| . |
 |
It works on tradeNBA.com. Obviously that sites not perfect, but neither is the ESPN trade machine, so I just went with ''if the computer lets it pass, it passes''.Originally Posted by Zombiewoof
It's the best, stupidest, least possible, absurdist, most fantastic and incredible* trade that has ever been proposed, imo.
*I mean fantastic and incredible in both senses.
Basketball.
I'm hearing reports that movement has been made for a trade to either the Western conference or Eastern conference.
Don't shoot the messenger. Get your own sources.
BI, Zion, and CJ had a net rating of +3 when on the court together. BI and Zion had a +13.4, BI and CJ had a +13.2, Zion and CJ was just +5.4.
BI and Zion worked. BI and CJ worked. It was CJ and Zion and all three together that didn't work.
I don't believe you, liar. AD's going to the Chinese league and there's nothing you can say to make me change my mind.
We're gonna trade him for Ding Yanyuhang, 2x CBA MVP.
Question is...is there a knick's deal to be had.
Bonus Trade of the Day
Lakers
AD
Bulls
Lonzo
Solo
39th pick
Warriors
Wagner
Kuzma
4th pick
Pelicans
28th pick - Jontay Porter
Hart
Ingram
LaVine
Draymond
2021 unprotected Lakers pick
I think the Warriors would absolutely do this deal if they bring back Klay and KD on 5 year max. That luxury tax bill for a team that won't win a championship next year would be insanity. And next year is the last year of Draymond's contract. Are they going to want to max him too after that and pay a billion dollars in luxury tax!?
...for the Pelicans, Draymond is the perfect 5 next to Jrue and Zion. He can lead the break, rebound, and defend every position on the court. He's also just an incredibly fierce competitor that other fans hate and fans of his own team fall in love with.
Jrue/Jackson
LaVine/Hart
Ingram/Kenrich
Zion/Wood
Draymond/Porter
That's a playoff team next year. Resigning Draymond and Ingram could be expensive, but if we can stay below the luxury tax, it's worth maintaining that core and adding draft pick to it for depth and development
People designing trades for a team which will have Zion Williamson as its centrepiece: ''how do I get as little shooting as possible? Like, can I get a team with like, 7 non-shooters on it? That'd be great.''
125 pages. Moving right along. What page are we on July 1st?
But weren't you pushing for a Knicks deal with only one plausible shooter in it? And that dude was Trier, a undrafted bench guy with promise, but limited experience.
Well the Wizards say they are not looking to trade Bradley Beal. If John Wall’s contract wasn’t so bad on the backend I wouldn’t mind getting him.
My potential trade rankings:
1. Brooklyn: DLo, LeVert, Allen, & a 2020 1st or preferably a 2021 1st
2. Celtics: Tatum, Smart, Williams, Memphis pick, 14th pick, & Boston’s 2021 1st (that’s what I’d try to get)
3. Knicks: Robinson, Smith Jr, Knox, #3(RJ Barrett), 2021 Knicks & Mavs 1st, & 2023 Mavs 1st
4. Lakers: Ingram, Ball, Kuzma, Hart &/or Wagner, & #4(Hunter unless we like Culver more)
5. Clippers: SGA, Lou Williams, Shamet, Harrell, & 2020 Clippers & 76ers 1st(hopefully I can take 3 1st round picks next year to possibly move up or trade for a potential star player) (I would take on Gallinari if I had too and hopefully move Solo Hill)
Doubt we could get some of those trades, but I sure would try my hardest to get them.
Last edited by DaPelFromHell; 06-15-2019 at 04:10 PM.
The reason I preferred the Knicks trade is because of the pick potential, not the players for the most part. I like Mitchell Robinson, sure, and Trier's ability to shoot is indeed promising, but unlike a Lakers or Boston deal, the strongest quality of the Knicks deal is the possibility of offering the most picks, from the widest variety of teams, over the largest number of years.
When taking, for example, an LA deal, they don't have any other team's picks, they can't offer a top #3 pick this year, and if AD goes to LA their own picks won't be worth much over the next few years. Their deal is a player-centric one.
So basically: yes, but that's cause the Knicks deal doesn't revolve around players, and doesn't require you to max out a horrific shooter in a year or let them walk. The LA deal doesn't have the same draft capital, and therefore the requirements on the players are higher.
Not rocket science but hey, I can explain for a 50th time if you need me to.
Contributor
It isn't necessary to build the perfect Zion complimentary team right away. What's important is to create a strong locker room with smart players who know their roles. Even if we aren't really shooting at a high level right away.
Smart players?
The rules Ingram out too, then.
I'm sorry, I understand that you don't need to set up the perfect team around Zion immediately, of course. But I just can't get on board with the tactic that seems to be built around building the worst possible supporting cast, chucking him into his rookie year and saying ''Oh yeah, you'll be cramped, hammered by defenses, have no space, and not be given the room to develop Zion, but just wait, in three years we might get around to signing someone who works in the same lineup as you.''
No, really, I get all that.
But "picks" don't equal players around Zion next year who can shoot, and your frequent and specific criticism is that people are proposing deals that don't put shooting around Zion. As if player development, the Pelicans 1st round picks, 2nd round picks, undrafted guys, and free agent signings over the next two years couldn't give the Pelicans all the shooting they need.
Guys who do multiple things well, are harder to find than a guy like Trier who can hit 39% from three on 2 attempts per game. It really isn't rocket science, but the effort you put into criticizing is a bit complicated to understand.
"Smart players" also rules out DSJ and Knox. And your strategy is literally - "wait Zion, in three years we'll have used all these future draft picks to build the ideal lineup around you".
I'll wait for the 51st time, to see if what you're suggesting makes sense.
Last edited by NMThreeMVP; 06-15-2019 at 04:17 PM.
AD trade, FA.... can’t wait to see what happens. We really have a huge opportunity to begin a new era.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Edit: actually, deleted my long response cause it's not really worth the argument.
The point is, the Knicks deal doesn't bring in a bunch of shooters, but it gives us a pretty much empty cap sheet next summer and gives us multiple picks in every draft moving forward for several years, allowing us to secure cheap talent locked up for several years. If you favour a rebuild, like I generally wouldn't mind, then it makes sense.
Your deal makes less sense, because it's players based, which means you don't get much in the way of draft capital and either you have to pay the players (Ingram and Draymond both in one year), meaning you're locked into keeping them longer term, or you let them walk, and without much draft capital you're left with nothing. Either you cough up the cash for those poorly-fitting players, or you get nothing at all after one season.
Last edited by Pelicanidae; 06-15-2019 at 04:40 PM.
AD for Tatum straight up isn't a dream deal, but we may have to live with it.
So one year of poor spacing, followed by multiple picks, and a ridiculous amount of cap space in a year when there are no great free agents, and going into that offseason with a team that Vegas has the over/under win total set at 31.5... that sounds like the kind of rebuild bad teams go through and stay bad for a long time, IMO.
I'm not sure if you've realised this yet, but even if you assemble a group of players, there's only a certain number of minutes a team has available.
Your strategy brings in Draymond, Ingram, and Lavine. Lavine and Draymond are both on big fat contracts, and Ingram will need paying in a year. We would have no money next summer.
The deal I've preferred allows us space in the rotation to keep Moore in the running, who is not a great player but who can shoot reasonably well, and doesn't bring in much salary, meaning that we could have Moore, Trier, and Miller on the team, providing at least some spacing. Even if it forced us to have relatively poor spacing in year one (which it would, those guys aren't sure-fire star calibre snipers), we have a bunch of contracts expiring next summer and without taking on the cap in Draymond, Lavine, and Ingram, these are the guaranteed contracts we would have on the roster going into the summer of 2020-21:
Jrue Holiday, Mitchell Robinson, DSJ, Zion Williamson.
That's it. We'd have one year of poor spacing before we suddenly have multiple picks heading into the draft and a ridiculous amount of cap space heading into free agency.
If you're not interested in a full break-down/rebuild, then it makes complete sense that you wouldn't be interested in this path, but if you are in a rebuild mindset, the benefits of this are obvious. You can every deal off the books going into a free agency that's filled with relatively young players, many of whom are at least competent shooters (Taurean Prince, Bogdan Bogdanovic, Domantas Sabonis, Jaylen Brown, Joe Harris, Otto Porter Jr, etc), and make offers.
The only real downside is that the 2020 FA class isn't exactly chock full of top tier stars, which is a big shame.
I'd much rather a team with a young player locked in under $20m/yr and improving rapidly (LaVine), a wing with a 7'3" wing span that can score (Ingram), and a perennial defensive player of the year candidate, 3x NBA champ, and dude who has a finals MVP level gear (Draymond). Add that to Jrue and Zion, and I guarantee the Pels hit the over on wins. Not only that, but we could still find Miller/Moore level shooters in free agency, and priortize three point shooting with every pick and signing we have going forward.
I repeat, it's easier to find a Moore/Miller with draft picks and signings - than it is to get players with Ingram/LaVine potential and Draymond pedigree and versatility on a rebuilding team.
You're welcome to try a 52nd time to explain how the Knicks deal gives us spacing that other deals don't... all I see still see is you being critical of something in other proposed deals, that your favorite deal doesn't solve for either.
If I am giving my pessimistic realism view.....I agree. I think the options we are currently be offered is below and they will not be changing before the draft:
Tatum and some filler 2nd round picks/end of bench players
Brown and some late 1st round picks
Ball, Ingram, and #4 pick
If we wait until July 1st, you might start to get deals from the Nets if Russel wants to sign and trade or the Clippers if Kawhi leaves to join them.......IF and that IS a big IF those teams are offering deals, the Tatum deal will still be there. The Lakers deal would still be there minus the 4th pick (or with whomever they drafted). If Kawhi stays in Toronto we may be screwed. Kyrie HAS to go somewhere, though. The Nets, Clippers, or Knicks. And they should want to deal.
It's a roll of the dice but I'm starting to get closer to holding onto him until after the draft.
Last edited by msusousaphone; 06-15-2019 at 05:03 PM.
I understand now why you're having so much trouble understanding.
You keep reading my posts looking for an explanation that says ''The Knicks trade guarantees spacing: X, Y, Z, spacing.''
When that is NOT what I'm arguing, at all.
So you're looking for an explanation for a point that doesn't exist. Hope that helps
Do you realise that wingspan, just on paper, doesn't mean anything? Like, at all? Saying that Ingram has a 7'3 wingspan, as if that in-and-of-itself is a virtue is pointless. Wingspan is an important stat at a college level because it IMPLIES the potential at the NBA level. Ingram has already spent multiple seasons playing in the NBA, so we don't need to use things like wingspan to extrapolate: we can just look at the results. He has a 7'3'' wingspan, but he doesn't use it and he doesn't know how to use it either, so it doesn't matter. He might as well have a 6'10 wingspan, for all the good it does him. Hell, he might be a better shooter if he had shorter arms.
Draymond Green is 29 years old and already in visible decline. He's still very good, but he's already declined as a defender from just two seasons ago. I would be shocked if he's capable of all-defensive level defense in two or three years.
The problem is that you keep talking about rebuilding through the draft with multiple picks is ''the kind of rebuild bad teams go through and stay bad for a long time'', when in reality a much more sure-fire way to guarantee mediocrity is to trade your franchise's largest asset for poorly fitting parts that you can overpay, destroying your cap for multiple years in the future when decline is already visible.
By contrast, teams that build through the draft actually tend to be, y'know... better? Like, Golden State, and Denver, and Utah? You know, acquiring young, cheap players and then building them together so that you have bird rights by the time they need paying and cap becomes less of an issue?
To clarify: the reason spacing MATTERS in an LA deal, and isn't so much of a big deal in an NY deal, is that the LA deal GIVES YOU PLAYER ASSETS.
It straight up delivers you players. It puts players in your hand, not picks. And those are players you will either have to pay, or let walk. So it's important that the players you get can either shoot, or show real signs of shooting potential, because you aren't getting the chance to assemble a squad using draft picks or drafting, so you're limited to having to overpay free agents to come to New Orleans.
The NY deal delivers you PICKS. So you are given multiple opportunities throughout several years to add CHEAP, YOUNG players, without having to lure them through the tedium of free agency, and have them locked up for several years at a time. Therefore the players you get in the NY deal, while it's nice if they're good, are not the key part: if they can't shoot, it's not a huge deal because you don't have to pay them for a while, and you get the ability to add EVEN MORE CHEAP YOUNG TALENT.
Whereas from LA, you MUST pay soon, or you get NOTHING.
Hope that's clear
Yes I would take my chances with the Knicks over the Lakers. RJ will be the best player out of anyone on either of those teams IMO. I like Ingram & Ball, but rather have RJ on a rookie deal for 4 seasons. Plus getting the added bonus of him & Zion already having chemistry & maybe increasing their chances of staying here long term. Mitchell Robinson looks like a legit starting center with potential to be one of the better ones in the league. Dennis Smith Jr is only 21 and looks like a legit starting point guard, but I rather him coming off the bench as a combo guard. Kevin Knox was only 19 years old last year, so hopefully he will get better with age. I like his size and athleticism for a small forward. Most 18-19 year olds don’t play defense and don’t
make the right plays especially when on a crap team. Alonzo Trier might be the better shooter, but I rather take the youngster with more potential and 3 years left on his deal. He will only be 22 when his deal runs out, so he’s a decent asset to have IMO. Then we get 2 picks in a great draft and another pick in 2023. We would have to get those 3 picks for sure. It’s not an ideal trade by any means, but possibly the best out of the two teams he wants to go to the most. If RJ is a poor mans Kobe Bryant or rich mans DeMar DeRozan like I believe he can be than it will be a damn good move. Having 3 1sts in 2021 is the reason I like the deal more than anything. At least we will be getting some serious potential and not anything if he left after his deal ran out. Plus I would much rather send him to a horrible franchise in the east and in the process screw LeBron. Those Knicks picks may still be decent cause without KD joining him I don’t see them being all that great.
I know our shooting doesn’t look all that great, but we will have the cap space to add it for sure.
Last edited by DaPelFromHell; 06-15-2019 at 05:18 PM.
Most of the trades I've proposed give us someone's 1st in 2020 or 2021. We'll also have our own first round picks going forward.I understand now why you're having so much trouble understanding.
You keep reading my posts looking for an explanation that says ''The Knicks trade guarantees spacing: X, Y, Z, spacing.''
When that is NOT what I'm arguing, at all.
So you're looking for an explanation for a point that doesn't exist. Hope that helps
Do you realise that wingspan, just on paper, doesn't mean anything? Like, at all? Saying that Ingram has a 7'3 wingspan, as if that in-and-of-itself is a virtue is pointless. Wingspan is an important stat at a college level because it IMPLIES the potential at the NBA level. Ingram has already spent multiple seasons playing in the NBA, so we don't need to use things like wingspan to extrapolate: we can just look at the results. He has a 7'3'' wingspan, but he doesn't use it and he doesn't know how to use it either, so it doesn't matter. He might as well have a 6'10 wingspan, for all the good it does him. Hell, he might be a better shooter if he had shorter arms.
Draymond Green is 29 years old and already in visible decline. He's still very good, but he's already declined as a defender from just two seasons ago. I would be shocked if he's capable of all-defensive level defense in two or three years.
The problem is that you keep talking about rebuilding through the draft with multiple picks is ''the kind of rebuild bad teams go through and stay bad for a long time'', when in reality a much more sure-fire way to guarantee mediocrity is to trade your franchise's largest asset for poorly fitting parts that you can overpay, destroying your cap for multiple years in the future when decline is already visible.
By contrast, teams that build through the draft actually tend to be, y'know... better? Like, Golden State, and Denver, and Utah? You know, acquiring young, cheap players and then building them together so that you have bird rights by the time they need paying and cap becomes less of an issue?
I think what you're confusing, is having a glut of picks, with having an additional pick in addition to ours. Getting picks outside of the lottery from Knicks, is not anything special on top of players who aren't anything special.
You're also very clearly making a different argument now, about how to rebuild, than your post from less than an hour ago, being critical of people proposing trades that didn't include shooters. I'll assume you realize you were being hypocritical and just tried to change the conversation to overall rebuilding strategy.
I won't ask you to explain for a 53rd time the obvious hypocrisy of loving a trade with no shooters, and criticizing others for proposing trades with no shooters. It's cruel of me. I'll stop.
Explain to me again how and why'd you'd draft RJ Barrett with the 3rd pick in this Knicks deal that you love - the best asset in the deal - while simultaneously criticizing others for building a team around Zion with no shooting...To clarify: the reason spacing MATTERS in an LA deal, and isn't so much of a big deal in an NY deal, is that the LA deal GIVES YOU PLAYER ASSETS.
It straight up delivers you players. It puts players in your hand, not picks. And those are players you will either have to pay, or let walk. So it's important that the players you get can either shoot, or show real signs of shooting potential, because you aren't getting the chance to assemble a squad using draft picks or drafting, so you're limited to having to overpay free agents to come to New Orleans.
The NY deal delivers you PICKS. So you are given multiple opportunities throughout several years to add CHEAP, YOUNG players, without having to lure them through the tedium of free agency, and have them locked up for several years at a time. Therefore the players you get in the NY deal, while it's nice if they're good, are not the key part: if they can't shoot, it's not a huge deal because you don't have to pay them for a while, and you get the ability to add EVEN MORE CHEAP YOUNG TALENT.
Whereas from LA, you MUST pay soon, or you get NOTHING.
Hope that's clear
Nevermind. Don't. I'll stop.
There are currently 19 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 19 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote