Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

Their effects on the team would not be remotely similar. Curry is somewhere between a billion and a trillion times better than Kyrie. I'm not saying Irving is a bad player. He's just going to cost too much. It's quite rare to trade for a star and get a good deal. You have to spot players before they become stars like the Rockets did with Harden or trade for a player when his trade value plummets (Butler) not when the guy is coming off finals appearances and has a high trade value. You want to trade for stars? Fine but you don't buy high. Whether you're looking for a star, a role player, draft picks, or anything else, you've gotta buy low. We missed our chance to add a star at a reasonable cost this summer (Butler).

We didn't have enough to offer for Butler unless we traded KP.

Did you see how little Chicago got for him? How could we not be able to beat that? I bet if we gave up pick 8 and insisted on a future top 20 protected pick instead of this year's top 16 back, that would have been good enough. Or 2 2nd round picks. There would be other options too. We have assets that are more appealing than what Chicago got and don't involve trading KP. And Butler is better on both ends of the court than Kyrie even though he's less flashy.
I'm not even saying I wanted to go that direction. That's just if we wanted to add a star and get better right away.

Chi got ripped off, but Minny still gave more then we could offer. Gave up last yrs lotto pick Dunn who even though looked like a bust his rookie yr still held value. Lavine who dropped 19-3-3 last yr at the age of 22. And right to swap the #7 lotto pick with #16.

Knick had no lotto pick from last year to trade like Dunn(Possibly Willy will admit), And didn't have a Lavine type of player to trade other than KP. Knicks could have offered Willy, #8 after selection, and rights to 2019 pick. But adding Lavine & #7 is more valuable. If the Knicks added another future draft pick. Would make it extremely hard to actually build around Butler and KP. Though Butler would be more worth it than Kyrie. He is the goods offensively and defensively.

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

Their effects on the team would not be remotely similar. Curry is somewhere between a billion and a trillion times better than Kyrie. I'm not saying Irving is a bad player. He's just going to cost too much. It's quite rare to trade for a star and get a good deal. You have to spot players before they become stars like the Rockets did with Harden or trade for a player when his trade value plummets (Butler) not when the guy is coming off finals appearances and has a high trade value. You want to trade for stars? Fine but you don't buy high. Whether you're looking for a star, a role player, draft picks, or anything else, you've gotta buy low. We missed our chance to add a star at a reasonable cost this summer (Butler).

We didn't have enough to offer for Butler unless we traded KP.

Did you see how little Chicago got for him? How could we not be able to beat that? I bet if we gave up pick 8 and insisted on a future top 20 protected pick instead of this year's top 16 back, that would have been good enough. Or 2 2nd round picks. There would be other options too. We have assets that are more appealing than what Chicago got and don't involve trading KP. And Butler is better on both ends of the court than Kyrie even though he's less flashy.
I'm not even saying I wanted to go that direction. That's just if we wanted to add a star and get better right away.

We have to add a star, there isn't and question about it.

Thats why I think this melo to Houston trade is suck in position, there's no rising star in any package, no expiring contracts, and no current star, and the drafts pick are suspect.

The market for marquee players ain't like what it use to be

Eventually we should add a star. Doesn't mean we have to rush into acquiring one giving up to many assets putting him in position to fail.

That extra pick acquired in the Melo deal could be repackaged with one of our picks with a Courtney Lee or Hardaway jr for an upgrade. We could move our possible lotto pick at the draft for a stud.

newyorknewyork wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

Their effects on the team would not be remotely similar. Curry is somewhere between a billion and a trillion times better than Kyrie. I'm not saying Irving is a bad player. He's just going to cost too much. It's quite rare to trade for a star and get a good deal. You have to spot players before they become stars like the Rockets did with Harden or trade for a player when his trade value plummets (Butler) not when the guy is coming off finals appearances and has a high trade value. You want to trade for stars? Fine but you don't buy high. Whether you're looking for a star, a role player, draft picks, or anything else, you've gotta buy low. We missed our chance to add a star at a reasonable cost this summer (Butler).

We didn't have enough to offer for Butler unless we traded KP.

Did you see how little Chicago got for him? How could we not be able to beat that? I bet if we gave up pick 8 and insisted on a future top 20 protected pick instead of this year's top 16 back, that would have been good enough. Or 2 2nd round picks. There would be other options too. We have assets that are more appealing than what Chicago got and don't involve trading KP. And Butler is better on both ends of the court than Kyrie even though he's less flashy.
I'm not even saying I wanted to go that direction. That's just if we wanted to add a star and get better right away.

We have to add a star, there isn't and question about it.

Thats why I think this melo to Houston trade is suck in position, there's no rising star in any package, no expiring contracts, and no current star, and the drafts pick are suspect.

The market for marquee players ain't like what it use to be

Eventually we should add a star. Doesn't mean we have to rush into acquiring one giving up to many assets putting him in position to fail.

That extra pick acquired in the Melo deal could be repackaged with one of our picks with a Courtney Lee or Hardaway jr for an upgrade. We could move our possible lotto pick at the draft for a stud.

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

Their effects on the team would not be remotely similar. Curry is somewhere between a billion and a trillion times better than Kyrie. I'm not saying Irving is a bad player. He's just going to cost too much. It's quite rare to trade for a star and get a good deal. You have to spot players before they become stars like the Rockets did with Harden or trade for a player when his trade value plummets (Butler) not when the guy is coming off finals appearances and has a high trade value. You want to trade for stars? Fine but you don't buy high. Whether you're looking for a star, a role player, draft picks, or anything else, you've gotta buy low. We missed our chance to add a star at a reasonable cost this summer (Butler).

We didn't have enough to offer for Butler unless we traded KP.

Did you see how little Chicago got for him? How could we not be able to beat that? I bet if we gave up pick 8 and insisted on a future top 20 protected pick instead of this year's top 16 back, that would have been good enough. Or 2 2nd round picks. There would be other options too. We have assets that are more appealing than what Chicago got and don't involve trading KP. And Butler is better on both ends of the court than Kyrie even though he's less flashy.
I'm not even saying I wanted to go that direction. That's just if we wanted to add a star and get better right away.

Chi got ripped off, but Minny still gave more then we could offer. Gave up last yrs lotto pick Dunn who even though looked like a bust his rookie yr still held value. Lavine who dropped 19-3-3 last yr at the age of 22. And right to swap the #7 lotto pick with #16.

Knick had no lotto pick from last year to trade like Dunn(Possibly Willy will admit), And didn't have a Lavine type of player to trade other than KP. Knicks could have offered Willy, #8 after selection, and rights to 2019 pick. But adding Lavine & #7 is more valuable. If the Knicks added another future draft pick. Would make it extremely hard to actually build around Butler and KP. Though Butler would be more worth it than Kyrie. He is the goods offensively and defensively.

I'm guessing we're pretty far apart in our views of Lavine and Dunn and maybe Willy. Probably not actually worth arguing about that, though. I suspect it would end in an agree to disagree position. The point is if we have enough to get Kyrie, clearly we had enough to get Butler since he had lower trade value. And Butler is better on both ends of the court.

I'm looking at it from Chi's perspective. I'm not high on Lavine or Dunn either. But Chi may have viewed Lavine being 22, won an epic dunk contest so is known by general public, dropping 19-3-3, they may view him as a rising star even if his analytics are poor. They clearly put a lot of weight on getting a young player that has already produced. Knicks wouldn't be able to offer any player in that mold except KP.

Wolves also had more to offer period with Wiggins, Rubio, Deing available to be packaged and future draft picks.

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

Their effects on the team would not be remotely similar. Curry is somewhere between a billion and a trillion times better than Kyrie. I'm not saying Irving is a bad player. He's just going to cost too much. It's quite rare to trade for a star and get a good deal. You have to spot players before they become stars like the Rockets did with Harden or trade for a player when his trade value plummets (Butler) not when the guy is coming off finals appearances and has a high trade value. You want to trade for stars? Fine but you don't buy high. Whether you're looking for a star, a role player, draft picks, or anything else, you've gotta buy low. We missed our chance to add a star at a reasonable cost this summer (Butler).

We didn't have enough to offer for Butler unless we traded KP.

Did you see how little Chicago got for him? How could we not be able to beat that? I bet if we gave up pick 8 and insisted on a future top 20 protected pick instead of this year's top 16 back, that would have been good enough. Or 2 2nd round picks. There would be other options too. We have assets that are more appealing than what Chicago got and don't involve trading KP. And Butler is better on both ends of the court than Kyrie even though he's less flashy.
I'm not even saying I wanted to go that direction. That's just if we wanted to add a star and get better right away.

Chi got ripped off, but Minny still gave more then we could offer. Gave up last yrs lotto pick Dunn who even though looked like a bust his rookie yr still held value. Lavine who dropped 19-3-3 last yr at the age of 22. And right to swap the #7 lotto pick with #16.

Knick had no lotto pick from last year to trade like Dunn(Possibly Willy will admit), And didn't have a Lavine type of player to trade other than KP. Knicks could have offered Willy, #8 after selection, and rights to 2019 pick. But adding Lavine & #7 is more valuable. If the Knicks added another future draft pick. Would make it extremely hard to actually build around Butler and KP. Though Butler would be more worth it than Kyrie. He is the goods offensively and defensively.

I'm guessing we're pretty far apart in our views of Lavine and Dunn and maybe Willy. Probably not actually worth arguing about that, though. I suspect it would end in an agree to disagree position. The point is if we have enough to get Kyrie, clearly we had enough to get Butler since he had lower trade value. And Butler is better on both ends of the court.

I'm looking at it from Chi's perspective. I'm not high on Lavine or Dunn either. But Chi may have viewed Lavine being 22, won an epic dunk contest so is known by general public, dropping 19-3-3, they may view him as a rising star even if his analytics are poor. They clearly put a lot of weight on getting a young player that has already produced. Knicks wouldn't be able to offer any player in that mold except KP.

Wolves also had more to offer period with Wiggins, Rubio, Deing available to be packaged and future draft picks.

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

Their effects on the team would not be remotely similar. Curry is somewhere between a billion and a trillion times better than Kyrie. I'm not saying Irving is a bad player. He's just going to cost too much. It's quite rare to trade for a star and get a good deal. You have to spot players before they become stars like the Rockets did with Harden or trade for a player when his trade value plummets (Butler) not when the guy is coming off finals appearances and has a high trade value. You want to trade for stars? Fine but you don't buy high. Whether you're looking for a star, a role player, draft picks, or anything else, you've gotta buy low. We missed our chance to add a star at a reasonable cost this summer (Butler).

We didn't have enough to offer for Butler unless we traded KP.

Did you see how little Chicago got for him? How could we not be able to beat that? I bet if we gave up pick 8 and insisted on a future top 20 protected pick instead of this year's top 16 back, that would have been good enough. Or 2 2nd round picks. There would be other options too. We have assets that are more appealing than what Chicago got and don't involve trading KP. And Butler is better on both ends of the court than Kyrie even though he's less flashy.
I'm not even saying I wanted to go that direction. That's just if we wanted to add a star and get better right away.

Chi got ripped off, but Minny still gave more then we could offer. Gave up last yrs lotto pick Dunn who even though looked like a bust his rookie yr still held value. Lavine who dropped 19-3-3 last yr at the age of 22. And right to swap the #7 lotto pick with #16.

Knick had no lotto pick from last year to trade like Dunn(Possibly Willy will admit), And didn't have a Lavine type of player to trade other than KP. Knicks could have offered Willy, #8 after selection, and rights to 2019 pick. But adding Lavine & #7 is more valuable. If the Knicks added another future draft pick. Would make it extremely hard to actually build around Butler and KP. Though Butler would be more worth it than Kyrie. He is the goods offensively and defensively.

I'm guessing we're pretty far apart in our views of Lavine and Dunn and maybe Willy. Probably not actually worth arguing about that, though. I suspect it would end in an agree to disagree position. The point is if we have enough to get Kyrie, clearly we had enough to get Butler since he had lower trade value. And Butler is better on both ends of the court.

I'm looking at it from Chi's perspective. I'm not high on Lavine or Dunn either. But Chi may have viewed Lavine being 22, won an epic dunk contest so is known by general public, dropping 19-3-3, they may view him as a rising star even if his analytics are poor. They clearly put a lot of weight on getting a young player that has already produced. Knicks wouldn't be able to offer any player in that mold except KP.

Wolves also had more to offer period with Wiggins, Rubio, Deing available to be packaged and future draft picks.

Yeah, I get that. Do they want higher upside and downside or just a solid package? You're right we don't know. I would say that making the all-nba rookie team (essentially being a top 5 pick or at least time 5 player right now from that draft) means Willy has already achieved more than Lavine and Dunn. And I think Willy could average at least 14 and 10 right now if he got starter's minutes. I think if we offered that and our pick #8 without insisting on their pick back, they'd be crazy to turn that down. I'd rather just rebuild than do that trade, but if we're gonna starphuck, at least get the better player.

Trust me i'm high on Willy as well. I only bring him up in future trades to illustrate a point on how much his value could grow over this next yr. So to sell him now would be poor management as you could possibly get double or triple the value a year or 2 from now. He is a player who will be trending up.

Willy still has to prove it though which is what makes his value less then Lavine at the draft.

Personally Chi screwed up as I would have demanded the swap of Lopez for Deing to be apart of the deal, would have drafted Smith or Frank over Markkenan. Would have let them keep Dunn and kept my #16th pick. Would have also looked to re-trade Lavine for another package of assets.

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

Their effects on the team would not be remotely similar. Curry is somewhere between a billion and a trillion times better than Kyrie. I'm not saying Irving is a bad player. He's just going to cost too much. It's quite rare to trade for a star and get a good deal. You have to spot players before they become stars like the Rockets did with Harden or trade for a player when his trade value plummets (Butler) not when the guy is coming off finals appearances and has a high trade value. You want to trade for stars? Fine but you don't buy high. Whether you're looking for a star, a role player, draft picks, or anything else, you've gotta buy low. We missed our chance to add a star at a reasonable cost this summer (Butler).

We didn't have enough to offer for Butler unless we traded KP.

Did you see how little Chicago got for him? How could we not be able to beat that? I bet if we gave up pick 8 and insisted on a future top 20 protected pick instead of this year's top 16 back, that would have been good enough. Or 2 2nd round picks. There would be other options too. We have assets that are more appealing than what Chicago got and don't involve trading KP. And Butler is better on both ends of the court than Kyrie even though he's less flashy.
I'm not even saying I wanted to go that direction. That's just if we wanted to add a star and get better right away.

We have to add a star, there isn't and question about it.

Thats why I think this melo to Houston trade is suck in position, there's no rising star in any package, no expiring contracts, and no current star, and the drafts pick are suspect.

The market for marquee players ain't like what it use to be

Eventually we should add a star. Doesn't mean we have to rush into acquiring one giving up to many assets putting him in position to fail.

That extra pick acquired in the Melo deal could be repackaged with one of our picks with a Courtney Lee or Hardaway jr for an upgrade. We could move our possible lotto pick at the draft for a stud.

I agree on all of this.

This is what cousin netted Sac

Buddy Hield, Tyreke Evans, Langston Galloway, a 2017 first-round pick and a 2017 second-rounder to the Kings.

A young guy in buddy who has sniper potential
A solid starter in tyreke
Galloway-filler-decent player-expiring contrac
And the decent 1st rndr which they ended up with a solid pick

That's what Cleveland is looking for

#1 It wouldn't be worth it for Cleveland to make a deal like that. So I doubt that is what they are looking for and you made that up.
#2 Probably 30 teams in the NBA that could offer a package like that meaning the price would be drivin up.
#3 Cousins is a headcase who is eligible to be super maxed and his value was in the gutter.
#4 Pelicans still missed the playoffs after the trade because Cousins drops stats but hasn't produce wins so far in his career.
#5 Kyrie has more value than Cousins as he isn't viewed as the headcase that Cousins is and is looked at as a champion.
#6 Kyrie minus the headcase would probably suffer the same fate as Cousins if he was the best player on his team all these years and Lebron didn't come.

Thanks. You saved me a lot of time. It certainly looks like more teams are interested in Kyrie than were in Cousins.

OMFG- here we go again with this I made this sht up..it's all over the internet what Cleveland is looking for IRVING, draft picks, a starter, and a young potential star.

Cousins was never publicly on the block, so sac didn't have the chance to field a bunch of offers and let it be known that Cousins was available, in fact, they actually told cousins that he wasn't going anywhere, and we saw I pissed he was after the trade. Same thing with Butler.

more teams are interested because it's known that he wants out..dahhhh?

newyorknewyork wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The case for trading picks is that basketball picks are more like baseball picks now where teams get a great prospect that isn't complete and nobody knows for years who the great players will be in any given draft.

The case against it is that the draft is the only access point to what is essentially underpaid talent, which is necessary to win in the salary cap/max salary NBA. The handful of true game changers also doesn't move.

Where I sit on this fence is the middle. Teams have to know when they're going for it and when they're not. Like, it makes sense for Houston to move picks and assets to get Chris Paul because he's a good enough player to warrant it and Houston's cap situation was okay for them to do it.

With Irving, it's a little trickier because while Irving is young and talented, he isn't the level of player that is going to move the needle significantly for the Knicks. Yeah, he'd make them better, but Irving/Porzingis probably isn't a championship core as both are not-quite franchise players and the Knicks don't really have cap space with Hardaway and Noah on the books.

In the event they could get Irving, they would have to change strategies from waiting out cap space and developing some players to using assets with the purpose of clearing a spot for a good player to join Porzingis and Irving on the team. This is why they can't trade a bunch of picks to get him right now.

I agree about not moving the needle a lot. I think if you have a 41 win team with an averaging starting PG and replace that guy with Kyrie you probably now have a 44 or 45 win team.

If you put curry on this roster, you get the same results as Irving, Plus.... Irving and THJ would be a sad nightmare on the defensive side. You would need some defense first players around them like rose had in chicago

Their effects on the team would not be remotely similar. Curry is somewhere between a billion and a trillion times better than Kyrie. I'm not saying Irving is a bad player. He's just going to cost too much. It's quite rare to trade for a star and get a good deal. You have to spot players before they become stars like the Rockets did with Harden or trade for a player when his trade value plummets (Butler) not when the guy is coming off finals appearances and has a high trade value. You want to trade for stars? Fine but you don't buy high. Whether you're looking for a star, a role player, draft picks, or anything else, you've gotta buy low. We missed our chance to add a star at a reasonable cost this summer (Butler).

We didn't have enough to offer for Butler unless we traded KP.

Did you see how little Chicago got for him? How could we not be able to beat that? I bet if we gave up pick 8 and insisted on a future top 20 protected pick instead of this year's top 16 back, that would have been good enough. Or 2 2nd round picks. There would be other options too. We have assets that are more appealing than what Chicago got and don't involve trading KP. And Butler is better on both ends of the court than Kyrie even though he's less flashy.
I'm not even saying I wanted to go that direction. That's just if we wanted to add a star and get better right away.

We have to add a star, there isn't and question about it.

Thats why I think this melo to Houston trade is suck in position, there's no rising star in any package, no expiring contracts, and no current star, and the drafts pick are suspect.

The market for marquee players ain't like what it use to be

Eventually we should add a star. Doesn't mean we have to rush into acquiring one giving up to many assets putting him in position to fail.

That extra pick acquired in the Melo deal could be repackaged with one of our picks with a Courtney Lee or Hardaway jr for an upgrade. We could move our possible lotto pick at the draft for a stud.

I agree on all of this.

This is what cousin netted Sac

Buddy Hield, Tyreke Evans, Langston Galloway, a 2017 first-round pick and a 2017 second-rounder to the Kings.

A young guy in buddy who has sniper potential
A solid starter in tyreke
Galloway-filler-decent player-expiring contrac
And the decent 1st rndr which they ended up with a solid pick

That's what Cleveland is looking for

#1 It wouldn't be worth it for Cleveland to make a deal like that. So I doubt that is what they are looking for and you made that up.
#2 Probably 30 teams in the NBA that could offer a package like that meaning the price would be drivin up.
#3 Cousins is a headcase who is eligible to be super maxed and his value was in the gutter.
#4 Pelicans still missed the playoffs after the trade because Cousins drops stats but hasn't produce wins so far in his career.
#5 Kyrie has more value than Cousins as he isn't viewed as the headcase that Cousins is and is looked at as a champion.
#6 Kyrie minus the headcase would probably suffer the same fate as Cousins if he was the best player on his team all these years and Lebron didn't come.

Thanks. You saved me a lot of time. It certainly looks like more teams are interested in Kyrie than were in Cousins.

OMFG- here we go again with this I made this sht up..it's all over the internet what Cleveland is looking for IRVING, draft picks, a starter, and a young potential star.

Cousins was never publicly on the block, so sac didn't have the chance to field a bunch of offers and let it be known that Cousins was available, in fact, they actually told cousins that he wasn't going anywhere, and we saw I pissed he was after the trade. Same thing with Butler.

more teams are interested because it's known that he wants out..dahhhh?

Sac accepted the low ball offer because there wasn't much interest in Cousins. Sac saying Cousins wasn't available publicly doesn't mean that they didn't let every team FO in the league know he was available privately. Pelicans made the trade because the price was so low that it was worth it. That 2017 pick if things worked out wouldn't have been a lottery pick. And Buddy Hield was averaging 8.6pts in 20mins at the age of 22. He was far from looking like a rising star the time he was traded.

When Cavs say they want a rising star they aren't thinking of a player putting up 8.6pts per game at 22 yrs old during his rookie yr. When Cavs are saying draft picks they aren't thinking one 1st rounder that may or may not be lottery. Tyreke Evans wasn't even resigned because he was never apart of the plan and was only used as cap filler. Tyreke signed for a 1 yr 3.3mil deal with Memphis in this market showing what his value is.

So maybe making things up isn't accurate. You are being disingenuous which has become pretty routine.

I never said I would do the trade, and the fact of the matter is Cleveland will never get close to what they want or else Irving would have been traded already. Maybe your right about sac keeping Cousins availability on the low, but we already see how the trade market is for all stars, it ain't what the Nuggets got for melo, nobody is that desperate and stupid, not even mills.

So its either Melo and Irving stay put, or get less than what your asking for, or deal with drama of bringing him back, and that maybe worse than taking a less then favorable trade