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.I simply think that a deal is easier to work out without the pick involved because the pick is difficult to value. It's easier for two teams to say yes without the pick than it is with it. I don't think the Knicks want to give up Grimes either, but I also don't think they'll let go of that pick either. What was it, 3 days ago you were blasting me telling me the Knicks wouldn't even beat MIA's offer??? Part of your reasoning was that the Knicks wouldn't be happy to give up their distant picks. I agree with that. So if you want some reasoning as to why it's difficult to have NYK give that pick up, refer to your own reasoning. I get the reasoning that NYK is more likely to value players and UTA is more likely to value picks, but I still think the uncertainty and difficulty in valuing that pick makes it difficult to include in a trade.
It's hard to value that pick, if you don't think it's difficult to value a pick 7 years from now, agree to disagree. When things are difficult to value it makes them more difficult to trade. I know you really, really want that pick. I'm not telling you that it's wrong, I just think it's harder to build a trade with something that's difficult to value. I think both sides know how they feel about Grimes, and I think there's a trade with Grimes in it that both say yes to. They may also both say yes to a deal without Grimes and the pick instead, but it's more difficult to land on that conclusion IMO. It's my feeling that when things have ambiguous value, they are harder to work into a trade. There's a reason why picks that are more recent or made less ambiguous by protections are more often traded than distant picks with maximum ambiguity. Usually when picks so far in the distance are included, it's because that's all a team has outside of their untouchables. The Knicks are not in that situation. If it is included when the trade comes down, feel free to call me a dumbass. I don't really have anything else to say at this point so we'll just wait see what happens.
And I would make it more exotic. The pick swap only works if you have a pick that is 20th or better and a second rounder 35th or better. Alot of teams value a high 2nd rounder stronger that a 1st round pick.I would ask for a 2029 top 3 protected pick swap that is usable against any pick from 20 or lower. To use it, the Jazz would need to acquire the 19th, 20th pick in the draft. But if the Knicks win the lottery it is theirs. This gives them some assurance that if it is an awesome pick then they have it. Also, if it is a moderately great pick, it can't be worse than the 20th pick.
Barrett can play SF. He's 6-6, 214 and played that position most of last year.How is Barrett Mitchell and Brunson all going to be on the floor at the same time
None of them can play small forward
And all 3 can’t play defenceBarrett can play SF. He's 6-6, 214 and played that position most of last year.
I really like McBride. He is also a pit bull defensively. Kind of reminds me of Lowry.McBride’s G-League stats from last year are actually unreal.
There's a thread about itWhat is the ranking of the Knicks players that we want to get back in the trade, if we exclude RJ Barrett?
- Quickley
- Toppin
- Grimes
- McBride
Conspiracy theory onWe let the knicks keep Bryant, so give up your picks already.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, they’d have 109M committed to Mitchell, Brunson, Randle, Robinson and Hartenstein alone.
Barrett is also going to get an extension. They won’t have any cap space to sign anyone for more than the MLE.
A trade is 100% going to happen within the next 7 months.If this turns into a "We almost traded for" saga, I'm going to be sorely disappointed.
No doubt. Just having the "Almost traded for" warning bells going off after the story from Andy about the deal "almost" going through on Tuesday until the Knicks backed off.A trade is 100% going to happen within the next 7 months.
Obvious "grain of salt" warning.
View: https://twitter.com/BDLReports/status/1547930413368111108?s=20&t=CY-pUKiXot8q6sOVP3wr-A
Obvious "grain of salt" warning.
View: https://twitter.com/BDLReports/status/1547930413368111108?s=20&t=CY-pUKiXot8q6sOVP3wr-A