I thought I was being a homer when I felt we had the better offer but now with confirmation I'm going to let my full feelings fly. The Jazz were going to try and drain us of everything if they were forced to trade him to us due to a market not being there for Mitchell. They just needed one other team to come close to us and they would trade him there instead. Which is why he never went back to the Knicks one final time to see if they would beat the Cavs offer. In my opinion, we had already beat their offer. I am still glad we did not do that trade. I had already had these feelings but once smackeddog made that post about what the Jazz said they did not want from us but happily took from the Cavs I was 100% sold that they never wanted to send him here.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nba_newyork/status/1566588630176514048

Ainge didn’t really want to send Michell to NY. Leon prob sensed and that’s why he put out that Monday RJ resign deadline (amongst other reasons).

Clean wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/RicBucher/status/1566549946404577280

We figured this out already but it's nice to get confirmation.

martin wrote:

martin wrote:For me Ric’s style of podcast is somewhere between annoying and whack (holy crap that overly dramatic voice) but there are a few tidbits of info layered in-between oodles of back-page sensational style articles, but he has one good point IMHO: Cavs picks may very well turn into 3 picks in their 20’s, and besides the 3 players he got (which ain’t much), that didn’t come close to offer Knicks had on table.

Ainge didn’t really want to send Michell to NY. Leon prob sensed and that’s why he put out that Monday RJ resign deadline (amongst other reasons).

Clean wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/RicBucher/status/1566549946404577280

We figured this out already but it's nice to get confirmation.

Also interesting to see multiple reports stating Knicks wanted to start the unprotected picks in 2024.

IMHO Knicks are all in on 2023 draft.

That’s an interesting idea, after this year’s draft trade I am interested to hear why you think they are high on 2023’s draft?” It’s too early even for a draft fanatic like me to look into it, but it seems like a average draft class overall.

martin wrote:

wargames wrote:

martin wrote:

martin wrote:For me Ric’s style of podcast is somewhere between annoying and whack (holy crap that overly dramatic voice) but there are a few tidbits of info layered in-between oodles of back-page sensational style articles, but he has one good point IMHO: Cavs picks may very well turn into 3 picks in their 20’s, and besides the 3 players he got (which ain’t much), that didn’t come close to offer Knicks had on table.

Ainge didn’t really want to send Michell to NY. Leon prob sensed and that’s why he put out that Monday RJ resign deadline (amongst other reasons).

Clean wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/RicBucher/status/1566549946404577280

We figured this out already but it's nice to get confirmation.

Also interesting to see multiple reports stating Knicks wanted to start the unprotected picks in 2024.

IMHO Knicks are all in on 2023 draft.

That’s an interesting idea, after this year’s draft trade I am interested to hear why you think they are high on 2023’s draft?” It’s too early even for a draft fanatic like me to look into it, but it seems like a average draft class overall.

Right now it’s considered to be one of the best and deepest drafts in a very long time, far from average.

I’ve only heard a lot of hype for Victor and Scoot. Those two have scouts going crazy, but I’ll start to look at the rest. It’s always so hard to go through draft media right now. Every scout page has different names going in the top 30.

I could see the Knicks trading 1 of them to move Fournier or Randle for a better player and then keeping the other. I really just don’t know if this team can take on one rookie let alone two. Keep an eye out on Jalen Wilson he a national champion, pretty talented, and as a junior someone most teams will ignore.

Whereas if they traded for Mitchell they would have definitely needed both those 2023:picks to try and recoup some depth.

smackeddog wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:Ainge did us a big favor, wait and see.

This is why the way these, essentially all future picks, trades are covered annoys me sometimes- yes, those 2027-29 picks might be very high, however they could also be late 20s, but by the time 2027-29 rolls along, who (apart from us grudge bearing fans) cares or even remembers. But they tend to be regarded as 'possible top 5 picks' in the meantime. I agree with Bill Simmons on this one- they're trades done to buy the GMs time- they can just claim "Oh, just wait until those picks!" while getting the s***iest results (in terms of wins) imaginable for years (see Sam presti).

Personally I think the nba needs to restrict further how far into the future you can trade first rounders, I just think it's unfair to future fans and future GMs and front offices of those teams that give up all their future capital. If/ when we give up all our future picks, I don't think that's fair on future, younger Knicks fans that I essentially sold them out so I got to enjoy player x, while player x is either too old or gone AND they don't have draft to look forward to for years.

And get rid of pick swaps too, they were a way of getting round the sensible restriction of banning teams from trading away consecutive draft picks.

By restricting the max number of 1st round picks to three of the team's own in trades (no restriction on other teams picks they may possess), then we can go back to having a mixture of picks and players in trades, which I think is better and fairer for all fans. It's getting ridiculous with OKC and the Jazz and the Rockets

I think it all started with Theo Ratliff, a good but not great player, who signed a massive contract that later ended up?being ballast for trades for Mutombo, Rasheed, and Garnett. Teams realized even bad contracts have value with enough draft picks and prospects attached.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/docKev_/status/1565519757561978883

I am copying the below text from Realgm but it makes a lot of sense, based on whispered rumors we heard going back months.

Feel free to read/listen to how/why Lowe believes this supposed "slight" impacted the negotiations. Just a reminder, those playoff games were back in April--i.e., well before trading for Mitchell would have been thought possible--and the Knicks were likely there to see Brunson. Again, I could certainly understand Cuban being pissed--I have no idea why Danny and the gang would have been angry.

There are also numerous reports suggesting that Danny and Leon never talked directly, and that Leon became increasingly upset at what he thought was "disrespect." Again, none of us were there--at least I wasn't--but this is Woj saying that the offer was made, and Lowe saying Danny (and Leon) both got upset about stuff that (imo) shouldn't have been part of the trade negotiations.

What I think happened is that Leon started the negotiations with an absurdly (at least to me) high bid--far higher than what Danny eventually got from Cleveland--hoping to close the deal quickly. And Danny for whatever reason--possibly he was still angry at the "slight" from April--said no and asked for more. And then Leon got pissed and lowered his offer. And Danny raised his demands. And Leon lowered his offer again. Rinse, wash, and repeat...for two wasted months.

Again, I never wanted Mitchell at that price for Knicks. Mitchell went to a far better place--the Cavs retained multiple plus defenders and high-end offensive threats to complement him. With that core, they likely will compete for top-4 in the East for at least the duration of Mitchell's contract--rendering their unprotected frps no big loss. On the other hand, even our first offer would have left the Knicks at best a play-in contender for the duration of Mitchell's contract. (Much more likely, we would have been in the lottery throughout, without assets to make another trade...and with all our frps going to Utah.)

Basically, Danny saved us from ourselves.

EwingsGlass wrote:

wargames wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/docKev_/status/1565519757561978883

Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?

I think they were there for Brunson, and to give public support for Randle, who was getting crapped on daily by us fans. However, who knows maybe it was a open secret the Jazz were on the cusp of breaking it up and they felt the Knicks were like Vultures.

A lot of this is spin on the fact a lot of reporters rightfully feel the Knicks offered multiple deals better than what Danny got. Plus the whole “signing RJ” felt like a “Fuck you” to Ainge not accepting theirs earlier offers. The Knicks initial offer of RJ, Mitch, and two picks and their last offer of RJ, IQ, and a 3rd pick with lite protections are all better than what Utah got from the Cavs.