Donovan Mitchell Thread #6 - Something might actually happen in this one!!!!!!

[Capn'O]

If I were to guess I'd guess the Knicks and Jazz have the framework but are exploring deals with additional teams added. Especially with potential Nets trades still out there.

[Ghetto Gospel]

What is your path to getting Siakam on the Knicks? Post your trade proposal please.

it's free. NDoS said last year that siakam is a negative contract that the raptors would have to trade 1st rounders to get off of. just match salaries, np

"NDoS said" may as well just say "I'm mad"


You gonna get another warning allowing me to get you amped up.

i was actually just having fun with the other guy. nothing serious, he was just getting mad about it so i kept going

[NoDopeOnSundays]

it's free. NDoS said last year that siakam is a negative contract that the raptors would have to trade 1st rounders to get off of. just match salaries, np

"NDoS said" may as well just say "I'm mad"


You gonna get another warning allowing me to get you amped up.

i was actually just having fun with the other guy. nothing serious, he was just getting mad about it so i kept going

Doesn't matter, I'm claiming the warning either way

[Iron Mantis]

or i can get pascal siakam to play the 4 for me. you said just last year that the raptors would have to give up picks to get off his contract right? i'll take pascal siakam with the picks. tyvm

What is your path to getting Siakam on the Knicks? Post your trade proposal please.

it's free. NDoS said last year that siakam is a negative contract that the raptors would have to trade 1st rounders to get off of. just match salaries, np

The Knicks have Randle and Obi.

It's likely one of them gets swept up in the trades surrounding D.Mitch, and one of them left as the Knicks starting PF.

What does Siakam or any 3&D PF have to do with the Knicks?

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

it's free. NDoS said last year that siakam is a negative contract that the raptors would have to trade 1st rounders to get off of. just match salaries, np

"NDoS said" may as well just say "I'm mad"


You gonna get another warning allowing me to get you amped up.

i was actually just having fun with the other guy. nothing serious, he was just getting mad about it so i kept going

... until you were there

[Clyde_Style]

If I were to guess I'd guess the Knicks and Jazz have the framework but are exploring deals with additional teams added. Especially with potential Nets trades still out there.

The Bangkok LadyBois have expressed interest in Green Arrow and the Lakers want Randle so I expect upwards to a dozen teams involved in this trade

[Ghetto Gospel]

What is your path to getting Siakam on the Knicks? Post your trade proposal please.

it's free. NDoS said last year that siakam is a negative contract that the raptors would have to trade 1st rounders to get off of. just match salaries, np

The Knicks have Randle and Obi.

It's likely one of them gets swept up in the trades surrounding D.Mitch, and one of them left as the Knicks starting PF.

What does Siakam or any 3&D PF have to do with the Knicks?

we were talking about role players and what i would ideally like to see from the PF position if the trade were to go through and we obtained mitchell (presumably obi goes out). for me it's role players that play on both sides of the ball, it doesn't necessarily have to be 3&d per say, that's just a common archetype.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

If I were to guess I'd guess the Knicks and Jazz have the framework but are exploring deals with additional teams added. Especially with potential Nets trades still out there.

Who the f are you and why do you think you have the right to bring the conversation back to the headline topic?? Srsly.

[Clyde_Style]

If I were to guess I'd guess the Knicks and Jazz have the framework but are exploring deals with additional teams added. Especially with potential Nets trades still out there.

Who the f are you and why do you think you have the right to bring the conversation back to the headline topic?? Srsly.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

If I were to guess I'd guess the Knicks and Jazz have the framework but are exploring deals with additional teams added. Especially with potential Nets trades still out there.

Kyrie is tremendously complicated as a trade. The Lakers, sure. But I really struggle to see, for example, Giannis wanting him on the roster. Or Jimmy Butler. And then Durant doesn't seem probably to really want to move.

[Madskillzz024]

Giving up Grimes and Obi isnt really giving up the house. Knicks would still have RJ, IQ, McBride, and Cam.

Pretty sure the Jazz Radio host even said the player return was meh but the picks return was a haul for Utah.

Really depends on the valuation each team puts on the individual youth not only in the present, but how they rate their projection.
And each side is going to lie a bit for leverage.

I have no idea. Sometimes I think Obi can take another step or at least project his current stats upward with increased minutes, other times I'm less sure and say "whatever, Randle is going to get the minutes, go get Paschall and call it a trade"

And same is true of IQ and Grimes.

Then again, it's not like Utah scored some giant "Youth" haul from The Wolves.

Not counting Beasley. He's there for the $, he's expiring, and really what matters is he's decent and can be moved. Same for Beverly. Knicks can offer the same level of players in Rose, Fournier and Cam - in that they are filler of some use, who can be moved.

The "youth" the Wovles sent: Vanderbilt, Leandro Bolmaro, Walker Kessler.

Vanderbilt is an ordinary, nothing special backup PF - perfect for the tank, won't be winning a team any games.
Leandro Bolmaro has played one season and not done much - but here's the upside arguments
Walker Kessler hasn't played an NBA minute. He's a scouting report and all projection.

100% agree
It’s almost like the Melo trade where a lot of fans didn’t want Chandler + Gallo moved and Fields would have been a deal breaker.

Fields wasn’t in the league that much longer after that trade and Chandler was nothing special. Gallo never really reached his potential neither

[Fury]

If I were to guess I'd guess the Knicks and Jazz have the framework but are exploring deals with additional teams added. Especially with potential Nets trades still out there.

If this is true do I get credit for saying it’s done in a previous thread

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

If I were to guess I'd guess the Knicks and Jazz have the framework but are exploring deals with additional teams added. Especially with potential Nets trades still out there.

Kyrie is tremendously complicated as a trade. The Lakers, sure. But I really struggle to see, for example, Giannis wanting him on the roster. Or Jimmy Butler. And then Durant doesn't seem probably to really want to move.

Brunson plus a healthy KD would be a pretty interesting concept, OTOH. Again, I'd want the Knicks to keep Fournier and put Rose and Randle in the trade. But maybe I'd allow them to throw Simmons into the trade and take all three.

Again, to clarify, if the Nets are trading away kd and ki then why wouldn't they be in the market for bundles of FRPs? You can't trade Durant and hope to keep your ship equity or any ship equity.

[Chanel Bomber]

You don't need your PF to be a sniper from three, he only needs to be respectable, and Obi was respectable over a 45 game stretch. If Obi is making the three at league average rate he's a better player than Randle, especially for a team that wants to have two guards, it's really that simple to me.

Too many cooks in a kitchen is a real thing, the Celtics at one point had Kyrie, Hayward, Brown and Tatum, all those playmakers can step on each others toes. Eventually you need a guy who is just fine standing in the corner, do you think Randle is going to do that? You don't need your PF to be a playmaker, Randle handles the ball more than Giannis to generate these stats, simply getting out of the way would be a huge plus from the 4 spot.

A low usage PF that hustles is not in positional no man's land, that's basically what Siakam was for the Raptors when they won, an opportunistic scorer that just plays hard, Pascal shot 28% from three in the playoffs.

Pascal was a plus defender though, which Obi has yet to prove he can be. It makes a world of difference. I also think Siakam had a better handle than Obi, which gave Toronto some extra flexibility.

I'm not making the case for Randle. I'm saying that Obi doesn't yet project as a starting 4 either, and his current archetype is not ideal for that role, and probably outdated. I view him more as a 5 who can't protect the rim, in fact.

Of course, he can improve and become a more reliable shooter, especially in C&S. His form does concern me though. But I don't feel that strongly about him either way.

Siakam didn't have a good handle, what he had going for him was that he was constantly putting pressure on teams to get back on defense, he scored 6ppg in transition out of his 16.9ppg, hustling is the key thing you're missing here. We just saw Brandon Clarke make an impact in the playoffs and he doesn't shoot the three at all, point is you're putting entirely too big an emphasis on shooting from the 4 spot, it's a luxury not a requirement.

Here's the thing, if we trade for Mitchell we're going to have limited ways to improve the 4 spot, so the most logical thing to do is take the guy on a lower salary that doesn't need the ball and find out what he can do. You're talking about Randle & Obi as though we're going to be able to find a better replacement while being capped out & with less draft capital. Also, the other day didn't you just say you think Obi can be a productive starter

Brandon Clarke is a bench player for Memphis. Not sure he's the best example to use to project Obi as a starter. Both undeniably make an impact as bench players.

I did say and I do think Obi can be a productive starter. But production doesn't necessarily translate to impact, which is what I'm more interested in. Can Obi make a positive impact as a starter? That's the more interesting question.

PJ Tucker impacts winning more than Julius Randle does, albeit in a lesser role, despite having far less production due to a lower usage.

Think of how D. Rose was hugely impactful for the Knicks as a 6th man with the bench unit - which blew opposing benches out and was the driving factor for our record - but became non-impactful as a starter.

A player doesn't change by going from the bench to the starting unit. But his environment does. The level of competition is higher. His opponents are better, usually on both ends. And it can affect a player's impact dramatically, especially if there's a mismatch between a player's skill set and the traits that his role demands.

[Madskillzz024]

Giving up Grimes and Obi isnt really giving up the house. Knicks would still have RJ, IQ, McBride, and Cam.

Pretty sure the Jazz Radio host even said the player return was meh but the picks return was a haul for Utah.

McBride and Cam are nothing prospects. So saying we’d still have them doesn’t mean a thing.

I’m not high on McBride at all personally.

Reddish we gave up a first and there were rumors that Pistons and most recently the Heat were interested in him. He’s about to turn 23 and it’s a make or break year for him contract wise. He had a few 30 pt games with the hawks prior to the trade. He just can’t seem to stay healthy.

He could be a low risk, medium reward if he could ever put his game together and stay healthy

[Chanel Bomber]

Apropos of nothing, Barrett's TS% at 21 is higher than Burks' was. At higher usage. ACAB. Hold them accountable. Carry on.

Not relative to league-average, which is what matters.

RJ was a 90 in league-adjusted TS at 21.

Burks was a 95 at 21. Which still surpasses RJ's best year in league-adjusted TS.

MJ Burks has never sunk this low (90) in his career.

Congrats on your self-inflicted L, Cap

[VirginiaKnickFan]

If I were to guess I'd guess the Knicks and Jazz have the framework but are exploring deals with additional teams added. Especially with potential Nets trades still out there.

Why do you think they even have a framework at this point?

[Clyde_Style]

If I were to guess I'd guess the Knicks and Jazz have the framework but are exploring deals with additional teams added. Especially with potential Nets trades still out there.

If this is true do I get credit for saying it’s done in a previous thread

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Pascal was a plus defender though, which Obi has yet to prove he can be. It makes a world of difference. I also think Siakam had a better handle than Obi, which gave Toronto some extra flexibility.

I'm not making the case for Randle. I'm saying that Obi doesn't yet project as a starting 4 either, and his current archetype is not ideal for that role, and probably outdated. I view him more as a 5 who can't protect the rim, in fact.

Of course, he can improve and become a more reliable shooter, especially in C&S. His form does concern me though. But I don't feel that strongly about him either way.

Siakam didn't have a good handle, what he had going for him was that he was constantly putting pressure on teams to get back on defense, he scored 6ppg in transition out of his 16.9ppg, hustling is the key thing you're missing here. We just saw Brandon Clarke make an impact in the playoffs and he doesn't shoot the three at all, point is you're putting entirely too big an emphasis on shooting from the 4 spot, it's a luxury not a requirement.

Here's the thing, if we trade for Mitchell we're going to have limited ways to improve the 4 spot, so the most logical thing to do is take the guy on a lower salary that doesn't need the ball and find out what he can do. You're talking about Randle & Obi as though we're going to be able to find a better replacement while being capped out & with less draft capital. Also, the other day didn't you just say you think Obi can be a productive starter

Brandon Clarke is a bench player for Memphis. Not sure he's the best example to use to project Obi as a starter. Both undeniably make an impact as bench players.

I did say and I do think Obi can be a productive starter. But production doesn't necessarily translate to impact, which is what I'm more interested in. Can Obi make a positive impact as a starter? That's the more interesting question.

PJ Tucker impacts winning more than Julius Randle does, albeit in a lesser role, despite having far less production due to a lower usage.

Think of how D. Rose was hugely impactful for the Knicks as a 6th man with the bench unit - which blew opposing benches out and was the driving factor for our record - but became non-impactful as a starter.

A player doesn't change by going from the bench to the starting unit. But his environment does. The level of competition is higher. His opponents are better, usually on both ends. And it can affect a player's impact dramatically, especially if there's a mismatch between a player's skill set and the traits that his role demands.

Brandon Clarke is a bench player who made an impact while shooting 0% from three in the playoffs, he would be a starter if he were simply an average three point shooter, which is the point in bringing him up. This is a player who can't make threes, and is a hustle energy big that averaged 17/9 against the Wolves. The issue with him is he wont shoot it, and it's trending down, which doesn't work with JA, where as Obi has made 30 more threes in his career while playing half as many total minutes. How can you not understand something like this? The point is that if Obi is Brandon Clarke with a 3, he has a chance to be a productive and impactful player.


You're overrating role players again, PJ Tucker was -16 in 17 minutes in game 7, he was 0-7 and couldn't do anything on offense, all while his matchup was scoring. In a 4 point loss he was just doing cardio, he didn't stop anyone from scoring, and he actively hurt his team on offense because the Celtics decided they were fine with living with him shooting threes. More often than not these type of role players completely **** the bed in the playoffs. I may not like Randle, but I do not want anyone that limited on offense at the 4.



I think with Obi you're just hedging, you say he can be a productive starter, then add this qualifier, even though he's already been a positive impact for us. That way if he plays well you can post your King Macho man gif and say you called it, and if he doesn't play well you can say "Well, I didn't think he would be impactful".

[Clyde_Style]

Siakam didn't have a good handle, what he had going for him was that he was constantly putting pressure on teams to get back on defense, he scored 6ppg in transition out of his 16.9ppg, hustling is the key thing you're missing here. We just saw Brandon Clarke make an impact in the playoffs and he doesn't shoot the three at all, point is you're putting entirely too big an emphasis on shooting from the 4 spot, it's a luxury not a requirement.

Here's the thing, if we trade for Mitchell we're going to have limited ways to improve the 4 spot, so the most logical thing to do is take the guy on a lower salary that doesn't need the ball and find out what he can do. You're talking about Randle & Obi as though we're going to be able to find a better replacement while being capped out & with less draft capital. Also, the other day didn't you just say you think Obi can be a productive starter

Brandon Clarke is a bench player for Memphis. Not sure he's the best example to use to project Obi as a starter. Both undeniably make an impact as bench players.

I did say and I do think Obi can be a productive starter. But production doesn't necessarily translate to impact, which is what I'm more interested in. Can Obi make a positive impact as a starter? That's the more interesting question.

PJ Tucker impacts winning more than Julius Randle does, albeit in a lesser role, despite having far less production due to a lower usage.

Think of how D. Rose was hugely impactful for the Knicks as a 6th man with the bench unit - which blew opposing benches out and was the driving factor for our record - but became non-impactful as a starter.

A player doesn't change by going from the bench to the starting unit. But his environment does. The level of competition is higher. His opponents are better, usually on both ends. And it can affect a player's impact dramatically, especially if there's a mismatch between a player's skill set and the traits that his role demands.

Brandon Clarke is a bench player who made an impact while shooting 0% from three in the playoffs, he would be a starter if he were simply an average three point shooter, which is the point in bringing him up. This is a player who can't make threes, and is a hustle energy big that averaged 17/9 against the Wolves. The issue with him is he wont shoot it, and it's trending down, which doesn't work with JA, where as Obi has made 30 more threes in his career while playing half as many total minutes. How can you not understand something like this? The point is that if Obi is Brandon Clarke with a 3, he has a chance to be a productive and impactful player.


You're overrating role players again, PJ Tucker was -16 in 17 minutes in game 7, he was 0-7 and couldn't do anything on offense, all while his matchup was scoring. In a 4 point loss he was just doing cardio, he didn't stop anyone from scoring, and he actively hurt his team on offense because the Celtics decided they were fine with living with him shooting threes. More often than not these type of role players completely **** the bed in the playoffs. I may not like Randle, but I do not want anyone that limited on offense at the 4.



I think with Obi you're just hedging, you say he can be a productive starter, then add this qualifier, even though he's already been a positive impact for us. That way if he plays well you can post your King Macho man gif and say you called it, and if he doesn't play well you can say "Well, I didn't think he would be impactful".

You and I know Obi will be one of the greatest providers of crow dinners in RealGM history. Looking forward to it