martin wrote:I think every rumor that the Knicks are in (or any team really but especially so with the Knicks cause of the clicks) have to be taken with a grain of salt and looked through that glass of Does this have an iota of sense behind it.

Both LA teams are hard capped and so ensconced in their respective rosters that it all but makes it impossible to trade for a player like Turner (a player like Drummond when he is bought out is obviously a bit different albeit still difficult). How does New Orleans even make sense when they already have Steven Adams and Zion, etc.?

With NY? They need to leverage Mitch a bit on his next contract and see what the market offers.

With Indiana? I'd guess that there is a fit thing with Turner and Sabonis? I'm guessing cause I don't follow the team. Also next year Doug McDermott and T.J. McConnell are UFA's and team is at $120M without them (I think they are part of the committed rotation?). I think Indiana is one of the more fiscally responsible (strapped?) teams out there. So maybe they want to offload a $18M contract for another low cost one in Mitch to balance out the salary sheet for another year?

Knicks would take on salary but would take on a good defensive player who actually has an offensive game while getting rid of a player who you can't place a finger on negotiation wise because you don't even know who his agent is this week.

IDK, that's just thinking out loud

smackeddog wrote:Alan Hahn maybe hinting these rumours are legit? (He said ion a podcast he will occasionally hint in code on his twitter as he's not allowed to come out and say it explicitly
:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/alanhahn/status/1371867766702153728

I don't , and never will, follow Pacers news. But if Myles doesn't fit well with Sabonis, how good of a fit would be with Randle?

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:I think every rumor that the Knicks are in (or any team really but especially so with the Knicks cause of the clicks) have to be taken with a grain of salt and looked through that glass of Does this have an iota of sense behind it.

Both LA teams are hard capped and so ensconced in their respective rosters that it all but makes it impossible to trade for a player like Turner (a player like Drummond when he is bought out is obviously a bit different albeit still difficult). How does New Orleans even make sense when they already have Steven Adams and Zion, etc.?

With NY? They need to leverage Mitch a bit on his next contract and see what the market offers.

With Indiana? I'd guess that there is a fit thing with Turner and Sabonis? I'm guessing cause I don't follow the team. Also next year Doug McDermott and T.J. McConnell are UFA's and team is at $120M without them (I think they are part of the committed rotation?). I think Indiana is one of the more fiscally responsible (strapped?) teams out there. So maybe they want to offload a $18M contract for another low cost one in Mitch to balance out the salary sheet for another year?

Knicks would take on salary but would take on a good defensive player who actually has an offensive game while getting rid of a player who you can't place a finger on negotiation wise because you don't even know who his agent is this week.

IDK, that's just thinking out loud

smackeddog wrote:Alan Hahn maybe hinting these rumours are legit? (He said ion a podcast he will occasionally hint in code on his twitter as he's not allowed to come out and say it explicitly
:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/alanhahn/status/1371867766702153728

I don't , and never will, follow Pacers news. But if Myles doesn't fit well with Sabonis, how good of a fit would be with Randle?

How well does a player like Mitch/Noel with a jumpshot fit with Randle?

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:I think every rumor that the Knicks are in (or any team really but especially so with the Knicks cause of the clicks) have to be taken with a grain of salt and looked through that glass of Does this have an iota of sense behind it.

Both LA teams are hard capped and so ensconced in their respective rosters that it all but makes it impossible to trade for a player like Turner (a player like Drummond when he is bought out is obviously a bit different albeit still difficult). How does New Orleans even make sense when they already have Steven Adams and Zion, etc.?

With NY? They need to leverage Mitch a bit on his next contract and see what the market offers.

With Indiana? I'd guess that there is a fit thing with Turner and Sabonis? I'm guessing cause I don't follow the team. Also next year Doug McDermott and T.J. McConnell are UFA's and team is at $120M without them (I think they are part of the committed rotation?). I think Indiana is one of the more fiscally responsible (strapped?) teams out there. So maybe they want to offload a $18M contract for another low cost one in Mitch to balance out the salary sheet for another year?

Knicks would take on salary but would take on a good defensive player who actually has an offensive game while getting rid of a player who you can't place a finger on negotiation wise because you don't even know who his agent is this week.

IDK, that's just thinking out loud

smackeddog wrote:Alan Hahn maybe hinting these rumours are legit? (He said ion a podcast he will occasionally hint in code on his twitter as he's not allowed to come out and say it explicitly
:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/alanhahn/status/1371867766702153728

I don't , and never will, follow Pacers news. But if Myles doesn't fit well with Sabonis, how good of a fit would be with Randle?

How well does a player like Mitch/Noel with a jumpshot fit with Randle?

GustavBahler wrote:The only reason I would see the FO making that move is that Turner would give us an elite shot blocker, like Mitch. But with only 2 years left on his deal, after this season. Give the FO continued cap flexibility. It would make sense if its part of a larger plan. Otherwise it seems like a lateral move, considering Mitch's progression this season.

If the FO decides they're trading Mitch, hope its for Lonzo. Not another big.

Lonzo’ s definitely my number one hope- not only does he fill a need now, but he allows us to stay flexible building forward as we can move him to SG and draft a PG, or have him at PG and draft a SG, plus he’d be a great complement in the backcourt with IQ, and can play alongside Rose (he’s had lots of experience playing next to Holiday and also Bledsoe)

Myles Turner is certainly further along in his development at 24 years. Mitch costs much less and still has upsize. Myles brings a bit more offensive game than Mitch. I don't think both would co-exist well on the same team so it makes sense to choose between the two to a large degree unless you felt you could get Myles for less and retain the bargaining chip.

Unclear to me why Myles Turner would not be able to co-exist with Sabonis but would be able to co-exist with Randall. Not identical games by any means, but I have to imagine Myles' offense wants to use the same real estate as Randle and Sabonis.

Kind of have to drill deep on Robinson vs Turner to see how their hustle stats otherwise line up.

smackeddog wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:The only reason I would see the FO making that move is that Turner would give us an elite shot blocker, like Mitch. But with only 2 years left on his deal, after this season. Give the FO continued cap flexibility. It would make sense if its part of a larger plan. Otherwise it seems like a lateral move, considering Mitch's progression this season.

If the FO decides they're trading Mitch, hope its for Lonzo. Not another big.

Lonzo’ s definitely my number one hope- not only does he fill a need now, but he allows us to stay flexible building forward as we can move him to SG and draft a PG, or have him at PG and draft a SG, plus he’d be a great complement in the backcourt with IQ, and can play alongside Rose (he’s had lots of experience playing next to Holiday and also Bledsoe)

I assume Rose returns on a MLE type deal, but big money to Lonzo might cost you resigning Noel. Not sure Ball is worth that... OR he could be the next buy low Julius Randle type of deal. He's a good kid and hard working and likable teammate. If it just money and he IS really good and on the ups its a great signing. Excited to see what the FO does.

fishmike wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:The only reason I would see the FO making that move is that Turner would give us an elite shot blocker, like Mitch. But with only 2 years left on his deal, after this season. Give the FO continued cap flexibility. It would make sense if its part of a larger plan. Otherwise it seems like a lateral move, considering Mitch's progression this season.

If the FO decides they're trading Mitch, hope its for Lonzo. Not another big.

Lonzo’ s definitely my number one hope- not only does he fill a need now, but he allows us to stay flexible building forward as we can move him to SG and draft a PG, or have him at PG and draft a SG, plus he’d be a great complement in the backcourt with IQ, and can play alongside Rose (he’s had lots of experience playing next to Holiday and also Bledsoe)

there's an article saying NOP wont match anything >$18mm as they are **** scared of luxury tax. Knicks could just put a big offer out there and sign him.

I assume Rose returns on a MLE type deal, but big money to Lonzo might cost you resigning Noel. Not sure Ball is worth that... OR he could be the next buy low Julius Randle type of deal. He's a good kid and hard working and likable teammate. If it just money and he IS really good and on the ups its a great signing. Excited to see what the FO does.

$18M would perfect. Anything over $20M is a no go for me. Randle did show more upside when we signed him. I'm still not sure what Lonzo's prime upside is. I know I've been down on these guys, but if I had to choose Trent or Fournier at somewhere between $15M-$20M or Ball at $20M<, I'd say Trent and Fournier look like more attractive options.