RealGM

Nets Trade:
Bridges + Simmons + 25/27/29 Suns 1sts
FOR
Mitchell + Ingram
Why= takes Bridges to get Mitchell, backfill with Ingram - in location very likely retain both.

Cavs Trade:
Mitchell + Allen
FOR
Bridges + Hunter + 25/27/29 Suns 1sts (via Nets)
Why= at risk of losing Mitchell, get Bridges and restock assets.

Hawks Trade:
Murray + Hunter
FOR
Daniels + Simmons + 25 Lakers 1st (via Pels) + 27 Bucks 1st (via Pels)
Why= get assets for Murray and move off Hunter $.

Pels Trade:
Ingram + Daniels + 2x 1sts
FOR
Murray + Allen
Why= per WT, get PG they prefer. And a starting C.

If Mitchell is willing to extend, they'll just extend him. They wouldn't trade him for Bridges straight up, let alone eat Hunter and gift away Allen like this. This is significantly off.

Easy yes for Cleveland if Mitchell indicates he is gone. Hell, I like this for Cleveland regardless of what Mitchell wants.

jbk1234 wrote:If Mitchell is willing to extend, they'll just extend him. They wouldn't trade him for Bridges straight up, let alone eat Hunter and gift away Allen like Allen. This is significantly off.

Huh, they're getting several of the most highly valued firsts in the league

kds92 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:If Mitchell is willing to extend, they'll just extend him. They wouldn't trade him for Bridges straight up, let alone eat Hunter and gift away Allen like Allen. This is significantly off.

Huh, they're getting several of the most highly valued firsts in the league

Which they're trading two win-now players for. If Mitchell won't extend, it make sense to pivot like this even if the Nets hang onto Bridges, but if Mitchell extends, they're keeping him.

I'm ok with it.

jbk1234 wrote:If Mitchell is willing to extend, they'll just extend him. They wouldn't trade him for Bridges straight up, let alone eat Hunter and gift away Allen like this. This is significantly off.

Of course scenario is no Mitchell extension and fear of losing for nothing.