RealGM

yup. Curious what Hartenstein gets.

That Yak deal's gonna look like a relative bargain in the next few years once these other Cs start to get paid. Gonna remain an attractive trade asset whether he's dealt this year or next.

Get that money, playboy!

Duffman100 wrote:yup. Curious what Hartenstein gets.

since he's a CAA guy, he's gonna stay with the knicks for the most they can offer him (starting at $17.5 mil)

Brinbe wrote:That Yak deal's gonna look like a relative bargain in the next few years once these other Cs start to get paid. Gonna remain an attractive trade asset whether he's dealt this year or next.

He's going to look relatively washed pretty soon, based on how the 5 spot is evolving. That contract better offset the lack of mobility and FT shooting.

will wrote:

Brinbe wrote:That Yak deal's gonna look like a relative bargain in the next few years once these other Cs start to get paid. Gonna remain an attractive trade asset whether he's dealt this year or next.

He's going to look relatively washed pretty soon, based on how the 5 spot is evolving. That contract better offset the lack of mobility and FT shooting.

Nah, not at all. Yak's a long way from washed. He does a lot of things well that any team needs, just doesn't fit our timeline.

Brinbe wrote:That Yak deal's gonna look like a relative bargain in the next few years once these other Cs start to get paid. Gonna remain an attractive trade asset whether he's dealt this year or next.

Yak's a nice player not making a ton. I wonder if a contending team needing a back up C would be interested.

Brinbe wrote:

will wrote:

Brinbe wrote:That Yak deal's gonna look like a relative bargain in the next few years once these other Cs start to get paid. Gonna remain an attractive trade asset whether he's dealt this year or next.

He's going to look relatively washed pretty soon, based on how the 5 spot is evolving. That contract better offset the lack of mobility and FT shooting.

Nah, not at all. Yak's a long way from washed. He does a lot of things well that any team needs, just doesn't fit our timeline.

Which inevitably means he's not too useful for the Raptors outside of him being involved in a deal going out.

Then again, I do not want to get a warning for going off topic. Perhaps we can continue this discussion in another more appropriate thread.

not terrible money

Brinbe wrote:That Yak deal's gonna look like a relative bargain in the next few years once these other Cs start to get paid. Gonna remain an attractive trade asset whether he's dealt this year or next.

Weird comparison to make. Claxton is younger, produces more, and only got $5m more per year than Yak. If Yak was so valuable we wouldn’t be such a mediocre team.

Basketball_Jones wrote:

Brinbe wrote:That Yak deal's gonna look like a relative bargain in the next few years once these other Cs start to get paid. Gonna remain an attractive trade asset whether he's dealt this year or next.

Yak's a nice player not making a ton. I wonder if a contending team needing a back up C would be interested.

Makes no sense to allocate $20m in cap to a low impact back up C

2019nbachamps wrote:

Brinbe wrote:That Yak deal's gonna look like a relative bargain in the next few years once these other Cs start to get paid. Gonna remain an attractive trade asset whether he's dealt this year or next.

Weird comparison to make. Claxton is younger, produces more, and only got $5m more per year than Yak. If Yak was so valuable we wouldn’t be such a mediocre team.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. This team would've been remarkably worse without Yak, and they were lol. He's a fine starting level C and would be fine on a contender.

Anyway, leaving it at that. Have no want to continue arguing this with someone that doesn't know what they're talking about.

Brinbe wrote:

2019nbachamps wrote:

Brinbe wrote:That Yak deal's gonna look like a relative bargain in the next few years once these other Cs start to get paid. Gonna remain an attractive trade asset whether he's dealt this year or next.

Weird comparison to make. Claxton is younger, produces more, and only got $5m more per year than Yak. If Yak was so valuable we wouldn’t be such a mediocre team.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. This team would've been remarkably worse without Yak, and they were lol. He's a fine starting level C and would be fine on a contender.

Anyway, leaving it at that. Have no want to continue arguing this with someone that doesn't know what they're talking about.

Much worse than 6th worst in the nba?

We traded for Poeltl to move up the standings and have gone in the opposite direction.

It’s not Poeltl’s fault we suck but he’s not an impact player.

Brinbe wrote:That Yak deal's gonna look like a relative bargain in the next few years once these other Cs start to get paid. Gonna remain an attractive trade asset whether he's dealt this year or next.

I don't think this contract changes anything. 5m AAV more than Jak and he's 4 years younger, I'd say this is pretty much on par with Jaks while paying a premium for youth.

People clearly don't watch Claxton. He's ... incredibly frustrating.

LOL

ItsDanger wrote:

Read on Twitter

LOL

My ex had a lip tattoo, it's such a waste of money, that stuff fades in like 3-6mo lol

Nasty

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using RealGM mobile app

Brinbe wrote:That Yak deal's gonna look like a relative bargain in the next few years once these other Cs start to get paid. Gonna remain an attractive trade asset whether he's dealt this year or next.

This effectively makes next season ('25-26) the last one on this contract as there is no way he's picking up that PO.