OG Anunoby Traded to Knicks

[Chanel Bomber]

I agree that some front offices may view RJ as a negative asset. On the other end some may view him as a positive.
My push back would come from saying that every front office views him as a negative untradable albatross contract. We should be thankful Toronto didn't view him that way.

I mean, there asking price was a player plus 3 firsts or something like that? And a lot of teams were interested in OG. Straight up, OG simply had more value then IQ and even a 2nd so RJ had to have some kind of value to Toronto. Its ok to say that too.

Maybe they will be wrong and RJs value craters from here but it's also possible that his value rises if he plays well.

I think the case for trading him was always to do so (trade him) before he becomes a negative asset in the eyes of every FO around the league. The point (from me anyway) was always based specifically on the hope/expectation that there is still a divergence of opinion among FOs regarding his value.

I think we got out of it just in time. But there is still time for him to salvage his value in Toronto. The trend though is pointing downwards.

How much Toronto valued him though. we don't know. Just as he may have been an asset that completes the IQ/pick package, maybe Toronto asked for the pick as compensation for taking on RJ's contract. Or Leon wasn't willing to do a IQ/Fournier/pick and requested them to take on RJ as compensation.

We don't know. It doesn't matter.

Agree, the Knicks needed to move on. RJ as is wasn't a good fit, and just wasnt playing well recently. OG is pretty much a perfect fit, plus right now a much much better player.

In terms of RJs future value? It can go in a number of different ways. If he remains inconsistent and inefficient then the contract does look bad and maybe he is better off as a 6th man or something. If he can put it together and be consistently good or even just consistently avg then his contract can be a plus. Maybe he gets better. Maybe not. We have been saying it for years, and hasnt improved enough. It is still possible with a change of scenary that something clicks and he puts it together.

In terms of his current value? We know the deal and it does seem pointless to argue. It keeps getting brought up though. If Toronto viewed him as a toxic they dont make that deal. We know that part isn't true. Its done and doesn't really matter though.

The deal doesn't say much about his value, besides that they viewed it as neither toxic nor great. I never said Toronto viewed him as toxic asset, as I don't think the trade suggests they did (although according to Lowe some other FOs do). But I think it's plausible they viewed him either as a positive asset, as a neutral asset (salary filler), or as a negative asset (if for instance the Detroit pick was compensation for taking on the remaining 3.5 years on his contract).

We don't know how they valued him in this deal. Maybe Zach Lowe or Woj will report on the details at some point. I'm open to the idea he may have been a positive asset, but you don't seem open to the idea that he may have been a negative asset (even just slightly). I think both are plausible. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone he had negative value to the Raptors. My guess is it's more likely he was salary filler (neutral value) and the Raptors were like "why not", but I don't know.

We'll see how his career evolves. I think the priority for him is to find and embrace a role where he can impact winning, after stagnating for the last 2.5 years.

Where I disagree with you (based on what you implied) is that being demoted to a 6th man or bench role wouldn't necessarily be an indictment against his contract, but it might just be what salvages its value, from an increasingly "toxic" contract to an (probable) overpay that you can live with as an organization, if he plays well in that role.

I just want him to contribute to winning and hopefully under a different coach with different expectations (including self-imposed) he can get there, regardless of his contract. The ink is dry.

[Capn'O]

It seems self evident to me that they wanted him. Or at least were intrigued. He's in their starting lineup though Coach pulling him late in his first game makes it clear they're well aware of his limitations and tendencies and want to nip that in the bud. We probably could have gotten more for him earlier before but unfortunately they had him tied to a move that would have muddied the roster in Mitchell. I was hoping for a more lateral move like Keldon Johnson last offseason. OG... he's just perfect in every way and I love him.

My guess is they had a few frameworks of a trade in place and the Knicks were still doing their due diligence to see if another big wing was available at a lower cost. Knicks probably caved to a slightly Raptors favorable trade due to losing Mitch. We went from a position of "size would make us better" to "we might not make the playoffs if we don't get bigger" in a hurry.

[KnicksGod]

The evidence points to Toronto valuing him some. Maybe they think he can be traded if he doesn’t rise. That’s still a form of value though — that he can either maintain his value as a trade chip in a larger deal or start to become a very good player.

[SelbyCobra]

The old adage that "it only takes one [insert your own descriptor]" to complete a transaction seems to be viable in this discussion.

It doesn't seem coincidental that the trade of a player/contract like RJ Barrett was to his hometown team, in the country he represents for international competition.

[HarthorneWingo]

I think the case for trading him was always to do so (trade him) before he becomes a negative asset in the eyes of every FO around the league. The point (from me anyway) was always based specifically on the hope/expectation that there is still a divergence of opinion among FOs regarding his value.

I think we got out of it just in time. But there is still time for him to salvage his value in Toronto. The trend though is pointing downwards.

How much Toronto valued him though. we don't know. Just as he may have been an asset that completes the IQ/pick package, maybe Toronto asked for the pick as compensation for taking on RJ's contract. Or Leon wasn't willing to do a IQ/Fournier/pick and requested them to take on RJ as compensation.

We don't know. It doesn't matter.

Agree, the Knicks needed to move on. RJ as is wasn't a good fit, and just wasnt playing well recently. OG is pretty much a perfect fit, plus right now a much much better player.

In terms of RJs future value? It can go in a number of different ways. If he remains inconsistent and inefficient then the contract does look bad and maybe he is better off as a 6th man or something. If he can put it together and be consistently good or even just consistently avg then his contract can be a plus. Maybe he gets better. Maybe not. We have been saying it for years, and hasnt improved enough. It is still possible with a change of scenary that something clicks and he puts it together.

In terms of his current value? We know the deal and it does seem pointless to argue. It keeps getting brought up though. If Toronto viewed him as a toxic they dont make that deal. We know that part isn't true. Its done and doesn't really matter though.

The deal doesn't say much about his value, besides that they viewed it as neither toxic nor great. I never said Toronto viewed him as toxic asset, as I don't think the trade suggests they did (although according to Lowe some other FOs do). But I think it's plausible they viewed him either as a positive asset, as a neutral asset (salary filler), or as a negative asset (if for instance the Detroit pick was compensation for taking on the remaining 3.5 years on his contract).

We don't know how they valued him in this deal. Maybe Zach Lowe or Woj will report on the details at some point. I'm open to the idea he may have been a positive asset, but you don't seem open to the idea that he may have been a negative asset (even just slightly). I think both are plausible. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone he had negative value to the Raptors. My guess is it's more likely he was salary filler (neutral value) and the Raptors were like "why not", but I don't know.

We'll see how his career evolves. I think the priority for him is to find and embrace a role where he can impact winning, after stagnating for the last 2.5 years.

Where I disagree with you (based on what you implied) is that being demoted to a 6th man or bench role wouldn't necessarily be an indictment against his contract, but it might just be what salvages its value, from an increasingly "toxic" contract to an (probable) overpay that you can live with as an organization, if he plays well in that role.

I just want him to contribute to winning and hopefully under a different coach with different expectations (including self-imposed) he can get there, regardless of his contract. The ink is dry.

If Toronto wants to salvage RJ's value, assuming that it's even possible after 5 years in the NBA, it needs to get him to play more efficiently, i.e. shoot less and pass more. The issues, to me, will always be his outside shooting and defense, which won't improve imo. The shooting will always be inconsistent due to his lack of consistent mechanics.

[Ghetto Gospel]

i think the making the claim that RJ on his current contract being an untradeable liability is a little strong. overpaid probably, but he wasn't on that john wall/russ max contract that were nightmares to move or even imo the current beal contract.

he's also still young enough that a few teams around the league would view him as at least an asset albeit probably an extremely minimal one. there's always someone that thinks he can be rehabilitated. hope springs eternal around this guy

[cgmw]

The old adage that "it only takes one [insert your own descriptor]" to complete a transaction seems to be viable in this discussion.

It doesn't seem coincidental that the trade of a player/contract like RJ Barrett was to his hometown team, in the country he represents for international competition.

Yeah I don't think you can understate the PR boost that Ujiri needed from breaking up the failure of his experiment with three "positionless" wings who all basically play the same position. This is a big win for the Toronto franchise, especially its marketing department.

[Deeeez Knicks]

I think the case for trading him was always to do so (trade him) before he becomes a negative asset in the eyes of every FO around the league. The point (from me anyway) was always based specifically on the hope/expectation that there is still a divergence of opinion among FOs regarding his value.

I think we got out of it just in time. But there is still time for him to salvage his value in Toronto. The trend though is pointing downwards.

How much Toronto valued him though. we don't know. Just as he may have been an asset that completes the IQ/pick package, maybe Toronto asked for the pick as compensation for taking on RJ's contract. Or Leon wasn't willing to do a IQ/Fournier/pick and requested them to take on RJ as compensation.

We don't know. It doesn't matter.

Agree, the Knicks needed to move on. RJ as is wasn't a good fit, and just wasnt playing well recently. OG is pretty much a perfect fit, plus right now a much much better player.

In terms of RJs future value? It can go in a number of different ways. If he remains inconsistent and inefficient then the contract does look bad and maybe he is better off as a 6th man or something. If he can put it together and be consistently good or even just consistently avg then his contract can be a plus. Maybe he gets better. Maybe not. We have been saying it for years, and hasnt improved enough. It is still possible with a change of scenary that something clicks and he puts it together.

In terms of his current value? We know the deal and it does seem pointless to argue. It keeps getting brought up though. If Toronto viewed him as a toxic they dont make that deal. We know that part isn't true. Its done and doesn't really matter though.

The deal doesn't say much about his value. I never said Toronto viewed him as toxic asset, as I don't think the trade suggests they did (although according to Lowe some other FOs do). But I think it's plausible they viewed him either as a positive asset, as a neutral asset (salary filler), or as a negative asset (if for instance the Detroit pick was compensation for taking on the remaining 3.5 years on his contract).

We don't know how they valued him in this deal. Maybe Zach Lowe or Woj will report on the details at some point. I'm open to the idea he may have been a positive asset, but you don't seem open to the idea that he may have been a negative asset (even just slightly). I think both are plausible. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone he had negative value to the Raptors. My guess is it's more likely he was salary filler (neutral value) and the Raptors were like "why not", but I don't know.

We'll see how his career evolves. I think the priority for him is to find and embrace a role where he can impact winning, after stagnating for the last 2.5 years.

Where I disagree with you (based on what you implied) is that being demoted to a 6th man or bench role wouldn't necessarily be an indictment against his contract, but it might just be what salvages its value, from an increasingly "toxic" contract to an (probable) overpay that you can live with as an organization, if he plays well in that role.

I just want him to contribute to winning and hopefully under a different coach with different expectations (including self-imposed) he can get there, regardless of his contract. The ink is dry.

Based on reports and what actually happened we can make assumptions. The Raptors had a high asking price. They even turned down an offer of 3 firsts. In terms of IQ, rumors had that the Knicks were shopping him for a first rounder. As much as I like IQ he's not worth 3 first. They got IQ, RJ and a high second. Just from all this information and based on the fact the Knicks could have easily swapped in Fournier, it is obvious that RJ was not a negative value. Maybe he was somewhere between neutral to first round pick value. Probably had enough value where he prevented better pick compensation. Of course we don't know for sure, but plenty of evidence to have an idea.

Contrary to popular expectations, the Toronto Raptors stood pat at the trade deadline. Names such as OG Anunoby and Fred VanVleet were popular trade candidates all week long, but no deal materialized for either player. That's not to say that teams tried their best to pry away these players from Toronto, though. Both the Memphis Grizzlies and the Indiana Pacers reportedly offered three first-round picks for the Raptors forward, per Zach Lowe's sources.

The Raptors are notoriously difficult to negotiate with, with Masai Ujiri always looking to acquire the farm for any player of his with immense value. They reportedly asked for three-first round picks — or perhaps even more — in any Anunoby trade, which may be too prohibitive of a price even for a team with as many assets to trade as the Knicks.

According to sources around the league, the Knicks have targeted a future first-round pick in a return for Quickley, who is extension-eligible this upcoming summer.

[rajajackal]

i love how we're debating rj's trade value after the fact because habits formed are hard to break

[Fury]

Agree, the Knicks needed to move on. RJ as is wasn't a good fit, and just wasnt playing well recently. OG is pretty much a perfect fit, plus right now a much much better player.

In terms of RJs future value? It can go in a number of different ways. If he remains inconsistent and inefficient then the contract does look bad and maybe he is better off as a 6th man or something. If he can put it together and be consistently good or even just consistently avg then his contract can be a plus. Maybe he gets better. Maybe not. We have been saying it for years, and hasnt improved enough. It is still possible with a change of scenary that something clicks and he puts it together.

In terms of his current value? We know the deal and it does seem pointless to argue. It keeps getting brought up though. If Toronto viewed him as a toxic they dont make that deal. We know that part isn't true. Its done and doesn't really matter though.

The deal doesn't say much about his value. I never said Toronto viewed him as toxic asset, as I don't think the trade suggests they did (although according to Lowe some other FOs do). But I think it's plausible they viewed him either as a positive asset, as a neutral asset (salary filler), or as a negative asset (if for instance the Detroit pick was compensation for taking on the remaining 3.5 years on his contract).

We don't know how they valued him in this deal. Maybe Zach Lowe or Woj will report on the details at some point. I'm open to the idea he may have been a positive asset, but you don't seem open to the idea that he may have been a negative asset (even just slightly). I think both are plausible. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone he had negative value to the Raptors. My guess is it's more likely he was salary filler (neutral value) and the Raptors were like "why not", but I don't know.

We'll see how his career evolves. I think the priority for him is to find and embrace a role where he can impact winning, after stagnating for the last 2.5 years.

Where I disagree with you (based on what you implied) is that being demoted to a 6th man or bench role wouldn't necessarily be an indictment against his contract, but it might just be what salvages its value, from an increasingly "toxic" contract to an (probable) overpay that you can live with as an organization, if he plays well in that role.

I just want him to contribute to winning and hopefully under a different coach with different expectations (including self-imposed) he can get there, regardless of his contract. The ink is dry.

Based on reports and what actually happened we can make assumptions. The Raptors had a high asking price. They even turned down an offer of 3 firsts. In terms of IQ, rumors had that the Knicks were shopping him for a first rounder. As much as I like IQ he's not worth 3 first. They got IQ, RJ and a high second. Just from all this information and based on the fact the Knicks could have easily swapped in Fournier, it is obvious that RJ was not a negative value. Maybe he was somewhere between neutral to first round pick value. Probably had enough value where he prevented better pick compensation. Of course we don't know for sure, but plenty of evidence to have an idea.

Contrary to popular expectations, the Toronto Raptors stood pat at the trade deadline. Names such as OG Anunoby and Fred VanVleet were popular trade candidates all week long, but no deal materialized for either player. That's not to say that teams tried their best to pry away these players from Toronto, though. Both the Memphis Grizzlies and the Indiana Pacers reportedly offered three first-round picks for the Raptors forward, per Zach Lowe's sources.

The Raptors are notoriously difficult to negotiate with, with Masai Ujiri always looking to acquire the farm for any player of his with immense value. They reportedly asked for three-first round picks — or perhaps even more — in any Anunoby trade, which may be too prohibitive of a price even for a team with as many assets to trade as the Knicks.

According to sources around the league, the Knicks have targeted a future first-round pick in a return for Quickley, who is extension-eligible this upcoming summer.

IQ was worth 5 first round picks and RJ was worth negative 2 first round picks

[KnicksGod]

I don’t know tbh. I hear lots of credible info about inefficiency but not every player can get 18ppg. He’s able to produce and has noticeably improved in some areas. His fadeaway kind of sucks and he’s blocked too much.

But his jumper has looked better in form — he clearly works hard. He can dribble drive into the teeth of the D with a big body and has some skill around the cup. He is drawing fouls.

There’re things to work with.

He did some stuff last night that “Scottie B” can’t do. Maybe they’re a good complement to each other.

[Buttah304]

I don’t know tbh. I hear lots of credible info about inefficiency but not every player can get 18ppg. He’s able to produce and has noticeably improved in some areas. His fadeaway kind of sucks and he’s blocked too much.

But his jumper has looked better in form — he clearly works hard. He can dribble drive into the teeth of the D with a big body and has some skill around the cup. He is drawing fouls.

There’re things to work with.

He did some stuff last night that “Scottie B” can’t do. Maybe they’re a good complement to each other.

The reality is that just when you think he’s putting it all together….

[BKlutch]

Hahn calls SAS's take on the OG trade "The middest take ever."

Read on Twitter

[Stannis]

Respectfully this gets thrown around way too much and just feels lazy. Grimes, DDV, J Hart at least to me are role players. When we played Miami last playoff Caleb Martin was hurting us as a role player. When we just lost to Indiana Nembhard hurt us as a role player. The list is essentially endless as you can identify those kinds of guys on every team in the league.

People get way too caught up in “can player X create off the dribble” and can they easily “get you a bucket when it matters.” If they don’t check those boxes they automatically get filed under “must be a role player.”

Feels like a slight to OG for this reason: How many guys can you find that will pour in 16PPG and 6 Rebounds, while getting 3+ deflections, over 1.5 steals, legitimately guard 1-5 (he spent 25% on PF/SF last year, 20% on PG/SG and 10% on C). Not to mention have a 59% TS the last 3 seasons, hit threes at a 39% clip and blend into an offense by cutting back door as to not take away from our primary ball handlers.

OG is probably one of the better 2 way players the league has to offer he just impacts the game without eye popping, popcorn style creativity.

You are right. I am not familiar with his game and I just went on the cRaptors board to see what they were saying. And it seemed like a lot viewed him as a role player that they did not want to pay.

From what you said. He sounds great. But will he be worth 35/40m a year ?

[thebuzzardman]

Hahn calls SAS's take on the OG trade "The middest take ever."

Read on Twitter

Zero f*cks to give about what that fake assclown thinks

[thebuzzardman]

Respectfully this gets thrown around way too much and just feels lazy. Grimes, DDV, J Hart at least to me are role players. When we played Miami last playoff Caleb Martin was hurting us as a role player. When we just lost to Indiana Nembhard hurt us as a role player. The list is essentially endless as you can identify those kinds of guys on every team in the league.

People get way too caught up in “can player X create off the dribble” and can they easily “get you a bucket when it matters.” If they don’t check those boxes they automatically get filed under “must be a role player.”

Feels like a slight to OG for this reason: How many guys can you find that will pour in 16PPG and 6 Rebounds, while getting 3+ deflections, over 1.5 steals, legitimately guard 1-5 (he spent 25% on PF/SF last year, 20% on PG/SG and 10% on C). Not to mention have a 59% TS the last 3 seasons, hit threes at a 39% clip and blend into an offense by cutting back door as to not take away from our primary ball handlers.

OG is probably one of the better 2 way players the league has to offer he just impacts the game without eye popping, popcorn style creativity.

You are right. I am not familiar with his game and I just went on the cRaptors board to see what they were saying. And it seemed like a lot viewed him as a role player that they did not want to pay.

From what you said. He sounds great. But will he be worth 35/40m a year ?

Even though that 80's 76ers team had Dr J, Moses, World B Free, Mo Cheeks, Toney, etc, they wouldn't have won a chip without Bobby Jones providing probably the best all around defense from a non C, in the league.

How many $, adjusted, was he worth.

Sometimes defensive guys are worth it, if they aren't zeros on offense.

35 is a lot. It's also the old "28"

Whatever. It's not my money. As long as the cap flexibility is still there or the players are good enough to be moved with X contract, don't care.

[BKlutch]

Hahn calls SAS's take on the OG trade "The middest take ever."

Read on Twitter

Zero f*cks to give about what that fake assclown thinks

I fully agree. He claims to be a Knicks fan, but that's only so he can create false drama. He isn't a fan, doesn't care, and doesn't know enough to deserve being listened to.

Other than that, he's fine.

[Chanel Bomber]

Agree, the Knicks needed to move on. RJ as is wasn't a good fit, and just wasnt playing well recently. OG is pretty much a perfect fit, plus right now a much much better player.

In terms of RJs future value? It can go in a number of different ways. If he remains inconsistent and inefficient then the contract does look bad and maybe he is better off as a 6th man or something. If he can put it together and be consistently good or even just consistently avg then his contract can be a plus. Maybe he gets better. Maybe not. We have been saying it for years, and hasnt improved enough. It is still possible with a change of scenary that something clicks and he puts it together.

In terms of his current value? We know the deal and it does seem pointless to argue. It keeps getting brought up though. If Toronto viewed him as a toxic they dont make that deal. We know that part isn't true. Its done and doesn't really matter though.

The deal doesn't say much about his value. I never said Toronto viewed him as toxic asset, as I don't think the trade suggests they did (although according to Lowe some other FOs do). But I think it's plausible they viewed him either as a positive asset, as a neutral asset (salary filler), or as a negative asset (if for instance the Detroit pick was compensation for taking on the remaining 3.5 years on his contract).

We don't know how they valued him in this deal. Maybe Zach Lowe or Woj will report on the details at some point. I'm open to the idea he may have been a positive asset, but you don't seem open to the idea that he may have been a negative asset (even just slightly). I think both are plausible. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone he had negative value to the Raptors. My guess is it's more likely he was salary filler (neutral value) and the Raptors were like "why not", but I don't know.

We'll see how his career evolves. I think the priority for him is to find and embrace a role where he can impact winning, after stagnating for the last 2.5 years.

Where I disagree with you (based on what you implied) is that being demoted to a 6th man or bench role wouldn't necessarily be an indictment against his contract, but it might just be what salvages its value, from an increasingly "toxic" contract to an (probable) overpay that you can live with as an organization, if he plays well in that role.

I just want him to contribute to winning and hopefully under a different coach with different expectations (including self-imposed) he can get there, regardless of his contract. The ink is dry.

Based on reports and what actually happened we can make assumptions. The Raptors had a high asking price. They even turned down an offer of 3 firsts. In terms of IQ, rumors had that the Knicks were shopping him for a first rounder. As much as I like IQ he's not worth 3 first. They got IQ, RJ and a high second. Just from all this information and based on the fact the Knicks could have easily swapped in Fournier, it is obvious that RJ was not a negative value. Maybe he was somewhere between neutral to first round pick value. Probably had enough value where he prevented better pick compensation. Of course we don't know for sure, but plenty of evidence to have an idea.

Contrary to popular expectations, the Toronto Raptors stood pat at the trade deadline. Names such as OG Anunoby and Fred VanVleet were popular trade candidates all week long, but no deal materialized for either player. That's not to say that teams tried their best to pry away these players from Toronto, though. Both the Memphis Grizzlies and the Indiana Pacers reportedly offered three first-round picks for the Raptors forward, per Zach Lowe's sources.

The Raptors are notoriously difficult to negotiate with, with Masai Ujiri always looking to acquire the farm for any player of his with immense value. They reportedly asked for three-first round picks — or perhaps even more — in any Anunoby trade, which may be too prohibitive of a price even for a team with as many assets to trade as the Knicks.

According to sources around the league, the Knicks have targeted a future first-round pick in a return for Quickley, who is extension-eligible this upcoming summer.

But these quotes aren't new, are they. The market keeps fluctuating with new information and new developments.

- It's plausible the Knicks valued IQ more a week ago than they did before the summer.

- It's plausible that OG's value dropped a bit since last year (which either Lowe or Marks actually suggested recently) and the Raptors had to revisit their expectations.

- It's also plausible that other suitors dropped their pursuit after OG's move to CAA because they knew he would leave for Philly in FA or use it as leverage to get a S&T to NY.

These things aren't stable.

Maybe NY wanted the equivalent of two firsts for IQ (same as they reportedly did Mitch although I assume part of the Mitch rumor was posturing) after another excellent start of the season. Maybe the actual, behind-the-scenes asking price for OG dropped to two firsts from three last year. I don't see how these interpretations aren't plausible.

From a basketball standpoint, I actually think a straight swap of IQ and OG makes perfect sense considering their quality and the needs of each team. Whether those parties shared that opinion, I don't know, but I don't see any interpretation about RJ's value from mildly negative to mildly positive in this deal as far-fetched.

[MrDollarBills]

Hahn calls SAS's take on the OG trade "The middest take ever."

Read on Twitter

Zero f*cks to give about what that fake assclown thinks

I don't think he is wrong about losing IQ, but he should have known that IQ was gone as soon as the deadline passed without him receiving an offer.

But this trade was a vertical move for the Knicks. OG made an immediate impact on both ends. There's no question that the Knicks will be better long term with this deal, especially after a supplemental deal is made to obtain another bench piece.

I just think Stephen A hates the team and refuses to be happy about anything.

[3toheadmelo]

no way yall still arguing about his value