TripleThreat wrote:

kingofelpaso wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

kingofelpaso wrote:On that note, if he slips to the 2nd pick, would offer the Kings a pick swap with our 9th pick this year and next year’s pick with minimal protection (top 1, maybe) for the 2nd pick to take Luka.

If the Knicks had the 2nd overall pick, would you want them to trade it for the 9th and FrankN? Or the 9th and some pick no one can determine in the future? This trade fails the Mirror Test

Would either the 9th and another pick or the 9th and FrankN be the best offer on the table if the Kings put the pick up for trade? Doubtful.

If the Knicks traded the 2nd overall for Frank N and the 9th or the 9th and some other pick no one can gauge now, people here would be up in arms. Someone would need to get fired.

I hear this. The thought is that Sacramento would get a high level pick next year whereas they have no pick next year as of now. I would be willing to up the offer to include a future second or even pick 36 to get it done. The other idea would be to take back bad salary (so long as it does not extend beyond Noah’s deal). The problem is that I don’t know that they have any to take back, except maybe Z-bo, who may have had issues with Fizdale in Memphis.

OK I'll run the scenario for the sake of discussion.

If a trade could occur WITHOUT KP involved, market value for the 2nd overall to the Knicks would cost

- This years 9th overall pick
- Frank N
- Dotson
- Three MORE first round picks, two of which would need to be completely unprotected.

Under the Stepien Rule, a team cannot trade consecutive first round picks if they have no other first round picks in that draft. So to balance it out, Sacto would send a series of 2nds to the Knicks, and the Knicks would be forced to offer first round pick swaps every other year. The other huge problem is pick protections must have full conversion in three season spans under the current CBA. You cannot protect a traded pick indefinitely. Which is why many trades with "phantom" first round picks that are so heavily protected they are unlikely to be realized, convert to a pair of 2nd rounders in the third season from the trade. Even if the Knicks wanted to heavily protect their picks, the conversion problem and the Stepien Rule would force them into pick swap situations and be forced to leave most of those draft assets completely unprotected.

Would you trade the 2nd overall for a 9th overall plus some random pick ( or Frank N) plus a 2nd rounder?

You would not. I won't even go into the typical "Everyone has a right to their viewpoint" churn here. You would not. You are proposing a trade that you would not take yourself if the situation was reversed. And if you took it, and you were the Knicks GM, do you think you would keep your job?

Your assessment of actual market value for the 2nd overall is so far off, you are not even in the same sport anymore. You could literally be talking about cricket right now or high powered ping pong for the Olympics and have that suss out better.

To get the 2nd overall would destroy this team. For the NEXT 15 YEARS. Trading what would be the equivalent of 5 first round picks, two full unprotected with additional pick swaps implied, would gut this team for nearly two decades.

Doncic might be a star. He might not. You are asking the team to bet the next FIFTEEN YEARS on that.

I've given you a realistic assessment of market value. If you can find a trade that fits within that, go for it. But, to be fair, you won't.

Which is why YOU NEVER SEE A TEAM TRADING FROM THE 9th RANGE TO THE 2nd OVERALL RANGE. NEVER.

I give you credit for trying, but sorry, you'll have to keep trying.

Put down the shovel, Trip.

Just because something has never been done doesn't mean it won't get done. Furthermore if its never been done then nothing you are speculating about has any veracity. Trading for a desirable pick doesn't mean you need to send 500 picks back - its absurd. Now, having said that, yes there are ownerships that can do and actually do stupid things. But again that doesn't mean its inevitable.

IMO, the Memphis pick is one that *could* move for the following reasons. Gasol isn't getting younger. They still have a fairly solid team that could make a run NOW. And they have a massive albatross contract in Parsons that prevents them from building out their immediate needs. Waiting a year to "blow it up" and having multiple first-rounders then is one way to approach their future.

So the criteria for trading the pick is: 1.) somebody has to take Parsons off their hands and replace that with players who satisfy a need or can be repackaged elsewhere.

The team swallowing the Parsons contract isn't going to be asked for 10 first-rounders - they'll be fiscally bailing out a contender on its knees.

Here the Knicks can offer some nice assets in some combination of Lee, Baker, Thomas, Dotson, and so on.

The second criteria is that the 4 pick be replaced next year, more or less in kind. With KP down, adding Parsons to Noah, and with the Knicks parting with their best veterans, Memphis would be virtually guaranteed a top ten pick. giving them the option next year of a rebuild with a draft based youth movement if that's the way their season goes.

That's a decent haul for Memphis and a reasonable risk for NY. The Parsons contract next year is just money. The team isn't going anywhere. Let Noah and Parsons warm that bench.

Hope that with #4 added to Frankie that there's a long term core of a team in the making. Its not a given.

fwk00 wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

kingofelpaso wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

kingofelpaso wrote:On that note, if he slips to the 2nd pick, would offer the Kings a pick swap with our 9th pick this year and next year’s pick with minimal protection (top 1, maybe) for the 2nd pick to take Luka.

If the Knicks had the 2nd overall pick, would you want them to trade it for the 9th and FrankN? Or the 9th and some pick no one can determine in the future? This trade fails the Mirror Test

Would either the 9th and another pick or the 9th and FrankN be the best offer on the table if the Kings put the pick up for trade? Doubtful.

If the Knicks traded the 2nd overall for Frank N and the 9th or the 9th and some other pick no one can gauge now, people here would be up in arms. Someone would need to get fired.

I hear this. The thought is that Sacramento would get a high level pick next year whereas they have no pick next year as of now. I would be willing to up the offer to include a future second or even pick 36 to get it done. The other idea would be to take back bad salary (so long as it does not extend beyond Noah’s deal). The problem is that I don’t know that they have any to take back, except maybe Z-bo, who may have had issues with Fizdale in Memphis.

OK I'll run the scenario for the sake of discussion.

If a trade could occur WITHOUT KP involved, market value for the 2nd overall to the Knicks would cost

- This years 9th overall pick
- Frank N
- Dotson
- Three MORE first round picks, two of which would need to be completely unprotected.

Under the Stepien Rule, a team cannot trade consecutive first round picks if they have no other first round picks in that draft. So to balance it out, Sacto would send a series of 2nds to the Knicks, and the Knicks would be forced to offer first round pick swaps every other year. The other huge problem is pick protections must have full conversion in three season spans under the current CBA. You cannot protect a traded pick indefinitely. Which is why many trades with "phantom" first round picks that are so heavily protected they are unlikely to be realized, convert to a pair of 2nd rounders in the third season from the trade. Even if the Knicks wanted to heavily protect their picks, the conversion problem and the Stepien Rule would force them into pick swap situations and be forced to leave most of those draft assets completely unprotected.

Would you trade the 2nd overall for a 9th overall plus some random pick ( or Frank N) plus a 2nd rounder?

You would not. I won't even go into the typical "Everyone has a right to their viewpoint" churn here. You would not. You are proposing a trade that you would not take yourself if the situation was reversed. And if you took it, and you were the Knicks GM, do you think you would keep your job?

Your assessment of actual market value for the 2nd overall is so far off, you are not even in the same sport anymore. You could literally be talking about cricket right now or high powered ping pong for the Olympics and have that suss out better.

To get the 2nd overall would destroy this team. For the NEXT 15 YEARS. Trading what would be the equivalent of 5 first round picks, two full unprotected with additional pick swaps implied, would gut this team for nearly two decades.

Doncic might be a star. He might not. You are asking the team to bet the next FIFTEEN YEARS on that.

I've given you a realistic assessment of market value. If you can find a trade that fits within that, go for it. But, to be fair, you won't.

Which is why YOU NEVER SEE A TEAM TRADING FROM THE 9th RANGE TO THE 2nd OVERALL RANGE. NEVER.

I give you credit for trying, but sorry, you'll have to keep trying.

Put down the shovel, Trip.

Just because something has never been done doesn't mean it won't get done. Furthermore if its never been done then nothing you are speculating about has any veracity. Trading for a desirable pick doesn't mean you need to send 500 picks back - its absurd. Now, having said that, yes there are ownerships that can do and actually do stupid things. But again that doesn't mean its inevitable.

IMO, the Memphis pick is one that *could* move for the following reasons. Gasol isn't getting younger. They still have a fairly solid team that could make a run NOW. And they have a massive albatross contract in Parsons that prevents them from building out their immediate needs. Waiting a year to "blow it up" and having multiple first-rounders then is one way to approach their future.

So the criteria for trading the pick is: 1.) somebody has to take Parsons off their hands and replace that with players who satisfy a need or can be repackaged elsewhere.

The team swallowing the Parsons contract isn't going to be asked for 10 first-rounders - they'll be fiscally bailing out a contender on its knees.

Here the Knicks can offer some nice assets in some combination of Lee, Baker, Thomas, Dotson, and so on.

The second criteria is that the 4 pick be replaced next year, more or less in kind. With KP down, adding Parsons to Noah, and with the Knicks parting with their best veterans, Memphis would be virtually guaranteed a top ten pick. giving them the option next year of a rebuild with a draft based youth movement if that's the way their season goes.

That's a decent haul for Memphis and a reasonable risk for NY. The Parsons contract next year is just money. The team isn't going anywhere. Let Noah and Parsons warm that bench.

Hope that with #4 added to Frankie that there's a long term core of a team in the making. Its not a given.

elmaestro33 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Nalod wrote:No sense crying over the tank. We had won a lot of games early and even still made up little ground.

As for trading our pick next year, no way I do it in a year KP might miss most of season and will be limited.
If we draft well this year and happen to improve then so be it. ALso the odds even out next draft so we can still end up very well in the draft.

Best player will not be in top 5? Great call, you have 55 other players to defy that. Also you have Donovan Mitchell on the brain.
How brilliant are you?

The new rules are strange. The bottom one or two teams in the league typically don't tank they are just that bad. The teams that do tank fall to the 3-5 range. Those teams are now going to be rewarded with better odds.

I don't have a problem with it, I still think the odds should vary each year depending on wins. A 20 win team and a 22 team win team are the same. The Knicks won 8 games less than the Suns should the Suns really have a 56% better chance at a top 3 pick. Now if its 15 or 20 wins I get it.

Totally agree; the difference between the 9th pick (Knicks) and 10th pick (Lakers) was 6 games. That's the same difference between 9th and 3rd. The lottery should be weighted based on W-L record, instead of standing. Maybe the amount of lottery balls each team receives should be equal to their losses or their losses squared or cubed. Just seems more fair so teams aren't competing for standing. It's a tough system to get right

Huh? W-L record instead of Standing??? What is the standing determined by?

elmaestro33 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

elmaestro33 wrote:
Totally agree; the difference between the 9th pick (Knicks) and 10th pick (Lakers) was 6 games. That's the same difference between 9th and 3rd. The lottery should be weighted based on W-L record, instead of standing. Maybe the amount of lottery balls each team receives should be equal to their losses or their losses squared or cubed. Just seems more fair so teams aren't competing for standing. It's a tough system to get right

Huh? W-L record instead of Standing??? What is the standing determined by?

Yeah so I mean that the lottery balls should be determined by the amount of losses each team has instead of a ranking of each team’s losses. So if you have 4 teams in a bubble each with 60,59,58, and 40 losses, I think you should give odds based on the number of losses which would give the first three teams very similar odds and the fourth team much lower. That’s different than giving them a standing ranking of 1,2,3, and 4 and the odds decreasing the same amount for each rank (should the difference between a 59 loss team and a 58 loss team really be the same as between a 58 loss team and a 40 loss team??). Following me?

I am tracking now. I don't see any obvious shortcomings. I think it maybe a more fair system. It may even have a better chance of stopping tanking than the new rules about to be unleashed on us.