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

[Elizah Huge]

It’s not risk. I never said risk, so that would explain your confusion. You are confused by something that was never said or implied.

No, you are being extremely dumb about something that isn’t hard. You keep repeating it. There is no reason for us to be weary or scared of a 2029 pick. That is literally dumb logic.

 

[Elizah Huge]

Danny might be one of the GM’s that likes the uncertainty, but generally I do think GM’s would rather trade with that are more certain. The “it could turn out to be really good” potential is hard to value in the first place, but I especially think that fans are more hopeful of that potential than GM’s.

In any case, I think of the deal can get done without it, both sides would feel better. And with all of NYK’s assets I think it can, so I’m betting that it will.

This just isn’t true and it is making me dumber by reading it. What exactly about a 2029 unprotected 1st from the Knicks doesn’t scream "it could turn out to be really good" potential.

 

[KqWIN]

No, you are being extremely dumb about something that isn’t hard. You keep repeating it. There is no reason for us to be weary or scared of a 2029 pick. That is literally dumb logic.

You keep making up logic lol.

It’s not risk, it’s not being afraid. It’s uncertainty. It’s difficult to value that pick because it’s so distant. The deal can get done with or without that pick. So another way to look at this is, what are you willing to not have for that 2029 pick? Are you willing up to not have Grimes? Quickley? More than one first?

There’s a package that gets this deal done without 2029, and I think that will ultimately be the one that’s accepted by both sides.

 

[framer]

Knicks play in 10 minutes. Will be interesting to see if Grimes sits out.

No way, let those younglings go get their Summer League Rings.

 

[Elizah Huge]

You keep making up logic lol.

It’s not risk, it’s not being afraid. It’s uncertainty. It’s difficult to value that pick because it’s so distant. The deal can get done with or without that pick. So another way to look at this is, what are you willing to not have for that 2029 pick? Are you willing up to not have Grimes? Quickley? More than one first?

There’s a package that gets this deal done without 2029, and I think that will ultimately be the one that’s accepted by both sides.

It is quite literally the most valuable asset in the discussed deal.

 

[KqWIN]

This just isn’t true and it is making me dumber by reading it. What exactly about a 2029 unprotected 1st from the Knicks doesn’t scream "it could turn out to be really good" potential.

Again, another disagreement with a made up thing. Did I say that the potential doesn’t exist? The point is that FO members see less than fans.

This will be the last time I respond to a made up argument that you get upset about.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Danny might be one of the GM’s that likes the uncertainty, but generally I do think GM’s would rather trade with that are more certain. The “it could turn out to be really good” potential is hard to value in the first place, but I especially think that fans are more hopeful of that potential than GM’s.

In any case, I think of the deal can get done without it, both sides would feel better. And with all of NYK’s assets I think it can, so I’m betting that it will.

This is a little silly.. the 2029 unprotected pick has a lot of value because of uncertainty and it being unprotected. Each year it has a little more value as it gets closer to being conveyed. You also want to take that pick to prevent them from trading it to another team to improve their current team or to remove a terrible player (like Randle) from the cap sheet. It also means they can't trade their 2030 pick. Its mean AF but you want to cripple their ability to improve and be flexible. We have an interest in them sucking.

 

[framer]

You keep making up logic lol.

It’s not risk, it’s not being afraid. It’s uncertainty. It’s difficult to value that pick because it’s so distant. The deal can get done with or without that pick. So another way to look at this is, what are you willing to not have for that 2029 pick? Are you willing up to not have Grimes? Quickley? More than one first?

There’s a package that gets this deal done without 2029, and I think that will ultimately be the one that’s accepted by both sides.

I'm old enough to remember waiting like 10 years for a Knicks pick.

 

[The Jazz Wonderbra]

You saying Danny should give them the old Gay deep throat too... you a savage.

This is they type of post that used to get a warning. Now, the world is more and more comfortable with old gay deep throats and the like I guess.

No judgements here. Just pointing out how the world is evolving. Huuuuuit!

 

[Coach Ellis]

Are the Knicks supposed to be better in ‘24 than ‘23? And to restate/clarify, I’d just take the Dallas ‘23 pick.

I think a better plan would be - Knicks 23, 25, 27, 29 (same non-protections as Minnesota) plus the Dallas ‘23 pick, the Milwaukee ‘25 pick and pick swaps in 24 and 26.

 

[KqWIN]

This is a little silly.. the 2029 unprotected pick has a lot of value because of uncertainty and it being unprotected. Each year it has a little more value as it gets closer to being conveyed. You also want to take that pick to prevent them from trading it to another team to improve their current team or to remove a terrible player (like Randle) from the cap sheet. It also means they can't trade their 2030 pick. Its mean AF but you want to cripple their ability to improve and be flexible. We have an interest in them sucking.

I mean, feel free to have your own opinion on it. The point I’m making and have repeated is that GMs don’t see it the same way as fans. These arguments about how great that potential is doesn’t really disagree with my point, in fact it’s making the point.

If you disagree, do you think there’s no trade that can be done if 2029 is not included? What’s the trade with and without that pick? I’m not trying to argue the potential and value of that pick, I’m saying that whatever value that is….it can be made up by other means. And because it can it most likely will.

 

[Elizah Huge]

I think a better plan would be - Knicks 23, 25, 27, 29 (same non-protections as Minnesota) plus the Dallas ‘23 pick, the Milwaukee ‘25 pick and pick swaps in 24 and 26.

This but the swaps in 26/28. Our 2024 1st is top-10 protected in 2024 so if we have it to be able to swap it means it’s in the top-10 anyways. I’d rather have the chance to swap in 2028.

 

[Elizah Huge]

I mean, feel free to have your own opinion on it. The point I’m making and have repeated is that GMs don’t see it the same way as fans. These arguments about how great that potential is doesn’t really disagree with my point, in fact it’s making the point.

If you disagree, do you think there’s no trade that can be done if 2029 is not included? What’s the trade with and without that pick? I’m not trying to argue the potential and value of that pick, I’m saying that whatever value that is….it can be made up by other means.

The trade without that pick is 23/25/27 1sts from the Knicks, 2023 Dallas 1st, 2025 Milwaukee 1st and then one of the Detroit/Washington picks plus pick swaps from the Knicks in 26/28/29.

 

[Coach Ellis]

This but the swaps in 26/28. Our 2024 1st is top-10 protected in 2024 so if we have it to be able to swap it means it’s in the top-10 anyways. I’d rather have the chance to swap in 2028.

I like that.

 

[Elizah Huge]

The trade without that pick is 23/25/27 1sts from the Knicks, 2023 Dallas 1st, 2025 Milwaukee 1st and then one of the Detroit/Washington picks plus pick swaps from the Knicks in 26/28/29.

I’d much much much rather get the 2029 1st in any deal. It’s the most valuable asset being discussed.

 

[Elizah Huge]

This is a little silly.. the 2029 unprotected pick has a lot of value because of uncertainty and it being unprotected. Each year it has a little more value as it gets closer to being conveyed. You also want to take that pick to prevent them from trading it to another team to improve their current team or to remove a terrible player (like Randle) from the cap sheet. It also means they can't trade their 2030 pick. Its mean AF but you want to cripple their ability to improve and be flexible. We have an interest in them sucking.

This is actually so true. I’m going to say we need to make it a sticking point to get the 2029 1st.

 

[zyzz]

Another interesting thing he said is that the Jazz scouting department gave a 20 minute presentation on why they should draft Jaden McDaniels, they went with Dok instead, and he said that move killed this era of the Jazz.

This is so infuriating… especially because every dummy (myself included) on forums from here to Reddit to Twitter to whatever wanted McDaniels or Bane. I personally wanted McDaniels because of his home run potential and defensive versatility, but I saw the case for Bane too. It’s also insulting to just overrule everyone else in the scouting department. Those two were such obvious picks smh…

 

[KqWIN]

The trade without that pick is 23/25/27 1sts from the Knicks, 2023 Dallas 1st, 2025 Milwaukee 1st and then one of the Detroit/Washington picks plus pick swaps from the Knicks in 26/28/29.

I mean…that’s almost exactly what I had it pegged as lol.

We just saw this with MIN. I don’t think the McDaniels interest was a fake. I think if MIN did not care for McDaniels the Jazz would have taken him instead of an additional pick.

I think the same sort of question is happening right now. Would Danny rather have Grimes than the distant pick….I think it’s pretty similar to the McDaniels situation but NYK isn’t as firm on keeping Grimes.

 

[margodydek]

7 year rule. You can only trade picks 7 year in advance

This was part of the brilliance in Ainge waiting until after FA started to trade with Minnesota, and not do it at the draft. By waiting, he could nab the 2029 pick. Couldn't have done that if they did the trade at the draft.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I mean, feel free to have your own opinion on it. The point I’m making and have repeated is that GMs don’t see it the same way as fans. These arguments about how great that potential is doesn’t really disagree with my point, in fact it’s making the point.

If you disagree, do you think there’s no trade that can be done if 2029 is not included? What’s the trade with and without that pick? I’m not trying to argue the potential and value of that pick, I’m saying that whatever value that is….it can be made up by other means. And because it can it most likely will.

You don't know how GMs see it.... GMs are also not all of the same mind. I think Ainge absolutely values it. Is it a necessity? Who knows? I know that Ainge has turned unprotected picks and swaps into Tatum and Brown and he used the potential of another unprotected pick to land Kyrie.

Some GMs don't give a **** at all cuz they are likely on the chopping block.

If I was a GM I want that 2029 pick for sure. I'm gonna go ahead and guess that Ainge thinks its fairly valuable. I don't think it is under/over valued by one side or the other.