RealGM

Of these three, in order, who has the most to least? Chandler, Tucker or Knight?

Chandler
Knight
Tucker

Right now:

Chandler - mid 1st
Knight - mid 1st
Tucker - mid - late 1st

I think Knight could see his value increase by the deadline. He's been playing better, but I bet he still wants out.

Chandler
Tucker
Knight

Chandler and Tucker are about the same, depending on the team.

Knight has fallen off the map. I am not sure how trade-able at all he is right now.

For some reason I thought a lot of people here were thinking we could get a first for Knight and that they'd say something like

Knight
Chandler
Tucker

I posted it on the trade board and I figured the people there would say Tucker, Chandler, Knight, just the opposite.

Based on what I read from sports writers it seems like Tucker has the most trade value just because most competitive teams could use a guy like that who can cover guys like Harden and guys like AD.

Someone added a poll to my question on the trade board and it looks like most say Chandler has the most, then Tucker, but it's close..some say Tucker has the most...that's how people were answering before the poll went up so they might not have voted.

Knight
Chandler
Tucker

bwgood77 wrote:Of these three, in order, who has the most to least? Chandler, Tucker or Knight?

Value wise
Knight
Chandler
Tucker

Demand wise
Tucker
Chandler
Knight

I think teams know they would have to give up more to get Knight which would drop his demand. Tucker could be a cheap safe get without giving much other than a low 1st round pick. Chandler is a mixed bag given his age and contract a desperate team could get him for a young player not getting minutes and a mid to low range 1st round pick.

Tucker has more suitors for sure

I'd go with: Tucker - Chandler - Knight

Chandler has the most value but taken in context, the answer is Tucker. A lot of teams would love to have Chandler but the teams motivated to make a midseason deal likely don't have the room for his contract. Tucker can help many of those same teams but it won't take much work to fit his salary in. Knight still has very little value. JMO.

Hypothetically speaking, if there were a league wide redraft of the NBA rosters, Knight would go higher than Chandler and Tucker. I think Knight is the most likely to get a higher return (probably a late lotto first), Chandler second (mid-first), and Tucker last (late-first). As far as the market for these players, I feel like it's pretty even, but Tucker is the easiest for a team to acquire given his relatively small contract.

MrMiyagi wrote:Hypothetically speaking, if there were a league wide redraft of the NBA rosters, Knight would go higher than Chandler and Tucker. I think Knight is the most likely to get a higher return (probably a late lotto first), Chandler second (mid-first), and Tucker last (late-first). As far as the market for these players, I feel like it's pretty even, but Tucker is the easiest for a team to acquire given his relatively small contract.

Your appraisal of Knight's value seems generous. I am not saying that it is incorrect—hey, if Markieff Morris could fetch a late lottery pick, then who knows, and if one scouts Knight when he happens to enjoy a hot streak, one could be tempted—but he is a guard shooting .421 from the field on two-point field goal attempts while ranking as the sixth-worst defensive player in the NBA according to Defensive Real Plus-Minus:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/DRPM

In fact, according to overall Real Plus-Minus, Knight constitutes one of the ten worst players in the NBA:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/RPM

I am not saying that that metric is everything; after all, I do not believe that Chris Paul is the best player in the league and that Kyle Lowry is the second-best. However, there would not be much incentive for a franchise to surrender a valuable asset in exchange for Knight.

You know, if the Suns were to pair Chandler and Tucker in trade negotiations, they might be able to drive up the price. For a club that acquires both of those guys could significantly improve its defense, rebounding, competitiveness, and toughness.

GMATCallahan wrote:

MrMiyagi wrote:Hypothetically speaking, if there were a league wide redraft of the NBA rosters, Knight would go higher than Chandler and Tucker. I think Knight is the most likely to get a higher return (probably a late lotto first), Chandler second (mid-first), and Tucker last (late-first). As far as the market for these players, I feel like it's pretty even, but Tucker is the easiest for a team to acquire given his relatively small contract.

Your appraisal of Knight's value seems generous. I am not saying that it is incorrect—hey, if Markieff Morris could fetch a late lottery pick, then who knows, and if one scouts Knight when he happens to enjoy a hot streak, one could be tempted—but he is a guard shooting .421 from the field on two-point field goal attempts while ranking as the sixth-worst defensive player in the NBA according to Defensive Real Plus-Minus:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/DRPM

In fact, according to overall Real Plus-Minus, Knight constitutes one of the ten worst players in the NBA:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/RPM

I am not saying that that metric is everything; after all, I do not believe that Chris Paul is the best player in the league and that Kyle Lowry is the second-best. However, there would not be much incentive for a franchise to surrender a valuable asset in exchange for Knight.

Knight has enough on his resume to make a team think "Dang, he's pretty good, he just needs the right situation, and I think we are that situation" much like we did. I think there are teams that feel close to the playoffs and need some offensive infusion and think Knight can be a guy who pushes them closer to the playoffs. I also think that any team who believes that will find that they were mistaken.

MrMiyagi wrote:Knight has enough on his resume to make a team think "Dang, he's pretty good, he just needs the right situation, and I think we are that situation" much like we did. I think there are teams that feel close to the playoffs and need some offensive infusion and think Knight can be a guy who pushes them closer to the playoffs. I also think that any team who believes that will find that they were mistaken.

... perhaps, but Knight has been in three "situations" now, and none of them have been "right." By now, teams may be figuring that the problem is the player, not the situation.

I could see teams being interested in Knight, because when he is hot, he functions as that classic Microwave Sixth Man/third guard. Indeed, for that reason, I could actually see a club such as Cleveland giving up a first-round pick for him. But that pick, of course, would figure to fall at the bottom of the first round (regardless of the year), and I am not sure that Knight would fetch more than a late first-round selection.

Knight is simply a poor choice to run your offense and he is too erratic of a shooter to function as an optimal shooting guard. Plus, his lack of strength and size renders him an especially poor choice to defend shooting guards. Thus his value to a decent team is probably that of a third or fourth guard—nothing more.

GMATCallahan wrote:

MrMiyagi wrote:Knight has enough on his resume to make a team think "Dang, he's pretty good, he just needs the right situation, and I think we are that situation" much like we did. I think there are teams that feel close to the playoffs and need some offensive infusion and think Knight can be a guy who pushes them closer to the playoffs. I also think that any team who believes that will find that they were mistaken.

... perhaps, but Knight has been in three "situations" now, and none of them have been "right." By now, teams may be figuring that the problem is the player, not the situation.

I could see teams being interested in Knight, because when he is hot, he functions as that classic Microwave Sixth Man/third guard. Indeed, for that reason, I could actually see a club such as Cleveland giving up a first-round pick for him. But that pick, of course, would figure to fall at the bottom of the first round (regardless of the year), and I am not sure that Knight would fetch more than a late first-round selection.

And that is a perfectly reasonable assessment as well.

MrMiyagi wrote:And that is a perfectly reasonable assessment as well.

By the way, see what I added to that post—for what it is worth.

GMATCallahan wrote:

MrMiyagi wrote:And that is a perfectly reasonable assessment as well.

By the way, see what I added to that post—for what it is worth.

Still reasonable. I'm personally still uncertain what NBA teams value now that Miles Plumlee is a $12 million a season player. Knight is a guy who has shown he can score 17+ ppg, can give you 4-5 assists a game (along with 3 turnovers and some pretty poor defense). His inconsistencies/deficiencies are the rub where one the one hand, a team could fall for the highs or be deterred by the lows. That being said, for the context of this thread, I don't see any scenario where Chandler or Tucker can pull a late lottery pick themselves, but there is a specific set of circumstances in which I think Knight could. So, let's say a Cleveland is willing to part with a first rounder to get Knight because he's likely to be more useful than a late first to them, but then there's New York who are two games back of the 8th seed, maybe they're not able to trade Melo and they need to make the playoffs. Jeff Hornacek has coached Knight before, may think well enough of him to okay Phil trading Brandon Jennings, Lance Thomas and their first rounder this year. I don't think Knight pushes them past Chicago/Milwaukee/Detroit for the 8th, netting us a late lotto pick.

Again, that is an incredibly specific set of circumstances, but not unfathomable in my mind.

MrMiyagi wrote:Still reasonable. I'm personally still uncertain what NBA teams value now that Miles Plumlee is a $12 million a season player. Knight is a guy who has shown he can score 17+ ppg, can give you 4-5 assists a game (along with 3 turnovers and some pretty poor defense). His inconsistencies/deficiencies are the rub where one the one hand, a team could fall for the highs or be deterred by the lows. That being said, for the context of this thread, I don't see any scenario where Chandler or Tucker can pull a late lottery pick themselves, but there is a specific set of circumstances in which I think Knight could. So, let's say a Cleveland is willing to part with a first rounder to get Knight because he's likely to be more useful than a late first to them, but then there's New York who are two games back of the 8th seed, maybe they're not able to trade Melo and they need to make the playoffs. Jeff Hornacek has coached Knight before, may think well enough of him to okay Phil trading Brandon Jennings, Lance Thomas and their first rounder this year. I don't think Knight pushes them past Chicago/Milwaukee/Detroit for the 8th, netting us a late lotto pick.

Again, that is an incredibly specific set of circumstances, but not unfathomable in my mind.

Or maybe the Suns could use some of these players to facilitate a three-way trade involving New York and Anthony, thus netting assets from two different teams ...