(via @MikeAScotto
, https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-intel-whats-next-for-knicks-and-nets-after-mikal-bridges-trade/)

There we go. Go for it Leon.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/jcmacrinba/status/1806015318999109983

I don’t got the Insider subscription for the whole article but this seems to start out as a good way to interpret things to me.

These audacious trades keep happening -- teams trading three, four, five first-round picks for one player, the latest being the New York Knicks finally cashing in their diligently acquired stockpile in exchange for a 27-year-old crosstown rival who has made precisely zero All-Star games in (yup) Villanova University champion alumnus Mikal Bridges.

We didn't use to see these kinds of almost-all-in megadeals. In July 2022, after pick-heavy deals for Dejounte Murray (a onetime All-Star, and an injury replacement at that) and Rudy Gobert, research from both Basketball Reference and ESPN's Kevin Pelton found there had been seven trades in the preceding decade involving one team dealing away at least three future first-round picks -- and that those seven accounted for one more such trade than had occurred in the entirety of NBA history from the ABA-NBA merger through 2012.

There have, remarkably, been four more in the two years since: the Phoenix Suns deal for Kevin Durant; the Cleveland Cavaliers acquisition of Donovan Mitchell; the Indiana Pacers nabbing Pascal Siakam; and the Knicks swapping five first-round picks -- their own unprotected picks in 2025, 2027, 2029, and 2031, plus a protected 2025 first-rounder from the Milwaukee Bucks -- for Bridges, according to ESPN's Adrian Wojnarowski.

That is obviously a ton for Bridges, an overpay if you consider the trade in a vacuum -- which is not quite the right way to consider it. The Knicks gave up as many first-round picks for Bridges as the Wolves did for Gobert. They gave the Nets one more pick than Brooklyn received from Phoenix for Durant. It is, if you really go apples to oranges, wildly more than the Boston Celtics gave up for Jrue Holiday, Derrick White, or Kristaps Porzingis.

The history of these all-in trades suggests teams underestimate the downside risk of the later outbound picks, and that the deals don't pay off as often as you'd expect if the stated goal is a championship or even a Finals appearance. That is the reasonable goal now for the Knicks, presuming they re-sign OG Anunoby -- which remains their plan, sources told ESPN. (If they fail, the entire perception of this trade changes.)

martin wrote:https://x.com/jcmacrinba/status/1806015318999109983?s=12

I don’t got the Insider subscription for the whole article but this seems to start out as a good way to interpret things to me.

These audacious trades keep happening -- teams trading three, four, five first-round picks for one player, the latest being the New York Knicks finally cashing in their diligently acquired stockpile in exchange for a 27-year-old crosstown rival who has made precisely zero All-Star games in (yup) Villanova University champion alumnus Mikal Bridges.

We didn't use to see these kinds of almost-all-in megadeals. In July 2022, after pick-heavy deals for Dejounte Murray (a onetime All-Star, and an injury replacement at that) and Rudy Gobert, research from both Basketball Reference and ESPN's Kevin Pelton found there had been seven trades in the preceding decade involving one team dealing away at least three future first-round picks -- and that those seven accounted for one more such trade than had occurred in the entirety of NBA history from the ABA-NBA merger through 2012.

There have, remarkably, been four more in the two years since: the Phoenix Suns deal for Kevin Durant; the Cleveland Cavaliers acquisition of Donovan Mitchell; the Indiana Pacers nabbing Pascal Siakam; and the Knicks swapping five first-round picks -- their own unprotected picks in 2025, 2027, 2029, and 2031, plus a protected 2025 first-rounder from the Milwaukee Bucks -- for Bridges, according to ESPN's Adrian Wojnarowski.

That is obviously a ton for Bridges, an overpay if you consider the trade in a vacuum -- which is not quite the right way to consider it. The Knicks gave up as many first-round picks for Bridges as the Wolves did for Gobert. They gave the Nets one more pick than Brooklyn received from Phoenix for Durant. It is, if you really go apples to oranges, wildly more than the Boston Celtics gave up for Jrue Holiday, Derrick White, or Kristaps Porzingis.

The history of these all-in trades suggests teams underestimate the downside risk of the later outbound picks, and that the deals don't pay off as often as you'd expect if the stated goal is a championship or even a Finals appearance. That is the reasonable goal now for the Knicks, presuming they re-sign OG Anunoby -- which remains their plan, sources told ESPN. (If they fail, the entire perception of this trade changes.)

One forgets Lauri and Sexton were in the deal for DM.
Rudy in year two go them to conf finals.
And you can get picks back when you trade out for picks.
They are currancy.
Media freaks out on these big deals but they make sense sometimes.
PHX got relevant despit the lack of success. They can trade out and get picks back like nets did.
There is a buisness side to consider also. Money and brand recognition.
Knicks can trade Brunson or Randle inside of 3 years and likely get a nice package back. They came at relatively no cost.
DDV came for free. THink we could not get a mid 1st for him on this contract???
Deuce is 23 and also could be moved for a pick.
ROkas? Maybe he don’t step stateside or maybe he is Dragic like. We don’t know. ITs why the games are played!!!!

Yes, Mikal can blow out an ACL, and its a **** show for a while.

Per @MikeAScotto

I know a team that is simply loaded with second round picks...

firefly wrote:

EwingPSD wrote:

firefly wrote:

DLeethal wrote:I think the idea we overpaid is kind of off base. If someone traded a really good young player and 3 firsts nobody would blink. Knicks traded a bunch of late picks and a potentially iffy one 7 years from now and gave up no players at all. Also paid the Hudson River tax. Still not a massive overpay.

And another thing, a bunch of late firsts have FAR less value than even just one lottery pick.

Come on. The Knicks overpaid based on market value. They just don't care and they shouldn't. This often happens on teams trying to go from really good to great. For example, the Bucks overpaid for Jrue based on market value. They also went and won a title. The Sixers thought Tobias Harries was important to their title hopes so they overpaid to retain him. Both teams knew they were overpaying. It doesn't look good for Philly because it didn't work but unless you want to be the grit and grind Griz or the Mark Price Cavs it is a risk teams often have to take to get to the top.

I guess I just don't believe they overpaid at all. I think the market for picks in general is grossly inflated. Selling potential for actual high-level play has always been a clever trick by poor teams to try and trade for an actual good player.

The chances of a single pick developing into a servicable player is low.
Into a servicable player who impacts play immediately is even lower.
Into a player who plays better than Mikal Bridges immediately is much lower.
Having 5 chances to hit that jackpot is of course better than having just one chance, but it would not be overpaying to say we have traded for a player in exchange for the CHANCE of drafting that player at some stage in the next 7 years.

The chances of more than one of those picks in the next 7 years hitting those odds is so low as to be immaterial. Can you think of one example where a trade of picks for a high-level player turned into more than one high-level player? They are very very very rare circumstances.

I think it’s fair to say that the Knicks fair market value is different than what other teams would be.

Knicks absolutely paid a Nets trade tax. They also paid the well publicized Villanova tax. I’d go one step further to say that the Knicks paid for a surplus chemistry tax on top of the Villanova tax (i.e. the Knicks KNOW how well the chemistry multiplier will be for them in the intangibles department and that it would trickle to perhaps to other things like moving the Brunson extension numbers). Knicks also did not give up a single core piece tax.

Other teams don’t get those benefits as well as the Knicks would and the Nets knew it, so the market price is just different. And it could be a fair market price.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/ownhimbrunson/status/1806002299309002892

martin wrote:

jaydh wrote:The only reason you can possibly say it was an over pay is because bridges was about to force his way to us which would have saved us a 1st or 2. But, you have to do the deal without that knowledge.

He did force his way, just not on the record

I meant it would have gone public

DLeethal wrote:

EwingPSD wrote:

firefly wrote:

DLeethal wrote:I think the idea we overpaid is kind of off base. If someone traded a really good young player and 3 firsts nobody would blink. Knicks traded a bunch of late picks and a potentially iffy one 7 years from now and gave up no players at all. Also paid the Hudson River tax. Still not a massive overpay.

And another thing, a bunch of late firsts have FAR less value than even just one lottery pick.

Come on. The Knicks overpaid based on market value. They just don't care and they shouldn't. This often happens on teams trying to go from really good to great. For example, the Bucks overpaid for Jrue based on market value. They also went and won a title. The Sixers thought Tobias Harries was important to their title hopes so they overpaid to retain him. Both teams knew they were overpaying. It doesn't look good for Philly because it didn't work but unless you want to be the grit and grind Griz or the Mark Price Cavs it is a risk teams often have to take to get to the top.

I think the 2031 pick makes it a slight overpay. If that wasn’t included it would be an underpay given we gave them zero prospects and mainly picks that are close to guaranteed to be in the 20-30 range.

Mikal’s value is about the same as OG which is near max player level and he’s on a bargain deal.

No one would blink if it were 3 firsts and a great prospect or a couple good young players. 4 firsts with no prospects was probably the even value and the 5th we paid was the Hudson River tax in my eyes.

Pretty spot on analysis. If OG resigns, I honestly don't care about the picks.