VDesai wrote:The Chet # is outrageous. I'm not sure I believe Chet is that level of talent. Once they sign Jalen, the Hartenstein, Caruso, Dort etc. multimillion dollar role players go out the window. They have thousands of picks so plenty of ways to replenish their bench cheaply, but it will be a different caliber of player.

Somewhat extreme take here BUT based on what I watched in the finals I'd be tempted to take Jalen Williams over Shae.

Thought his D and his range in key spots overshadowed some of what Shae was doing.

Chet # is scary but if healthy you'd have to think his overall game has the most room to grow - plus major rim protection.

ToddTT wrote:

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Jalen Williams just agree to 5 years/$287M. I have a feeling iHart is not going to make it to year 3 on OKC.

Brock gotta be scheming for both iHart and DDV, or at least that should be the nostalgic plan.

Wait, wasn't there another guy as well?

I can't think of ANYBODY

BigDaddyG wrote:Herb Jones extends for 3/$68M.
Martin right now:

When is he tradable?

Do we have anyone in management that has some tight relationship with Dumars (maybe Leon back in the day)?

LivingLegend wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Herb Jones extends for 3/$68M.
Martin right now:

When is he tradable?

Do we have anyone in management that has some tight relationship with Dumars (maybe Leon back in the day)?

Dumars owes Mo Cheeks one. Scapegoated Mo Cheeks in 2014 after a bad start. Hired and fired him pretty quickly. Payback time….

Nalod wrote:Myles Turner to Bucks.......
Reading Indy was caught off guard but Carlisle blames the process that teams put the money out and its on the table but the clock is limited as to how long. That, or Indy was cool to let him walk. Think about it, you lose your team leader for a full season and still go over the apron with big tax ramifications. Ownership don't like paying taxes but in a year were because of Hali they likely stepping back, why pay it? Logical.
If anything it's an opportunity to dial it back and perhaps reboot slightly for the future. Fan support won't waiver after a great season and they still should be a .500 team. The finals run excites the base and added new band wagon jumpers.
Turner did have a declining contract that had a 35mil start a few years ago then went down to 20mm per. He got $108mm over 4 years.
Was Indy capped that bad they could not do that? Turner had a good year and perhaps Bucks got a good deal but maybe Indy not in love with his work habits and longevity at this level? Tough to say. Bucks did not have to break the bank for turner but they had to pay/stretch out Dame Lillard which is still a big pill to swallow. The combo of Giannis/Turner is logical and should prove a good chemistry given the skill sets. Turner will need to be respected on the 3pt line.

I think this is all correct but the one avenue I don't know if has been explored by Indy or media.... why not retain Turner, but if you don't want to take the second apron hit, trade him during the season so that you can make it under? Or something close to it? I don't know if that is possible or how the maneuvering would work, but you can't lose that type of talent for nothing?

He walked right? Indy let their defensive, 5-out guy walk for nothing?

MaTT4281 wrote:

martin wrote:
"Everyone can go" has to be in the correct context though. No one gives up $100M without getting something back. The goal is championship and Leon knows Brunson has the on court capability and then he also paved the way for Leon and the Knicks to do their thing on the FO side of things.

Brunson has continued leverage until he signs his next contract. That is the context.

Just to play devil's advocate:

Within the scope of "We need Brunson to sign off first", who does that save? I'd think he'd fight to keep Josh. But that's all I got. I am assuming the KAT trade was run by him, and if he OK'd Donte/Randle going out, I'm not confident that Mikal/OG/KAT get a pardon. But yes, obviously the move needs to be a clear step towards a title.

In my mind the list is Mikal and Josh. That's my guess. You can trade them, but you gotta play nice with Brunson too. I don't think it's necessarily a sign off thing, but it certainly would be a long and well thought out discussion before that next max contract is signed by Jalen if that opportunity came up.

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Myles Turner to Bucks.......
Reading Indy was caught off guard but Carlisle blames the process that teams put the money out and its on the table but the clock is limited as to how long. That, or Indy was cool to let him walk. Think about it, you lose your team leader for a full season and still go over the apron with big tax ramifications. Ownership don't like paying taxes but in a year were because of Hali they likely stepping back, why pay it? Logical.
If anything it's an opportunity to dial it back and perhaps reboot slightly for the future. Fan support won't waiver after a great season and they still should be a .500 team. The finals run excites the base and added new band wagon jumpers.
Turner did have a declining contract that had a 35mil start a few years ago then went down to 20mm per. He got $108mm over 4 years.
Was Indy capped that bad they could not do that? Turner had a good year and perhaps Bucks got a good deal but maybe Indy not in love with his work habits and longevity at this level? Tough to say. Bucks did not have to break the bank for turner but they had to pay/stretch out Dame Lillard which is still a big pill to swallow. The combo of Giannis/Turner is logical and should prove a good chemistry given the skill sets. Turner will need to be respected on the 3pt line.

I think this is all correct but the one avenue I don't know if has been explored by Indy or media.... why not retain Turner, but if you don't want to take the second apron hit, trade him during the season so that you can make it under? Or something close to it? I don't know if that is possible or how the maneuvering would work, but you can't lose that type of talent for nothing?

He walked right? Indy let their defensive, 5-out guy walk for nothing?

You're not wrong. Keeping it simple, they could have done that perhaps but then still have to bring in that salary in return. If He gets a bit injured, they can't do that.

I think we think in terms of a talented deprived team as we were for a very long time and losing a player for nothing illogical. A team that developed talent looks at it as creating room to grow and while you lose some, you gain other opportunities. All conceptual. For us, say we let Mitch walk? can we create space for Huk or other to grow and then also get paid?

I think we also look at Mikal as "5 picks". This year 2 of them were have been cashed in a season we actually went to conf. finals! Was that in part not worth it? In a weak draft year? Won't know for some time but we created the opportunity and went further than in years past!
BTW, I am in now way suggesting we let Mikal walk!

Back to Turner, We don't know the full truth and it's hard to fathom Indy was caught that much by surprise or that Turners market was that limited he had to jump on it that fast. For all we know Turner perhaps was looking to get out and away from Carlisle no matter what all was said publicly.

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Myles Turner to Bucks.......
Reading Indy was caught off guard but Carlisle blames the process that teams put the money out and its on the table but the clock is limited as to how long. That, or Indy was cool to let him walk. Think about it, you lose your team leader for a full season and still go over the apron with big tax ramifications. Ownership don't like paying taxes but in a year were because of Hali they likely stepping back, why pay it? Logical.
If anything it's an opportunity to dial it back and perhaps reboot slightly for the future. Fan support won't waiver after a great season and they still should be a .500 team. The finals run excites the base and added new band wagon jumpers.
Turner did have a declining contract that had a 35mil start a few years ago then went down to 20mm per. He got $108mm over 4 years.
Was Indy capped that bad they could not do that? Turner had a good year and perhaps Bucks got a good deal but maybe Indy not in love with his work habits and longevity at this level? Tough to say. Bucks did not have to break the bank for turner but they had to pay/stretch out Dame Lillard which is still a big pill to swallow. The combo of Giannis/Turner is logical and should prove a good chemistry given the skill sets. Turner will need to be respected on the 3pt line.

I think this is all correct but the one avenue I don't know if has been explored by Indy or media.... why not retain Turner, but if you don't want to take the second apron hit, trade him during the season so that you can make it under? Or something close to it? I don't know if that is possible or how the maneuvering would work, but you can't lose that type of talent for nothing?

He walked right? Indy let their defensive, 5-out guy walk for nothing?

You're not wrong. Keeping it simple, they could have done that perhaps but then still have to bring in that salary in return. If He gets a bit injured, they can't do that.

I think we think in terms of a talented deprived team as we were for a very long time and losing a player for nothing illogical. A team that developed talent looks at it as creating room to grow and while you lose some, you gain other opportunities. All conceptual. For us, say we let Mitch walk? can we create space for Huk or other to grow and then also get paid?

I think we also look at Mikal as "5 picks". This year 2 of them were have been cashed in a season we actually went to conf. finals! Was that in part not worth it? In a weak draft year? Won't know for some time but we created the opportunity and went further than in years past!
BTW, I am in now way suggesting we let Mikal walk!

Back to Turner, We don't know the full truth and it's hard to fathom Indy was caught that much by surprise or that Turners market was that limited he had to jump on it that fast. For all we know Turner perhaps was looking to get out and away from Carlisle no matter what all was said publicly.

You right. I just don't know how a contending team, even one who knows that they are headed for a 1 year setback cause of Hali, just let's a starter walk for nothing.

Time will tell but that kind of recoup of talent is usually incredibly hard unless you perhaps have some replacements in the pipeline. Turner may not have been top line kind of guy but there are not too many defensive 5-out guys in the league.

And Indy was a finals contender. Pacers broke that up cause of financials. Knicks would never hear the end of that type of move and you barely hear a peep from Indy fans or maybe that's just me not paying attention. I get Boston breaking up the band, I don't get Indy.

We fans have little imagination or the white board with future free agents or teams land locked with some up and coming talent. iHart for one might be a free agent and would they be better NOT spending 25mil this next year and then look to sign him? Just guessing. Pipeline on roster for back up? They are prime for a trade.
New CBA does create opportunities that we can't see, and maybe they miss on, but you need cap space and Apron freedom to maneuver. I look at us with Mitch similar. Losing him is obviously a deficit in the here and now without knowing how to fill his production in or the hindsight to see how we did. Thus we can only react as we see it.
Say Dadiet in camp is a revelation and Kolek a better PG back up then deuce. Just saying for example a domino effect that makes Josh/deuce and perhaps Mitch trade potential and what can come back to us in return?
Very unlikely given our short window.