MS wrote:We have plenty to offer the Cavs for that lottery pick.

Beasley, KOQ and Lee would all make them better and fill multiple needs. The pick isn't going to be as low as they would have liked. Right now they are in the 9th spot. Would probably be in the Knicks best interest to see what they have in Burke, Frank and Willy and let the kids play, continue to lose and acquire a lower pick.

No we don't, at all. There's a literally 0% chance that Cleveland would trade that pick for any combo of Knicks players that doesn't contain KP. And right now Brooklyn's pick is tied with Phoenix at 7, not 9.

reub wrote:If we are going to trade Willy (although I'd rather trade Kanter) I want back a young, defensive-minded SF like Kidd-Gilchrist or Harkless. That kind of a deal would address a position of need for us and fit the team's timeline.

MKG is interesting but man is it hard to look past his shooting.

Nalod wrote:http://uproxx.com/dimemag/cleveland-cavaliers-players-frustration-brooklyn-draft-pick-trade-rumors/2/

Appears the Cav's are wanting the usual post all star game run after a roster tweek. IT2 defense is not good (hip? Rust?)
Lebron had a good relationship with David Griffin but not so much with new GM Koby Altman. I'd imagine this is by owner's Gilbert design who won't let Lebron run the show without a commitment to resign.
Why would Cav's trade the pick if Lebron is bolting?
Kyrie was right to leave Cavs, he IS THE MAN this season!
I don't see knicks being any players with Cav's unless they want KOQ, Clee or Noah for a run. Cav's don't have much to offer us?

for KOQ and LT?

KOQ provides toughness and LT replaces Crowder's D.

TripleThreat wrote:

MS wrote:We have plenty to offer the Cavs for that lottery pick.

Beasley, KOQ and Lee would all make them better and fill multiple needs. The pick isn't going to be as low as they would have liked. Right now they are in the 9th spot. Would probably be in the Knicks best interest to see what they have in Burke, Frank and Willy and let the kids play, continue to lose and acquire a lower pick.

1) Fails the "Mirror Test"
2) IF, and it's a HUGE IF, the Cavs were to trade that Brooklyn pick, they'd prefer to send it to a Western team
3) The trade offer has to be the BEST OFFER AVAILABLE out of all 29 teams out there. Can the Cavs do better than Lee/Beasley/KOQ? (I think so)
4) In order to take in a "volume trade" the Cavs would need to cut guys to accommodate three players. Who are they sending back?
5) If the Cavs wanted Beasley, they could have had him for the vets minimum earlier
6) No matter what is said in the press, Beasley and LBJ have bad blood. No defense and spurt scoring isn't the Cavs problem anyway.
7) The Cavs would first look to buyouts and cuts for ring chasers on the vets minimum
8) The Cavs would then look to EXPIRING CONTRACT players second if it came to a trade ( i.e. why take in Lee's age 33 and 34 years in a deal when you can get a player who might help and doesn't choke out your cap moving forward)
9) The trade would be indefensible to the sports media and the Cleveland fanbase (Again , The Mirror Test, if the Knicks gave up a lottery pick for Lee/KOQ and Beasley, Knicks fans, including ones here, would be up in arms.
10) If the Cavs wanted KOQ, they could likely get him for a 2nd round pick, the Knicks would throw in Beasley just for kicks in a deal like that. So functionally, an upgrade from a 2nd round cost to a lottery pick would be.... Courtney Lee and his age 33 and 34 years?

The Knicks simply don't have anything worth trading except Tim Hardaway Jr (maybe), and he's hurt. Everything else, no one wants or the Knicks want to keep.

What if the deal was structured to not only feature a talent upgrade but also included more cap flexibility and savings? In a vacuum, I'm not sure we could incentivize a deal well enough to justify the pick but the Cavs have such an extraordinarily large tax bill that I think Gilbert would consider it....especially since he'd still have to pay the luxury tax if/when LeBron leaves.

Something like Courtney Lee, Tim Hardaway Jr., Kyle O'Quinn and Lance Thomas for JR Smith, Iman Shumpert, Tristan Thompson and Channing Frye (as well as the Nets pick) works financially and saves the Cavs a prorated $9 million in salary as well as approximately $22.5 million worth of tax. The deal puts them in no better position to beat the Warriors but it certainly is a talent upgrade....even though they likely wouldn't be able to incorporate three new rotation players this late into the season.

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y7qy5k75

I'm not sure how much I'd like the deal for the Knicks either. Frye's an expiring contract but the rest is straight, long-term garbage and would effectively cripple any hopes of cap space for the next 3 seasons. Would the 9th pick in any average draft be worth that kind of commitment? I'd have to say "no" but Dolan's money is long and could maybe eat JR and Tristan's contracts. If any team is equipped to do something like that financially, it would be us.

meloshouldgo wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

MS wrote:We have plenty to offer the Cavs for that lottery pick.

Beasley, KOQ and Lee would all make them better and fill multiple needs. The pick isn't going to be as low as they would have liked. Right now they are in the 9th spot. Would probably be in the Knicks best interest to see what they have in Burke, Frank and Willy and let the kids play, continue to lose and acquire a lower pick.

1) Fails the "Mirror Test"
2) IF, and it's a HUGE IF, the Cavs were to trade that Brooklyn pick, they'd prefer to send it to a Western team
3) The trade offer has to be the BEST OFFER AVAILABLE out of all 29 teams out there. Can the Cavs do better than Lee/Beasley/KOQ? (I think so)
4) In order to take in a "volume trade" the Cavs would need to cut guys to accommodate three players. Who are they sending back?
5) If the Cavs wanted Beasley, they could have had him for the vets minimum earlier
6) No matter what is said in the press, Beasley and LBJ have bad blood. No defense and spurt scoring isn't the Cavs problem anyway.
7) The Cavs would first look to buyouts and cuts for ring chasers on the vets minimum
8) The Cavs would then look to EXPIRING CONTRACT players second if it came to a trade ( i.e. why take in Lee's age 33 and 34 years in a deal when you can get a player who might help and doesn't choke out your cap moving forward)
9) The trade would be indefensible to the sports media and the Cleveland fanbase (Again , The Mirror Test, if the Knicks gave up a lottery pick for Lee/KOQ and Beasley, Knicks fans, including ones here, would be up in arms.
10) If the Cavs wanted KOQ, they could likely get him for a 2nd round pick, the Knicks would throw in Beasley just for kicks in a deal like that. So functionally, an upgrade from a 2nd round cost to a lottery pick would be.... Courtney Lee and his age 33 and 34 years?

The Knicks simply don't have anything worth trading except Tim Hardaway Jr (maybe), and he's hurt. Everything else, no one wants or the Knicks want to keep.

What if the deal was structured to not only feature a talent upgrade but also included more cap flexibility and savings? In a vacuum, I'm not sure we could incentivize a deal well enough to justify the pick but the Cavs have such an extraordinarily large tax bill that I think Gilbert would consider it....especially since he'd still have to pay the luxury tax if/when LeBron leaves.

Something like Courtney Lee, Tim Hardaway Jr., Kyle O'Quinn and Lance Thomas for JR Smith, Iman Shumpert, Tristan Thompson and Channing Frye (as well as the Nets pick) works financially and saves the Cavs a prorated $9 million in salary as well as approximately $22.5 million worth of tax. The deal puts them in no better position to beat the Warriors but it certainly is a talent upgrade....even though they likely wouldn't be able to incorporate three new rotation players this late into the season.

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y7qy5k75

I'm not sure how much I'd like the deal for the Knicks either. Frye's an expiring contract but the rest is straight, long-term garbage and would effectively cripple any hopes of cap space for the next 3 seasons. Would the 9th pick in any average draft be worth that kind of commitment? I'd have to say "no" but Dolan's money is long and could maybe eat JR and Tristan's contracts. If any team is equipped to do something like that financially, it would be us.

No way we take on JR and Shump not even for Luca Doncic. Cleveland can keep them. And Tristan too, PUKE!!!! Straight up garbage doesn't even begin to described it.

Thompson is a bum and a moron (evidenced by dating a Kardashian) but he's redeemable as a backup center. I'd even go as far to say that he is an upgrade over Noah although that isn't saying much.

But you are certainly right about Iman and JR. Those are guys who are altogether useless. I'd waive JR almost immediately since he is a cancer but Iman only has one season left on his contract, which would make me inclined to keep him. So if we keep Thompson, Iman and stretch JR, it'd only cost us about $34 million for the next two seasons. With that understood, do you still feel the same way?

Knixkik wrote:

VCoug wrote:

reub wrote:If we are going to trade Willy (although I'd rather trade Kanter) I want back a young, defensive-minded SF like Kidd-Gilchrist or Harkless. That kind of a deal would address a position of need for us and fit the team's timeline.

MKG is interesting but man is it hard to look past his shooting.

I agree.