RealGM

For purposes of this poll, please assume that Brandon Knight will be traded in any case.

Re-voting allowed.

This is totally gonna be a deadline day bonanza.

When I think of blow it up, I think of moving major pieces. I don't see that happening. I think we may trade Tucker and Knight by the trade deadline. Possibly somebody else like Jenkins goes with one of them if salary is needed. I don't see anyone else being moved.

If blow it up is moving Tucker and Knight, December 15th for Knight (but doubt it happens that soon) and Tucker probably the sooner the better as well for me. But I think they may hang onto him a little longer. Our rooks get playing time every game. Hopefully that continues when Warren returns. If not I will want to move Tucker asap.

If Tucker and Knight are still here after the deadline passes.....well lets just hope it doesn't come to that

Well it's here, but rarely do players move on this date.

I'd be against most deals where we get back an RFA looking to get PAID

I'm aware Noel is one of these players

lilfishi22 wrote:I'd be against most deals where we get back an RFA looking to get PAID

I'm aware Noel is one of these players

You say that as if nobody will get paid in the offseason. What difference does it make when we clearly have to overpay for players? I would rather give Noel a big contract then keep watching Knight/Tucker/Len.

Chriss has started playing solid. Bledsoe with a beast season. Booker playing through injuries. Bender showing that he can change the game by just being on the floor. I love what Ulis brings to the table when he plays.

We don't need Knight, Tucker or Len on this team. Chandler can fill the gap until we see what happens in FA. This team would flourish defensively with Chandler/Noel.

GoranTragic wrote:

lilfishi22 wrote:I'd be against most deals where we get back an RFA looking to get PAID

I'm aware Noel is one of these players

You say that as if nobody will get paid in the offseason. What difference does it make when we want to give out terrible contracts? I would rather give Noel a big contract then keep watching Knight/Tucker/Len.

It's not about the amount, it's more the decision to pay them or not. We already have Len we need to make a decision on. We went through a similar situation with Knight and Bledsoe where traded for them and we saw them play for a season (11 games for Knight) and needed to pay them or we traded away assets for nothing. It's especially true for Knight, where we saw on play 11 games only and he was subpar but we traded away the coveted LA pick for him so we couldn't let him go if we didn't want to keep him around.

That's the problem with trading for RFA's. Unless they completely stink it up, you pretty much HAVE to pay them.

lilfishi22 wrote:

GoranTragic wrote:

lilfishi22 wrote:I'd be against most deals where we get back an RFA looking to get PAID

I'm aware Noel is one of these players

You say that as if nobody will get paid in the offseason. What difference does it make when we want to give out terrible contracts? I would rather give Noel a big contract then keep watching Knight/Tucker/Len.

Chriss has started playing solid. Bledsoe with a beast season. Booker playing through injuries. Bender showing that he can change the game by just being on the floor. I love what Ulis brings to the table when he plays.

We don't need Knight, Tucker or Len on this team. Chandler can fill the gap until we see what happens in FA. This team would flourish defensively with Chandler/Noel.

It's not about the amount, it's more the decision to pay them or not. We already have Len we need to make a decision on. We went through a similar situation with Knight and Bledsoe where traded for them and we saw them play for a season (11 games for Knight) and needed to pay them or we traded away assets for nothing. It's especially true for Knight, where we saw on play 11 games only and he was subpar but we traded away the coveted LA pick for him so we couldn't let him go if we didn't want to keep him around.

That's the problem with trading for RFA's. Unless they completely stink it up, you pretty much HAVE to pay them.

I'm not saying we should lose Len for nothing. Though I do remember saving money in that Amare sign and trade. Does it really matter? I don't think we will get a useful player back nor do we need more picks.

GoranTragic wrote:

lilfishi22 wrote:

GoranTragic wrote:
You say that as if nobody will get paid in the offseason. What difference does it make when we want to give out terrible contracts? I would rather give Noel a big contract then keep watching Knight/Tucker/Len.

Chriss has started playing solid. Bledsoe with a beast season. Booker playing through injuries. Bender showing that he can change the game by just being on the floor. I love what Ulis brings to the table when he plays.

We don't need Knight, Tucker or Len on this team. Chandler can fill the gap until we see what happens in FA. This team would flourish defensively with Chandler/Noel.

It's not about the amount, it's more the decision to pay them or not. We already have Len we need to make a decision on. We went through a similar situation with Knight and Bledsoe where traded for them and we saw them play for a season (11 games for Knight) and needed to pay them or we traded away assets for nothing. It's especially true for Knight, where we saw on play 11 games only and he was subpar but we traded away the coveted LA pick for him so we couldn't let him go if we didn't want to keep him around.

That's the problem with trading for RFA's. Unless they completely stink it up, you pretty much HAVE to pay them.

I'm not saying we should lose Len for nothing. Though I do remember saving money in that Amare sign and trade. Does it really matter? I don't think we will get a useful player back nor do we need more picks.

This isn't about Len. It's about trading for Noel or any other unproven RFA. We definitely need to make a decision on Len but that's beside the point

The point is, when you give up assets for an RFA or a player in the last year of his deal, you are almost forced to pay them or you would've traded your assets for nothing. I hate when an organisation is forced to make these types of reaction with very little time to evaluate play and fit.

December 15 has come and gone. Next up - New Years! That's where my votes been, but I don't have my hopes up. As long as we have a theoretical shot at the playoffs, McD will stay the course.

Practically, I think that means the trade deadline. Because we're done.

lilfishi22 wrote:This isn't about Len. It's about trading for Noel or any other unproven RFA. We definitely need to make a decision on Len but that's beside the point

The point is, when you give up assets for an RFA or a player in the last year of his deal, you are almost forced to pay them or you would've traded your assets for nothing. I hate when an organisation is forced to make these types of reaction with very little time to evaluate play and fit.

Like with Knight? Like with Bledsoe?

Frank Lee wrote:

lilfishi22 wrote:This isn't about Len. It's about trading for Noel or any other unproven RFA. We definitely need to make a decision on Len but that's beside the point

The point is, when you give up assets for an RFA or a player in the last year of his deal, you are almost forced to pay them or you would've traded your assets for nothing. I hate when an organisation is forced to make these types of reaction with very little time to evaluate play and fit.

Like with Knight? Like with Bledsoe?

Exactly like Knight and Bledsoe

lilfishi22 wrote:It's not about the amount, it's more the decision to pay them or not. We already have Len we need to make a decision on. We went through a similar situation with Knight and Bledsoe where traded for them and we saw them play for a season (11 games for Knight) and needed to pay them or we traded away assets for nothing. It's especially true for Knight, where we saw on play 11 games only and he was subpar but we traded away the coveted LA pick for him so we couldn't let him go if we didn't want to keep him around.

That's the problem with trading for RFA's. Unless they completely stink it up, you pretty much HAVE to pay them.

cosmofizzo wrote:December 15 has come and gone. Next up - New Years! That's where my votes been, but I don't have my hopes up. As long as we have a theoretical shot at the playoffs, McD will stay the course.

Practically, I think that means the trade deadline. Because we're done.

I really wish Sacramento or even Portland had a record similar to the Thunder, so everyone below the 8th seed would be way out already. But of course that one spot might be up for grabs if Portland doesn't turn it around.

lol we dont have anything to blow up silly!