. Chicago would get Brown, Williams, and the Memphis pick (along with our 2021 pick).
Why would we do that, when we could very plausibly just get Tatum and Brown ourselves, along with both picks, without having to give up our own pick in exchange for AD? You may say that we would do it because we'd be getting Markkanen, and I see why you would come at it from that direction, but why would we package that into this same trade when we could just easy go to Chicago afterwards, say the start of next season, and offer them Brown + picks for Markkanen? That's essentially the package they'd be getting now in a three way, but at the start of next season. Doing it that way would allow us to offer Brown + picks to other teams as well, and give us the option of choice, whereas doing it in this three way basically ties us into this.
Now, that tactic still might end up netting us just Markkanen for those assets. I wouldn't mind that: I've said repeatedly that I like Markkanen. But why not wait and see what we could get, rather than compressing everything into a single move now without testing the market for Brown+picks?
Edit: I saw, by the way, that you said we can't do separate trades. Why not? What stops us from making the Boston trade this summer, and then sending Bulls Brown+picks at the deadline next season?
Is it a Brit thing to try to insult by assumption ?
You seem to have a propensity to toss insults when folks don't agree with you.
You, again by trying to dish an insult shows a sensory nerve problem.
In my trade scenario, Pels get Markkanen instead of Brown. That's about gist of it. Not difficult to understand.
The rest of the trade can be intertwined several different ways to make it work.
So, why would I do it? Because I want Markkanen over Brown.
50% of your post doesn't even address a single point.
The other 50% avoids the point completely.
I have made it painfully, blatantly clear that I am not against trading for Markkanen, and that the end result of my suggested method could still easily end up with Markkenen, in exchange for the precisely the same assets that your original suggestion would cost. The question is, why do it now, this summer, as part of a locked in done-deal, when we could wait a short period of time and have the ability to survey all potential offers and make a more informed decision using the same pieces?
Because I have 3 yrs with Markanen 2019-20----Team Option in 20-21---- QO in 2022
2 yrs for Brown 2019-20 & 2020-2021 is QO
I dont need to know anything else about Markkanen. Hes better than anything in the draft & if I can get him for 3 yrs, I will.
What do you mean "wait a short period of time"?
Until we've surveyed the field, put out offers, and taken offers in response. The longest that would really take is until the trade deadline, so in terms of Markkanen and Brown's contracts, half a season or so. Trade deadline 2020 at the latest.
As a side note, I get a feeling that although I like Markkanen, you seem to REALLY like Markannen. You think he's better than anything in this year's draft?
I think we are trying to rebuild our team with young players and draft picks. The haul we should get fro AD should allow us to do that because if we go all young then we’ll have to trade Jrue too and I like him. I’m trying to trade players for picks or vice versa as long as we’re building towards something. I’d prefer to build around Jrue, Tatum, and Beal while others want young bigs and others want picks. There can be a happy medium but as long as young assets are coming back that’s all that matters to me. I don’t want Love or Blake mostly because of age and contracts, now if we had a good team already and they would put us over the top then maybe but keep’em young for now.
It doesnt say much for stability if Im trading for Brown summer of 19 & trading him away in Feb of 2020. Is that your suggestion?
This is about what I can get for Anthony Davis. If I can get Smart, Tatum & Markkanen I'm a happy fella ! If I get Brown & couple mid 1st round picks. Meh.
Markkanen is special player. He would be our stretch for 10 yrs.
I'm just not as hot on Markkanen as you, I think. He's basically 22, and his game as a lot of flaws. Obviously 22 isn't old, he could always improve on any of those things, but it's also not dirt young, it's not like he's a complete raw project who could be anything.