[ISKWTSDTS] Oklahoma City Thunder

[Karmaloop]

TRADES

trade #1

OKC receives (out: $43.1M // in: $29.2M)
randle ($18.9M, $18.9M, ufa)
smith jr. ($5.7M, rfa) --- does DET want him for free?
kevin knox ($4.6M, $5.8M, rfa)

NYK receives (out: $29.2M // in: $43.1M )
paul ($41.4M, $44.2M, ufa)
diallo ($1.7M, rfa)
#25
2024 2nd (via MEM)

post-transaction payroll for 2020-21 = ~$90M

—

Why would the Knicks clog their salary cap up with CP3? Aside from their rookie contract players, the only player they've got on the books post-2020 is Julius Randle. Julius Randle at 1 year, $19.8M or CP3 at 1 year, $44.2M. The Knicks want/need cap space.

[getrichordie]

TRADES

trade #1

OKC receives (out: $43.1M // in: $29.2M)
randle ($18.9M, $18.9M, ufa)
smith jr. ($5.7M, rfa) --- does DET want him for free?
kevin knox ($4.6M, $5.8M, rfa)

NYK receives (out: $29.2M // in: $43.1M )
paul ($41.4M, $44.2M, ufa)
diallo ($1.7M, rfa)
#25
2024 2nd (via MEM)

post-transaction payroll for 2020-21 = ~$90M

—

Why would the Knicks clog their salary cap up with CP3? Aside from their rookie contract players, the only player they've got on the books post-2020 is Julius Randle. Julius Randle at 1 year, $19.8M or CP3 at 1 year, $44.2M. The Knicks want/need cap space.

Fair question.

The idea that has been kicked around is that NYK gets Paul for star power + veteran leadership to help turn culture around. It's been proposed that he can mentor a guy like Cole Anthony who has already been tied to the Knicks. Plus, Leon Rose is Paul's former agent. Also as far as Randle being only guy on books post-2020, NYK new leadership could opt to start fresh. They actually do have some guys post-2020 lined up in Barrett (rookie contract), Ntilikina (RFA), Brazdeikis (rookie contract), Robinson (rookie contract), and I'm sure they will match/re-sign Dotson (rookie contract) and they have 3 picks in this year's draft (~6, ~27, ~38).

[getrichordie]

Ultimately I'm still of the thought this season hurt them in some ways in the long run but it might not if they can move some guys. Basic ideas:

1. Don't spend assets to move Paul, if he's stuck too bad.

2. Move Schroder if any asset or neutral value is available.

3. Gallo can walk.

4. If you can package salary and a future pick for some promising youth, go for it. I'm still not against Gordon or Markkanen.

Just saw this.

Why should we move Schroder just to get neutral value back?

I can definitely see us keeping Paul but if we can be cheap and bad for next 2 years for the cost of one FRP, I think you have to pull the trigger.

$85M is a lot of money to swallow for an oft-injured and old Paul, especially after OKC just paid $61M in luxury taxes.

If Presti/OKC are looking to move Paul this summer, what do you think that trade looks like? Who are realistic takers?

[bondom34]

Ultimately I'm still of the thought this season hurt them in some ways in the long run but it might not if they can move some guys. Basic ideas:

1. Don't spend assets to move Paul, if he's stuck too bad.

2. Move Schroder if any asset or neutral value is available.

3. Gallo can walk.

4. If you can package salary and a future pick for some promising youth, go for it. I'm still not against Gordon or Markkanen.

Just saw this.

Why should we move Schroder just to get neutral value back?

I can definitely see us keeping Paul but if we can be cheap and bad for next 2 years for the cost of one FRP, I think you have to pull the trigger.

$85M is a lot of money to swallow for an oft-injured and old Paul, especially after OKC just paid $61M in luxury taxes.

If Presti/OKC are looking to move Paul this summer, what do you think that trade looks like? Who are realistic takers?

I'd move any vets possible, would have done it already honestly. I'd definitely do so with Schroeder, he's at peak value.

Paul I assume would need to be to either a team that's desperate or a contender. Knicks or Sixers I'd suppose. It's a limited market, so worst case he stays. It's been reported a ton that they won't give value, and he's not hurting anything just being there so there's no point wasting assets on it.

Feels like at that point you could do the same if it costs an asset to move Adams or Schroder and achieve the same. They'll get under the tax without moving him if needed when they're gone.

[babyjax13]

OKC is in a good situation even though their current contracts/players are either hard to move off of, not worth much, or part of the rebuild (Shai). As I see it, SGA and Bazley are the main players with potential long term. SGA is obvious, but Bazley reminds me a lot of early career Jerami Grant. The offense has a long way to go, but if he can become merely serviceable, he will be a good player for them. Fortunately there is lots of time.

So, as boring as it is, I would mainly stand pat. Of course see if a S+T is available for Gallo, if it is not, resign him for the duration of Paul's contract, and let the young guys continue to develop. Paul I don't think will be worth moving - people seem to think OKC would not have to attach an asset/assets and I disagree...so I'd see if someone wants Dennis. Detroit and New York seem like possible targets, and if you can get a second round pick out of it + expiring I think it is worth it. So....

Trade 1:
OKC trades: Dennis Schroeder
Detroit trades: Tony Snell, 2023 POR 2nd
Detroit gets a serviceable point guard that can also give fans someone to watch since he can get some volume scoring numbers. OKC gets a wing player that can shoot, a future second, and saves a bit of money.

Trade 2:
OKC trades: Danilo Gallinari (S+T)
Portland trades: Trevor Ariza, 2021 POR 1st (lottery protected 2 years, then 2 2nds)
OKC gets a first for Gallo, Portland adds the forward they need to take their next step. Ariza will also be a useful rotation piece for OKC, and I'd imagine they will still be competing for the last spot in the playoffs. If they are not, Ariza is likely flippable for some additional value.

Then mainly just stand pat. Resign Noel if possible, but I bet someone offers the full MLE (Boston?) and I just don't see that being worth it for a backup.

Draft
25. Jaden McDaniels or Paul Reed seem like OKC picks if available...just saying Reed b/c he seems a bit lower on boards
51. Trendon Watford seems like another OKC pick

Adams/Muscala/min.
Reed/Bazley/Ariza
Ariza/Snell/Roby
SGA/Diallo/Dort/Burton
Paul/SGA

[getrichordie]

Ultimately I'm still of the thought this season hurt them in some ways in the long run but it might not if they can move some guys. Basic ideas:

1. Don't spend assets to move Paul, if he's stuck too bad.

2. Move Schroder if any asset or neutral value is available.

3. Gallo can walk.

4. If you can package salary and a future pick for some promising youth, go for it. I'm still not against Gordon or Markkanen.

Just saw this.

Why should we move Schroder just to get neutral value back?

I can definitely see us keeping Paul but if we can be cheap and bad for next 2 years for the cost of one FRP, I think you have to pull the trigger.

$85M is a lot of money to swallow for an oft-injured and old Paul, especially after OKC just paid $61M in luxury taxes.

If Presti/OKC are looking to move Paul this summer, what do you think that trade looks like? Who are realistic takers?

I'd move any vets possible, would have done it already honestly. I'd definitely do so with Schroeder, he's at peak value.

Paul I assume would need to be to either a team that's desperate or a contender. Knicks or Sixers I'd suppose. It's a limited market, so worst case he stays. It's been reported a ton that they won't give value, and he's not hurting anything just being there so there's no point wasting assets on it.

Feels like at that point you could do the same if it costs an asset to move Adams or Schroder and achieve the same. They'll get under the tax without moving him if needed when they're gone.

Eh, I mean I feel like it hurts our chances at getting a Cunningham, Green, or Kuminga, tbh. And yeah, trading Adams and Schroder can save some money but that's only a small chunk next to $85M for a player who is going to play us into bottom of playoffs and take us out of lottery for what? Development brownie points?

[FutureKnicksGM]

Just saw this.

Why should we move Schroder just to get neutral value back?

I can definitely see us keeping Paul but if we can be cheap and bad for next 2 years for the cost of one FRP, I think you have to pull the trigger.

$85M is a lot of money to swallow for an oft-injured and old Paul, especially after OKC just paid $61M in luxury taxes.

If Presti/OKC are looking to move Paul this summer, what do you think that trade looks like? Who are realistic takers?

I'd move any vets possible, would have done it already honestly. I'd definitely do so with Schroeder, he's at peak value.

Paul I assume would need to be to either a team that's desperate or a contender. Knicks or Sixers I'd suppose. It's a limited market, so worst case he stays. It's been reported a ton that they won't give value, and he's not hurting anything just being there so there's no point wasting assets on it.

Feels like at that point you could do the same if it costs an asset to move Adams or Schroder and achieve the same. They'll get under the tax without moving him if needed when they're gone.

Eh, I mean I feel like it hurts our chances at getting a Cunningham, Green, or Kuminga, tbh. And yeah, trading Adams and Schroder can save some money but that's only a small chunk next to $85M for a player who is going to play us into bottom of playoffs and take us out of lottery for what? Development brownie points?

Knicks need a shot at Cunningham, Green or Kuminga as well. That’s why the CP3 to NY trades defies all logic, at least imo. It would cost more than a late first to move too. Philly seems like your best bet.

[getrichordie]

I'd move any vets possible, would have done it already honestly. I'd definitely do so with Schroeder, he's at peak value.

Paul I assume would need to be to either a team that's desperate or a contender. Knicks or Sixers I'd suppose. It's a limited market, so worst case he stays. It's been reported a ton that they won't give value, and he's not hurting anything just being there so there's no point wasting assets on it.

Feels like at that point you could do the same if it costs an asset to move Adams or Schroder and achieve the same. They'll get under the tax without moving him if needed when they're gone.

Eh, I mean I feel like it hurts our chances at getting a Cunningham, Green, or Kuminga, tbh. And yeah, trading Adams and Schroder can save some money but that's only a small chunk next to $85M for a player who is going to play us into bottom of playoffs and take us out of lottery for what? Development brownie points?

Knicks need a shot at Cunningham, Green or Kuminga as well. That’s why the CP3 to NY trades defies all logic, at least imo. It would cost more than a late first to move too. Philly seems like your best bet.

Even with Paul you guys will still be bad. So don't worry. NY needs those developmental brownie points more than we do at this point.

[FutureKnicksGM]

Eh, I mean I feel like it hurts our chances at getting a Cunningham, Green, or Kuminga, tbh. And yeah, trading Adams and Schroder can save some money but that's only a small chunk next to $85M for a player who is going to play us into bottom of playoffs and take us out of lottery for what? Development brownie points?

Knicks need a shot at Cunningham, Green or Kuminga as well. That’s why the CP3 to NY trades defies all logic, at least imo. It would cost more than a late first to move too. Philly seems like your best bet.

Even with Paul you guys will still be bad. So don't worry. NY needs those developmental brownie points more than we do at this point.

Haha we don’t need those points that badly. That move would destroy our rebuild if it leads to us not coming away with one of the elite prospects from the next draft. Which it will.

[getrichordie]

Knicks need a shot at Cunningham, Green or Kuminga as well. That’s why the CP3 to NY trades defies all logic, at least imo. It would cost more than a late first to move too. Philly seems like your best bet.

Even with Paul you guys will still be bad. So don't worry. NY needs those developmental brownie points more than we do at this point.

Haha we don’t need those points that badly. That move would destroy our rebuild if it leads to us not coming away with one of the elite prospects from the next draft. Which it will.

I wouldn't be so sure. You guys are pretty bad. Likely not the direction your headed in anyway with Thibs rumors.

[bondom34]

Just saw this.

Why should we move Schroder just to get neutral value back?

I can definitely see us keeping Paul but if we can be cheap and bad for next 2 years for the cost of one FRP, I think you have to pull the trigger.

$85M is a lot of money to swallow for an oft-injured and old Paul, especially after OKC just paid $61M in luxury taxes.

If Presti/OKC are looking to move Paul this summer, what do you think that trade looks like? Who are realistic takers?

I'd move any vets possible, would have done it already honestly. I'd definitely do so with Schroeder, he's at peak value.

Paul I assume would need to be to either a team that's desperate or a contender. Knicks or Sixers I'd suppose. It's a limited market, so worst case he stays. It's been reported a ton that they won't give value, and he's not hurting anything just being there so there's no point wasting assets on it.

Feels like at that point you could do the same if it costs an asset to move Adams or Schroder and achieve the same. They'll get under the tax without moving him if needed when they're gone.

Eh, I mean I feel like it hurts our chances at getting a Cunningham, Green, or Kuminga, tbh. And yeah, trading Adams and Schroder can save some money but that's only a small chunk next to $85M for a player who is going to play us into bottom of playoffs and take us out of lottery for what? Development brownie points?

For not wasting assets. If they were really intent on tanking, they'd have done so this year, and Shai is good enough already to take them out of the number one pick race. All trading Paul now does is waste a future asset, which is the opposite of what a rebuilding team does. They should be collecting them.

Honestly they should have sold Gallo at the deadline and been done with it, but haven't and won't just trade talent to trade talent, that's more directionless than collecting assets. Even the hardest tanking teams never did so.

Also Paul isn't owed $85M in one year, you'd save almost the same amount exactly by trading both Adams and Schroder, and you could duck the tax by letting Gallo walk and moving one most likely. The only concerns should be asset collection and if they're gonna be bad getting under the tax. Don't waste any assets.

[Resistance]

OKC is in a good situation even though their current contracts/players are either hard to move off of, not worth much, or part of the rebuild (Shai). As I see it, SGA and Bazley are the main players with potential long term. SGA is obvious, but Bazley reminds me a lot of early career Jerami Grant. The offense has a long way to go, but if he can become merely serviceable, he will be a good player for them. Fortunately there is lots of time.

So, as boring as it is, I would mainly stand pat. Of course see if a S+T is available for Gallo, if it is not, resign him for the duration of Paul's contract, and let the young guys continue to develop. Paul I don't think will be worth moving - people seem to think OKC would not have to attach an asset/assets and I disagree...so I'd see if someone wants Dennis. Detroit and New York seem like possible targets, and if you can get a second round pick out of it + expiring I think it is worth it. So....

Trade 1:
OKC trades: Dennis Schroeder
Detroit trades: Tony Snell, 2023 POR 2nd
Detroit gets a serviceable point guard that can also give fans someone to watch since he can get some volume scoring numbers. OKC gets a wing player that can shoot, a future second, and saves a bit of money.

Trade 2:
OKC trades: Danilo Gallinari (S+T)
Portland trades: Trevor Ariza, 2021 POR 1st (lottery protected 2 years, then 2 2nds)
OKC gets a first for Gallo, Portland adds the forward they need to take their next step. Ariza will also be a useful rotation piece for OKC, and I'd imagine they will still be competing for the last spot in the playoffs. If they are not, Ariza is likely flippable for some additional value.

Then mainly just stand pat. Resign Noel if possible, but I bet someone offers the full MLE (Boston?) and I just don't see that being worth it for a backup.

Draft
25. Jaden McDaniels or Paul Reed seem like OKC picks if available...just saying Reed b/c he seems a bit lower on boards
51. Trendon Watford seems like another OKC pick

Adams/Muscala/min.
Reed/Bazley/Ariza
Ariza/Snell/Roby
SGA/Diallo/Dort/Burton
Paul/SGA

Schroder gained a bad reputation when he with Atlanta at the start of their rebuild. Detroit should dig around and see if they can unearth some young talent instead of bringing in Schroder who could become a negative again. Also, they are in a rebuild and shouldn't be sending out draft picks.

[getrichordie]

I'd move any vets possible, would have done it already honestly. I'd definitely do so with Schroeder, he's at peak value.

Paul I assume would need to be to either a team that's desperate or a contender. Knicks or Sixers I'd suppose. It's a limited market, so worst case he stays. It's been reported a ton that they won't give value, and he's not hurting anything just being there so there's no point wasting assets on it.

Feels like at that point you could do the same if it costs an asset to move Adams or Schroder and achieve the same. They'll get under the tax without moving him if needed when they're gone.

Eh, I mean I feel like it hurts our chances at getting a Cunningham, Green, or Kuminga, tbh. And yeah, trading Adams and Schroder can save some money but that's only a small chunk next to $85M for a player who is going to play us into bottom of playoffs and take us out of lottery for what? Development brownie points?

For not wasting assets. If they were really intent on tanking, they'd have done so this year, and Shai is good enough already to take them out of the number one pick race. All trading Paul now does is waste a future asset, which is the opposite of what a rebuilding team does. They should be collecting them.

Honestly they should have sold Gallo at the deadline and been done with it, but haven't and won't just trade talent to trade talent, that's more directionless than collecting assets. Even the hardest tanking teams never did so.

Also Paul isn't owed $85M in one year, you'd save almost the same amount exactly by trading both Adams and Schroder, and you could duck the tax by letting Gallo walk and moving one most likely. The only concerns should be asset collection and if they're gonna be bad getting under the tax. Don't waste any assets.

They were trying to sell Gallo which definitely tells you which direction we are trying to go in. MIA just wouldn't agree to give him that 3rd year. I'm sure we are trying to sell Paul too but the risk at 3 years remaining is a lot. 2 years is much more pallatable, I would imagine.

The #25 "asset" pails in comparison to what kind of pick we could potentially get next year in a strong draft.

[bondom34]

Eh, I mean I feel like it hurts our chances at getting a Cunningham, Green, or Kuminga, tbh. And yeah, trading Adams and Schroder can save some money but that's only a small chunk next to $85M for a player who is going to play us into bottom of playoffs and take us out of lottery for what? Development brownie points?

For not wasting assets. If they were really intent on tanking, they'd have done so this year, and Shai is good enough already to take them out of the number one pick race. All trading Paul now does is waste a future asset, which is the opposite of what a rebuilding team does. They should be collecting them.

Honestly they should have sold Gallo at the deadline and been done with it, but haven't and won't just trade talent to trade talent, that's more directionless than collecting assets. Even the hardest tanking teams never did so.

Also Paul isn't owed $85M in one year, you'd save almost the same amount exactly by trading both Adams and Schroder, and you could duck the tax by letting Gallo walk and moving one most likely. The only concerns should be asset collection and if they're gonna be bad getting under the tax. Don't waste any assets.

They were trying to sell Gallo which definitely tells you which direction we are trying to go in. MIA just wouldn't agree to give him that 3rd year. I'm sure we are trying to sell Paul too but the risk at 3 years remaining is a lot. 2 years is much more pallatable, I would imagine.

The #25 "asset" pails in comparison to what kind of pick we could potentially get next year in a strong draft.

Theyre going to still be too good. It's not trading the 25, it's that it gives no benefit other than moving a guy you don't need to. Trading the other guys is easier and accomplishes the same, and it's just not wasting an asset to move him.


Unless they trade SGA the top3 is out of the picture and they honestly didn't try too hard to move Gallo or they'd have found a spot. Portland, Orlando, plenty of spots made sense but they chased wins this year. And they also don't want to dilute the value they got when.they obtained Paul.

Edit: There's also actually no precedent for a team ever trading a player, with an asset, for the sole purpose of being bad. It's never happened. If a team wants to rebuild through the draft they don't spend capital to move players.

[getrichordie]

For not wasting assets. If they were really intent on tanking, they'd have done so this year, and Shai is good enough already to take them out of the number one pick race. All trading Paul now does is waste a future asset, which is the opposite of what a rebuilding team does. They should be collecting them.

Honestly they should have sold Gallo at the deadline and been done with it, but haven't and won't just trade talent to trade talent, that's more directionless than collecting assets. Even the hardest tanking teams never did so.

Also Paul isn't owed $85M in one year, you'd save almost the same amount exactly by trading both Adams and Schroder, and you could duck the tax by letting Gallo walk and moving one most likely. The only concerns should be asset collection and if they're gonna be bad getting under the tax. Don't waste any assets.

They were trying to sell Gallo which definitely tells you which direction we are trying to go in. MIA just wouldn't agree to give him that 3rd year. I'm sure we are trying to sell Paul too but the risk at 3 years remaining is a lot. 2 years is much more pallatable, I would imagine.

The #25 "asset" pails in comparison to what kind of pick we could potentially get next year in a strong draft.

Theyre going to still be too good. It's not trading the 25, it's that it gives no benefit other than moving a guy you don't need to. Trading the other guys is easier and accomplishes the same, and it's just not wasting an asset to move him.

Unless they trade SGA the top3 is out of the picture and they honestly didn't try too hard to move Gallo or they'd have found a spot. Portland, Orlando, plenty of spots made sense but they chased wins this year. And they also don't want to dilute the value they got when.they obtained Paul.

Portland really wasn't contending and everyone knew Gallo was going to be an UFA. Portland doesn't really have any assets that OKC would want other than #14, and doubt POR trades their pick this year for an expiring Gallo. Orlando makes 0 sense because they already have 3 PFs on the roster next year they are trying to give minutes to and they would probably expect us to pay them something plus Gallinari to get Gordon if that's who you like.

I just don't see the case for keeping Paul. What does that do for us? Why keep Paul only to move Schroder and Adams? What's the point?

[bondom34]

They were trying to sell Gallo which definitely tells you which direction we are trying to go in. MIA just wouldn't agree to give him that 3rd year. I'm sure we are trying to sell Paul too but the risk at 3 years remaining is a lot. 2 years is much more pallatable, I would imagine.

The #25 "asset" pails in comparison to what kind of pick we could potentially get next year in a strong draft.

Theyre going to still be too good. It's not trading the 25, it's that it gives no benefit other than moving a guy you don't need to. Trading the other guys is easier and accomplishes the same, and it's just not wasting an asset to move him.

Unless they trade SGA the top3 is out of the picture and they honestly didn't try too hard to move Gallo or they'd have found a spot. Portland, Orlando, plenty of spots made sense but they chased wins this year. And they also don't want to dilute the value they got when.they obtained Paul.

Portland really wasn't contending and everyone knew Gallo was going to be an UFA. Portland doesn't really have any assets that OKC would want other than #14, and doubt POR trades their pick this year for an expiring Gallo. Orlando makes 0 sense because they already have 3 PFs on the roster next year they are trying to give minutes to and they would probably expect us to pay them something plus Gallinari to get Gordon if that's who you like.

I just don't see the case for keeping Paul. What does that do for us? Why keep Paul only to move Schroder and Adams? What's the point?

Not wasting assets? Like, literally it's the opposite of what a rebuilding team does. You said it earlier, he's injured a lot, in which case you don't worry about the 35 year old guy and move the rest of the roster if you really want to tank and gain assets.

Basically the point of moving the other guys is doing the thing you want to do without wasting the asset you want to waste. They're not going to be that bad anyway and duck the tax either way. One way you don't waste an asset, one you do.

Also there were plenty of teams where Gallo made sense, if he was really a guy they wanted to move, they'd have done so. If the point was just to tank they would have.

Like, there's no point in trading picks away to move Paul. There's no gain and you just lose the picks you spent doing so. Again, there's no precedent in history to my knowledge of a team doing what you're proposing ever. Not once. If you really don't want him to win you games, minutes restrictions, sit him, whatever, but he's not hurting anyone on the roster.

[getrichordie]

Theyre going to still be too good. It's not trading the 25, it's that it gives no benefit other than moving a guy you don't need to. Trading the other guys is easier and accomplishes the same, and it's just not wasting an asset to move him.

Unless they trade SGA the top3 is out of the picture and they honestly didn't try too hard to move Gallo or they'd have found a spot. Portland, Orlando, plenty of spots made sense but they chased wins this year. And they also don't want to dilute the value they got when.they obtained Paul.

Portland really wasn't contending and everyone knew Gallo was going to be an UFA. Portland doesn't really have any assets that OKC would want other than #14, and doubt POR trades their pick this year for an expiring Gallo. Orlando makes 0 sense because they already have 3 PFs on the roster next year they are trying to give minutes to and they would probably expect us to pay them something plus Gallinari to get Gordon if that's who you like.

I just don't see the case for keeping Paul. What does that do for us? Why keep Paul only to move Schroder and Adams? What's the point?

Not wasting assets? Like, literally it's the opposite of what a rebuilding team does. You said it earlier, he's injured a lot, in which case you don't worry about the 35 year old guy and move the rest of the roster if you really want to tank and gain assets.

Basically the point of moving the other guys is doing the thing you want to do without wasting the asset you want to waste. They're not going to be that bad anyway and duck the tax either way. One way you don't waste an asset, one you do.

Also there were plenty of teams where Gallo made sense, if he was really a guy they wanted to move, they'd have done so. If the point was just to tank they would have.

Like, there's no point in trading picks away to move Paul. There's no gain and you just lose the picks you spent doing so. Again, there's no precedent in history to my knowledge of a team doing what you're proposing ever. Not once. If you really don't want him to win you games, minutes restrictions, sit him, whatever, but he's not hurting anyone on the roster.

Fair enough, I suppose. I guess you see #25 as way more valuable than I do.

I think we know we aren't giving Paul a minutes restriction. That would raise eyebrows and tank his value.

There's a first time for everything. Has there ever been a 35 y.o. point who takes up so much percentage of the cap on a small market team? I don't know.

And there's not always suitable returns to be had on the trade market every year. Let's not pretend that each year there is always going to be multiple feasible packages in return for an expiring Gallinari. Only two kinds of trades can happen there really. Someone (most likely contender) is sending us bad salary and and good value for Gallinari's expiring. That makes the list pretty short.

I just personally would rather keep Schroder and Adams expirings and trade Paul away and save that money too and tank for a good pick this upcoming year. I just feel like that is a much stronger case than keeping Paul. As for the trade, I posted, it's not like we are just saving money. We are also getting back a useful player in Randle and a buy-low prospect in Knox. If it helps, I'm sure NYK wouldn't mind sending one of the picks in their 30s.

[tobysunsfan]

A deal could be made around Sun's 10th pick for Schroder + Ferguson, or something like that.

[bondom34]

Have a minute so I'll be more in depth:

Fair enough, I suppose. I guess you see #25 as way more valuable than I do.

Nope, think it's not terribly useful, but it's an asset. I won't spend $10 on a grocery item if I can get the same item for $9 with no effort.

I think we know we aren't giving Paul a minutes restriction. That would raise eyebrows and tank his value.

At this point we're worried about value? You're trading him with a reason that you want to actively be bad. If your goal is to be bad, this does that and keeps the asset. If your goal isn't to be bad, you keep Paul.

There's a first time for everything. Has there ever been a 35 y.o. point who takes up so much percentage of the cap on a small market team? I don't know.

Age shouldn't carry a weight, and there's also no precedent for keeping all your middling vets when you're over the tax on a small market team. All they do is keep you exactly where Paul does, in the middle.

And there's not always suitable returns to be had on the trade market every year. Let's not pretend that each year there is always going to be multiple feasible packages in return for an expiring Gallinari. Only two kinds of trades can happen there really. Someone (most likely contender) is sending us bad salary and and good value for Gallinari's expiring. That makes the list pretty short.

I mean you could have used a pick to deal Gallo if you wanted to be bad, but again didn't want to waste an asset. Which goes back to suitable return.

I just personally would rather keep Schroder and Adams expirings and trade Paul away and save that money too and tank for a good pick this upcoming year. I just feel like that is a much stronger case than keeping Paul. As for the trade, I posted, it's not like we are just saving money. We are also getting back a useful player in Randle and a buy-low prospect in Knox. If it helps, I'm sure NYK wouldn't mind sending one of the picks in their 30s.

Keeping two worse players who make more combined money during a rebuild while wasting an asset seems like a pretty terrible strategy honestly. I can't put it any other way. To top that all off, it's an unprecedented move after a trade where they really seemed to want to save face by getting assets for the Westbrook contract.

To add to all of that Randle and Knox aren't really buy low guys. They're just bad.

[getrichordie]

.

Adams + Schroder = $40M owed
Paul = $85M owed

...???

Knox isn't even 21 yet and Knicks are terrible. Of course he's bad. Not crazy to think he is salvageable. Randle is actually a little above average as a player, but whatever, not gonna quibble over how we value players.

Re: Gallinari, why trade Gallinari this year to worsen team to move up 6-7 spots in a weaker draft? This isn't the draft to worry about. Next year is where the big fish are and everyone knows it.