Sinix wrote:How about some sort of combination 3 way trade where its Melo to the Cavs, CJ McCollum to the Cavs, Love to the Blazers, Picks and salary dump to the Knicks.

Who says no? Cavs end up with Kyrie, CJ, Lebron, Melo, Tristin which can actually challenge GS. Portland gets their salary dump and pairs Love with Lillard for a more balanced max pairing than CJ. Knicks shed Melo and get picks.

I think that McCollum is more valuable to the Blazers than Kevin Love at this juncture of their career. I've got a sneaky suspicion that Love's about to fall off a cliff due to his health.

NardDogNation wrote:

fwk00 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Would Lance Thomas, $3million, the 44th and 58th pick for Evan Turner, Allen Crabbe and the 15th pick be out of the question?

With the Blazers positioned to be well over the cap next season, I could see them being willing to dump BOTH Turner and Crabbe who provide them marginal utility at $35 million combined salary per year. For that hefty a pricetag, I can't help but think they'd be willing to pony up that 15th pick. The only holdup would be the fact that Justin Jackson would likely be available at 15th and he would fit the Blazers wonderfully. But as far as Turner and Crabber are concerned, I think they'd be willing to dump both.

That being said, could Crabbe live up to that contract with us?

I think where discussions about potential trades go off the tracks is when they get too complicated or too large. IMO, swallowing an expensive contract to get a draft pick or two is fine as long as the Knicks aren't painted into a corner doing so. I think either the Crabbe or Turner contracts could be safely absorbed uncomfortable as that may be.

I've written plenty as to Portland's considerations. Here's why I think the Knicks are more likely to trade for Crabbe.

First I think they cash in on Courtney Lee so Crabbe basically takes that spot. With Turner I see no such opportunity. Randle and Baker are both coming on strong and assuming the Knicks draft a high-profile PG, why do they need a high-priced PG like Turner? Trading for Turner not only absorbs cap space but playing time as well.

Secondly, lots of fans want to simply flip rosters whether its Crabbe AND Turner or some combination of the rest of Portland's team. While its usually theoretically possible to do that, it pretty much puts the Knicks in the position Portland's in - not very good, capped out, and **** out of luck in terms of flexibility.

Furthermore I think the Knicks have options - Detroit is looking to trade its pick and others will also inevitably trade/swap/whatever before during and after the draft. The Knicks may be looking for only one pick in which case neither Turner nor Crabbe's contract justify a deal. The Knicks today only have Melo and Noah as problem contracts. The rest are reasonable AND desirable for that reason and because the players are not *******s.

And if a single pick [AND Harkless] is the target then the speculation about a lower cost contract like Harkless is theoretically reasonable. Pragmatically, the problem is matching enough value to whoever is being traded [LThomas most obviously] to make it worthwhile for Portland. I think a future, protected first would be a minimum and I'm not sure the Knicks do that.

And again we're back to the chicken and egg problem with Portland's draft picks. Other teams [like Dallas] will compete for those same picks. Portland isn't trading for the sake of trading, they'll want SOMEBODY to eat Crabbe, Turner, or more for a handful of lottery tickets. Any Harkless trade that gets in the way of that main objective will be treated like unnecessary noise.

How is this trade too large? There are only 3 players and two teams involved in it.

That aside, how many of these journeymen/undrafted "projects" are we going to hype before realizing that their best case scenario is a 2nd or 3rd string player? Jeremy Tyler, Tourre Murray, Ricky Ledo, Derrick Brown, Travis Wear...shall I go on? I'm not passing on an opportunity to improve this team or its cache of assets to accomodate a dime-a-dozen talent.

Besides, Crabbe and Turner only have 3 years left on their contract, which is something we can live with. And more importantly, both are legitimate NBA players. This rebuild would take about 3 years anyway, so we shouldn't be looking to sign any big-ticketed during this period anyway. And when you consider that we'd be drafting young players on cost controlled contracts, that $28 million net gain, should be no major impediment to our financial flexibility.

The thirty-odd MILLION difference is why its not simple http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y7d2t5qd

Sinix wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Sinix wrote:How about some sort of combination 3 way trade where its Melo to the Cavs, CJ McCollum to the Cavs, Love to the Blazers, Picks and salary dump to the Knicks.

Who says no? Cavs end up with Kyrie, CJ, Lebron, Melo, Tristin which can actually challenge GS. Portland gets their salary dump and pairs Love with Lillard for a more balanced max pairing than CJ. Knicks shed Melo and get picks.

I think that McCollum is more valuable to the Blazers than Kevin Love at this juncture of their career. I've got a sneaky suspicion that Love's about to fall off a cliff due to his health.

If I were to pitch the trade, I would do it this way.

Lillard and McCollum conflict as two superstar guards on the same team without a top forward/center. Better to split your top guys between guard and forward. Not only that but Portland has too many guards.

Lillard(superstar guard)
Crabbe(3 & D shooting guard)
Harkless(value SF who is very productive for his contract)
Love(big time forward who can rack up points and rebounds if the team is balanced the right way

Love makes about 4m per year less than CJ and if they are sending out Turner/McCollum it leaves them room to make another big signing to take this team to the next level.

What if they make a run for Cousins and pair up Lillard/Love/Cousins?

I would put them 2nd in the west.

But that's the thing, Lillard and McCullom don't "conflict" on or off the court. So why make this deal? Even with Cousins, they might not be much better than where they currently are.

gunsnewing wrote:

fishmike wrote:

smackeddog wrote:We wanted to sign Evan Turner last season, so I fear it would be for his salary

Why fear? His salary is bad but the pick is worth it if they have a player they really like. Depends on what pick but KOQ for Turner and #15 would be a nice move for the Knicks.

Then we trade whoever we draft at 15 like Hardaway and Grant and we are left wondering why we traded for Turner's awful contract

As then an alien sneaks into your house and steals you socks for fuel.

https://t.co/yTCXpYZoL3

newyorker4ever wrote:I didn't look around so i'm not sure this article has been posted on here or not but it's a good read if you haven't seen it and gives a good look on the worth of draft picks and taking on contracts. This is linked to a Blazers/Knicks trade and some scenarios that could happen between the two teams.

https://t.co/yTCXpYZoL3

The number of incorrect assertions in this article are so numerous it isn't worth writing a book about it. The easiest way to dispute what this guy is saying is to read up on lottery tickets. Buying two doesn't double your chance of winning it just gives you two opportunities to participate with the same odds of winning as one ticket.

Portland's picks are not that valuable. And the suggestion that all three are worth the same as eight is silly on two fronts - potential talent and potential savings.

Portland's picks amount to something along the lines of Cleanthony Early talent who isn't dropping though the draft. Phil isn't rebuilding the Knicks with one of those midling picks, he will be looking to complement pick #8 and MAYBE, MAYBE get an additional asset worth developing.

So the discussion always comes back to Thomas, O'Quinn, and Lee all of whom are under a reasonable contract, dependable contributors when healthy, and respectable roster additions on almost any NBA team. They represent solid, more or less sure-thing value.

The difference with Turner is fiscal cost, opportunity cost, and sure-thing reputation. If Phil drafts a high-profile PG at #8, will he be playing behind Turner? If Turner is the PG candidate, how long do the Knicks dedicate to rehabilitating his game and get back to rebuilding?

The question is not whether or not the Knicks can fiscally afford to absorb him but whether the sweetner pick is worth the effort. IMO it would have to be #15. Its a roll of the dice.

But as a fan, I would rather take a chance with Crabbe - get Rubio or use a pick on a PG. Goofing around with yet another compromise PG makes little sense to me - could mean another lost season or two. Crabbe is more fungible either at the 2, 3 or 6 (or lower) spots depending on how well he plays.

BRIGGS wrote:

fwk00 wrote:

newyorker4ever wrote:I didn't look around so i'm not sure this article has been posted on here or not but it's a good read if you haven't seen it and gives a good look on the worth of draft picks and taking on contracts. This is linked to a Blazers/Knicks trade and some scenarios that could happen between the two teams.

https://t.co/yTCXpYZoL3

The number of incorrect assertions in this article are so numerous it isn't worth writing a book about it. The easiest way to dispute what this guy is saying is to read up on lottery tickets. Buying two doesn't double your chance of winning it just gives you two opportunities to participate with the same odds of winning as one ticket.

Portland's picks are not that valuable. And the suggestion that all three are worth the same as eight is silly on two fronts - potential talent and potential savings.

Portland's picks amount to something along the lines of Cleanthony Early talent who isn't dropping though the draft. Phil isn't rebuilding the Knicks with one of those midling picks, he will be looking to complement pick #8 and MAYBE, MAYBE get an additional asset worth developing.

So the discussion always comes back to Thomas, O'Quinn, and Lee all of whom are under a reasonable contract, dependable contributors when healthy, and respectable roster additions on almost any NBA team. They represent solid, more or less sure-thing value.

The difference with Turner is fiscal cost, opportunity cost, and sure-thing reputation. If Phil drafts a high-profile PG at #8, will he be playing behind Turner? If Turner is the PG candidate, how long do the Knicks dedicate to rehabilitating his game and get back to rebuilding?

The question is not whether or not the Knicks can fiscally afford to absorb him but whether the sweetner pick is worth the effort. IMO it would have to be #15. Its a roll of the dice.

But as a fan, I would rather take a chance with Crabbe - get Rubio or use a pick on a PG. Goofing around with yet another compromise PG makes little sense to me - could mean another lost season or two. Crabbe is more fungible either at the 2, 3 or 6 (or lower) spots depending on how well he plays.

Well look back and I guarantee--absolute guarantee that picks 15-20-26 with have more cumulative value than pick #8--its not even a question in my mind. The odds of just one of those picks being as good as 8 is high.

I will guarantee you that some player who falls through the draft will be as good or better than the players picked at 15, 20, and 26. So what?

You're just playing the age old Knicks bashing game. Its a narrative that laments picking player X when player Y became a star being picked after player X. Basketball draft self-flagellation.

The broader point is where any draft pick fits in terms of playing time. If they get no development time, its a waste. If its a longer term investment, that is another story that won't unfold for years no matter what other player for some other team decides to do.

If you think about a Melo-less Knicks roster and the imperative to surround Porzingis with a winning culture (and presumably a winning team), what can we expect from Phil?

I think the Rubio rumors are obvious and a no-brainer. Rubio can step in a stabilize the defense and ensure a passing game. It allows the Knicks to draft a PG later in the draft - someone who simply joins Baker and Randle as another understudy. What we know about Phil's/Gaines preferences are long, unselfish players. There's an abundance throughout the draft that fill that criteria.

If the Knicks current role players are moved, I expect the Knicks to be investing in older picks later in the draft. Players needing less time to develop and more capable of contributing quickly and they're better known - less likely to bust. I don't think the Knicks want to soon revisit the lottery based on their own record.