What's new
By:

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

Man, with all the iterations of trades that we've all thrown out here; when this thing actually happens, the amount of "I TOLD YOU SO!!" posts is going to be unbearable.
 
hgb said:
I don't get this. We don't exactly need the cap space, and I hardly see Fournier win a bunch of games on his own. Can't we just keep him? He's a solid player, he could even be worth something at some point. He might be negative value for NYK, I don't think he is for us.
Click to expand...
The idea is to have nothing but G-League scrubs and promote a culture of losing. It's the Sacramento Kings model.
 
Elizah Huge said:
The 2023-24 projected salary cap is 133M. The minimum team salary will be 119.7M.

If the recent streak of the salary cap going up by 10M continues then the 2024-25 projected salary cap will be around 143M meaning the minimum salary cap will be 128.7M.

Does anyone know currently what guaranteed salary we have going into the 2024-25 season? I’ll tell you… only Donovan at 34.85M.

Tell me again exactly why "we don’t want to spend money on anyone long-term" when we will literally have to pay players just to meet the minimum salary cap.

Then guess what going into the 2025-26 off-season the new TV deal will be struck and we are potentially looking at a 170M+ salary cap.
Click to expand...
There's a good chunk of Jazz Nation who, if rules would allow, would trot out a starting lineup of nothing but future 1st round picks next year. It's a bit odd.
 
Man, I just hope it's done with soon, whatever the deal is.

It's not fun knowing the core of the current team won't be part of the team next time we're competitive. More enjoyable to hope with young guys.
 
Jingled said:
Just settle on 3 unprotected picks and get this **** done.


View: https://twitter.com/SNYtv/status/1565119203346096133
Click to expand...


Ian Bagley says teams that have interest in RJ believed they still would've had a chance to get him even if the Jazz traded for him as it's believed the Jazz would've considered the idea of trading him for additional first round picks (which is basically the same thing Jake Fischer said earlier today). Also says Jazz wanted one of Grimes, Toppin or IQ in addition to RJ, he now thinks the Knicks will have to give up two of those guys.
 
Last edited:
Jingled said:
Ian Bagley says teams that have interest in RJ believed they still would've had a chance to get him even if the Jazz traded for him as it's believed the Jazz would've considered the idea of trading him for additional first round picks (which is basically the same thing Jake Fischer said earlier today). Also says Jazz wanted one of Grimes, Toppin or IQ in addition to RJ, he now thinks the Knicks will have to give up two of those guys.
Click to expand...

2? Try all 3 if RJ isn’t included. Ainge wants Grimes included with RJ and Begley thinks he will settle for Grimes and Toppin?
 
Elizah Huge said:
2? Try all 3 if RJ isn’t included. Ainge wants Grimes included with RJ and Begley thinks he will settle for Grimes and Toppin?
Click to expand...

I don't know, the article says Ainge really wants Grimes, which is something we've heard repeatedly. If the Knicks up their offer from 2 unprotected first round picks to 3, plus Grimes and either IQ or Toppin. I think the Jazz may do it.
 
Elizah Huge said:
2? Try all 3 if RJ isn’t included. Ainge wants Grimes included with RJ and Begley thinks he will settle for Grimes and Toppin?
Click to expand...
I think Begley’s math is this RJ = 1 UFRP + Toppin or Quickley. Thus the trade would now look like Grimes + Toppin (or Quickley) + 3 UFRP. I bet you throw in 2-3 protected picks and that’s where the deal happens.
 
Jingled said:
I don't know, the article says Ainge really wants Grimes, which is something we've heard repeatedly. If the Knicks up their offer from 2 unprotected first round picks to 3, plus Grimes and either IQ or Toppin. I think the Jazz may do it.
Click to expand...

My entire reasoning is Ainge wants RJ + Grimes + 3 unprotected 1sts.

If you take away RJ from the latest offer the Knicks gave they are RJ/Grimes/unprotected 1st short. If they add Grimes and the 1st who are they sending to replace RJ?
 
Elizah Huge said:
My entire reasoning is Ainge wants RJ + Grimes + 3 unprotected 1sts.

If you take away RJ from the latest offer the Knicks gave they are RJ/Grimes/unprotected 1st short. If they add Grimes and the 1st who are they sending to replace RJ?
Click to expand...

I don't think the Knicks were ever going to be willing to do RJ, Grimes and 3 unprotected firsts. If RJ is in the deal, 2 unprotected firsts is likely the most they will part with, they likely give up 3 if RJ's not in the deal.
 
Jingled said:
I don't know, the article says Ainge really wants Grimes, which is something we've heard repeatedly. If the Knicks up their offer from 2 unprotected first round picks to 3, plus Grimes and either IQ or Toppin. I think the Jazz may do it.
Click to expand...
I think they are having a huge issue with going to 3 unprotected picks because it becomes tough to make the next deal. Danny wants 4... I think the deal gets done with either:

-RJ, Toppin, 2 unprotected picks, 3 protected picks
-RJ, Grimes, 2 unprotected picks, 2 protected picks
-Grimes, Toppin, IQ, 3 unprotected picks, 2 protected picks

Add swaps and seconds for flavor.
 
Jingled said:
I don't think the Knicks were ever going to be willing to do RJ, Grimes and 3 unprotected firsts. If RJ is in the deal, 2 unprotected firsts is likely the most they will part with, they likely give up 3 if RJ's not in the deal.
Click to expand...

I think the compromise in an RJ iteration is swapping an unprotected 1st for a protected 1st or adding Grimes in.

In a non-RJ iteration I think it is Fournier/Toppin/Grimes/Quickley + 3 unprotected 1sts + 3 protected 1sts.
 
Jingled said:
I don't think the Knicks were ever going to be willing to do RJ, Grimes and 3 unprotected firsts. If RJ is in the deal, 2 unprotected firsts is likely the most they will part with, they likely give up 3 if RJ's not in the deal.
Click to expand...
The decision on their part boils down to their pursuit of the second star- In the future is RJ plus one pick a better trade asset or are 3 unprotected picks a better asset?

If they give us 3 unprotected picks the most the can offer in 2024 is 1 more protected pick.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I think they are having a huge issue with going to 3 unprotected picks because it becomes tough to make the next deal. Danny wants 4... I think the deal gets done with either:

-RJ, Toppin, 2 unprotected picks, 3 protected picks
-RJ, Grimes, 2 unprotected picks, 2 protected picks
-Grimes, Toppin, IQ, 3 unprotected picks, 2 protected picks

Add swaps and seconds for flavor.
Click to expand...

This sums it up pretty well. Solid post per usual.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
The decision on their part boils down to their pursuit of the second star- In the future is RJ plus one pick a better trade asset or are 3 unprotected picks a better asset?

If they give us 3 unprotected picks the most the can offer in 2024 is 1 more protected pick.
Click to expand...

I would say 3 unprotected firsts is the better trade asset for sure.
 
I'm firmly in camp that we keep RJ... if he blossoms a bit you can build with him or move him for a premium. If he only makes mild improvements he's paid properly to be your 3rd/4th starter.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
The decision on their part boils down to their pursuit of the second star- In the future is RJ plus one pick a better trade asset or are 3 unprotected picks a better asset?

If they give us 3 unprotected picks the most the can offer in 2024 is 1 more protected pick.
Click to expand...
Two years from now they will have access to picks that are further out. Those picks will be worth a lot. They will not be destitute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top