TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:So, if it were possible, would you guys do it?
Some thoughts, it's an interesting pair of scenarios, but things I think would have to be openly addressed before any kind of deal could be consummated
A) Could the existing NOP front office survive trading Anthony Davis. I would say No to be honest. This is the type of trade that 99 percent of owners would simply veto from a marketing perspective. Trading multiple parts for a higher end player may be feasible in baseball or rarely in the NFL, but historically its ended up badly for teams in the NBA. Trading Davis would essentially boil down to him refusing to resign with the NOP and expiring on his rookie deal, he would need to openly attack the fan base in the press ( a common strategy to get traded out of town), the Knicks would need to offer the best overall option out of ALL options for possible trade ( other teams simply have more assets and more flexibility), the NOP front office would need an incoming and fresh GM or one outgoing to make the deal because a guy trying to keep his job could not make this trade and survive it i.e. a new GM would be seen under marching orders and this legacy would be the fault of the previous regime and an outgoing doesn't care since he's getting clipped anyway AND Davis would have to OK with signing a MAX extension with the Knicks, which would be instantly gutted to get him on their roster, except for Noah's dead contract.
Could it happen? Yes, in theory. Would it happen? It would need 8-9 super unlikely things to occur in a very specific sequence. And Davis would want to come to NY above all else. Is that very common in terms of NBA player and marketplace history? Not very common. Guys want max money, max years and the best chance to win.
B) What third team would want Jamal Crawford? He's aging, now injury prone, and he's never been a seamless fit on a roster and he's a bad contract. You could move him IF a positive trade asset was going with him. Who pays that asset? The Knicks have close to no trade leverage with Melo ( trade kicker and NTC) so any incoming asset in return for the Melo deal would need to instantly go out to comp a team to take in Crawfords deal.
The Clippers also have no incentive to trade draft picks, much less four of them, for Melo. No team would do that practically. Also any 2023 pick would extend beyond the range of where the current CBA applies to standards for how rookie contracts operate. No team would want to trade that far into uncertainty. A couple of 2nds? Maybe. But firsts, much less several and an unprotected pick? Sorry, I just can't see it. Flip the teams and circumstances around, if the Knicks and Clippers situations were reversed, would you want the Knicks to trade four picks, a young player and move an additional asset to move Crawford ( since it's still unclear who pays that specific tab) for two years of a ball stopping no defense chucker eating massive cap while playing a redundant position ( i.e. they already have Griffin at PF)?
I simply do not see any trade scenario where Melo moves and the Knicks do not take in a bad contract in exchange. The salary matching is just too hard without taking in a bad contract, and Melo is not going to a gutted team, not with his NTC.
I'll always give you specific credit for thinking out of the box and at least considering what other teams need and want and how they might operate in trade scenarios, but I think the issues I just brought up are too complicated to overcome for the Knicks.
It might simply be that the Knicks have to take in Austin Rivers, turn this trade into a four team massive trade, and use Austin Rivers to flip him to another team for expirings and a positive asset, if possible, and use that asset to pay for another team to absorb Crawfords contract. And this would mean Melo would move and nothing positive would come back except getting him off the roster and opening up future cap space. To me, this is the only realistic scenario to not eat Crawfords contract.
To move Melo off the roster, the Knicks need to eat something ugly. Sorry to say it, I just don't see a way around it at this point.
C) Trading for Jimmy Butler would be trading for a player in his prime, outside of cost control, to acquire him would gut the team of it's most valuable young cost controlled assets PLUS it would be trading big for small. How could you build around Butler? He doesn't seem like a low maintenance type, how would he react to NY, it's rabid media and no roster around him?
A.) Come what may, the Pelicans front office is highly unlikely to be retained should they guage the market for Davis or not. Outside of Anthony Davis (giftwrapped to them by the league), the franchise has no tangible assets to show for having been subpar all of these years. And the damage done by men like Dell Demps has been amplified by their penchant for overpaying subpar players to long-term deals. Heading into the 20017-2018 season, the franchise is committed to approximately $80 million ($79.3 according to HoopsHype) and will still have Jrue Holiday to re-sign, as well as 7 vacant roster spots to fill. With a cap estimated to be about $103 million, the Pelicans have very little flexibility to upgrade the roster and have very few alternatives to replace Jrue Holiday if they fail to meet his contract demands.
Few teams get better or better their situation by moving a talent like Anthony Davis but do the Pelicans really have a choice? They won't have the money to build a competitive roster around him and keeping him barely furthers their bottom line (are estimated to have only made $16 million in profits last season).
Enter: Kristaps Porzingis (and company). No, he is not the player Davis is at the moment BUT he has the potential to reach that level of stardom, while creating a level of intrigue that will keep fans coming to the games in the interim. Should the Knicks assume several of the horrendous contracts Demps penned, the Pelicans will have the tools to hit the proverbial "reset button" to clear their books and healthily build around another rising star big man. Doing so might also affect their bottom-line since the lowered overhead in player salaries might allow them to even turn more of a profit than they did with half-sold arenas with Davis.
B.) Jamal Crawford's contract is effectively a one year flier, since this season has nearly concluded and third year is non-guaranteed. With more thsn half of the league having cap space yet again, what free agents are the Nets or Sixers reasonably going to pursue that won't be similarly overpaid? At the very least, Crawford at least allows your payroll to reach the salary-floor and offers an "entertaining" style of play until either franchise stabilizes themselves and are able to become a sustainable winner.
As for whether the Clippers would overpay for Melo, I think they would. This is the Doc Rivers show and I have very little confidence in his judgment of talent, which could allow us to get an upperhand in negotiations; particularly with CP3 and Blake Griffin as impending free agents. Two future firsts would be a must for me though. Not only are we giving up an "all-star" player, we are also replacing JJ Redick with the cost-controlled contract of Courtney Lee that could help replicate some of what they would invitably lose when JJ walks for a bigger pay-day. That has value and we'd need to be appropriately compensated for the expense.
C.) Up until he started publically criticizing teammates, Butler has been fairly low-key. I view this season as an anomaly and still believe he has the mental makeup of a winner (which Tom Thibs seems to vouch for). I do think the asking price for him will be high but if we were to get the no.1 overall pick in the draft, I do feel that a deal would be feasible....but we'd definitely need several enticing draft picks as well.
