Isn't Leonard a free agent this year?Originally Posted by Pelicanidae
Also Kemba and Klay Thompson. Maybe just below that super duper star tier although Klay may be that guy but we don't know.
 |
| . |
|
Isn't Leonard a free agent this year?
Also Kemba and Klay Thompson. Maybe just below that super duper star tier although Klay may be that guy but we don't know.
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 .
Last edited by Tinman; 02-19-2019 at 10:58 PM.
Not a shot the Pels get Tatum and Markkanen. Fun to dream though.
There's a shot if Pels tossed enough on the table. We will have (in theory) our pick, Memphis pick, Sac Pick & our 2021 pick (along with tons of 2nd rounders meh). Trade does work in the MACHINE.
But I ask you- Wouldn't that be a Utopian trade?
That would be a heck of a start on a rebuild for the Pelicans. Tatum, Smart, Jrue and Markannen would be great.
Forgot about Kawhi. There's pretty much no reason to expect he could be lured to ATL though. I wager he stays in Toronto, but the larger money is on him going to LAC.
Kenna stays in Charlotte is my bet.
Klay stays in Golden State and also isn't a superstar.
Basketball.
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".
1) Markkanen has 3 yrs left on rookie contract & 2) Hes not "just another big" . Id take Markkanen over Beal everyday.
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.''?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".
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 !
Cobble means " You NO LIKE" You said trade for them Later, on their own.
Not quite sure what that means?
You dont mind getting Markkanen, lets just not try and get him now?
Last edited by Tinman; 02-20-2019 at 01:17 PM.
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
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
Last edited by Tinman; 02-20-2019 at 01:16 PM.
Good thing I didn't ask you to care
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.Cobble means " You NO LIKE" You said trade for them Later, own their own.
Not quite sure what that means?
You dont mind getting Markkanen, lets just not try and get him now?
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.Good thing I didn't ask you to care
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.
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?
Last edited by Pelicanidae; 02-20-2019 at 01:52 PM.
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.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
