Official Trade Thread Part XLVII

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Not logical to Houston. Unless CJ starts playing better.

Agreed. CJ is playing like he is washed right now. He looks more like a buyout candidate than a trade candidate.

Sand bagging would be best for him in that case.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Not logical to Houston. Unless CJ starts playing better.

Agreed. CJ is playing like he is washed right now. He looks more like a buyout candidate than a trade candidate.

...sadly. Tho, we've only had 3 games so far, & his most recent outing was way better than the first two.

There's still plenty of time for him to turn it around -- at least enough to be tradable.

I haven't watched the games. If so, I would say exactly where he looks deficient.

What I KNOW IS IT IS DUMB TO FORGET CJ dropped 50 last season.

On who?

I think he's still the same player. Who knows what happened the last three games. I didn't watch.

[GoneShammGone]

OK, there's got to be a way to get NY to do us a solid and get our pick back free and clear, right? I mean, from their perspective, its a long shot, and could only be #9 at best. Most likely its going to be a second round pick for them next year, so would they be interested in one of our vets? Maybe AJ or Vuk if they want a youngish prospect?

I just don't know if I can handle the stress of hoping for losses all year, while at the same time hoping for progress from the individual young guys. It's too much cognitive dissonance. This is such a "So Wizards" situation. Also, I can't shake the nightmare scenario of us getting the 9th pick in the lottery while PHX gets #1. As a Wizards fan, it feels inevitable. C'mon NY! Show us some mercy!

[willbcocks]

OK, there's got to be a way to get NY to do us a solid and get our pick back free and clear, right? I mean, from their perspective, its a long shot, and could only be #9 at best. Most likely its going to be a second round pick for them next year, so would they be interested in one of our vets? Maybe AJ or Vuk if they want a youngish prospect?

I just don't know if I can handle the stress of hoping for losses all year, while at the same time hoping for progress from the individual young guys. It's too much cognitive dissonance. This is such a "So Wizards" situation. Also, I can't shake the nightmare scenario of us getting the 9th pick in the lottery while PHX gets #1. As a Wizards fan, it feels inevitable. C'mon NY! Show us some mercy!

It seems like a situation where a trade is possible, as we have a stronger incentive to keep the pick them they do to get it: we have the pick swap with Phoenix and they don't.

Maybe give them Champignie and the same number of seconds they in would get if it doesn't convey?

[gesa2]

Guys our pick swap with Phoenix is invalidated if our pick isn’t top 8. Sorry but we’re going to be breaking our brains this way all season.

[nate33]

Guys our pick swap with Phoenix is invalidated if our pick isn’t top 8. Sorry but we’re going to be breaking our brains this way all season.

Aldridge said that a deal with NY to remove protections on the pick would invalidate the pick-swap with Phoenix. I understand why that would be the case if we ended up with the 9th position in the draft, but the part that I don't get is why would that be the case if we ended up 7th?

Let's assume for argument's sake that we traded Champagnie to NY to remove the protection on the 2026 pick.

I get the notion that Phoenix only entered the trade with us under the assumption that the downside of the trade was limited to Phoenix not swapping to spot below #8. So if we finished with the #7 pick and Phoenix finishes with #5, our swap would be carried out, but if we finished at #9, the swap would not be carried out because we no longer would have the pick.

But it shouldn't matter if we make other arrangements with NY for contingencies if our pick drops below #8. We should still be able to make a deal with NY if we fall to #9 where we keep our pick. Yeah, we wouldn't be able to swap it with Phoenix in that scenario, but we should still be able to keep it. And we should still have the right to swap with Phoenix if he happen to finish with a top 8 pick. Nothing in the deal between us and Phoenix needs to change.

[payitforward]

I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't understand what motivation we would have to make a deal w/ NY to remove protection from the pick.

What could they they give us to make it worth doing that?

[nate33]

I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't understand what motivation we would have to make a deal w/ NY to remove protection from the pick.

What could they they give us to make it worth doing that?

?

As it stands now, NY gets our pick if we end up picking in the 9-30 range. If we pick in the top 8, NY gets our 2026 SRP and our 2027 SRP.

They have our assets. We need to pay them something to get those assets back.

Ultimately, I'm not really interested in any such trade. I'd rather have NY own those assets to FORCE us to tank where we will get what should be an over 60% chance at a top 3 pick. But I suppose there isn't that much harm in working out a deal just in case Sarr and Kyshawn actually are All-Star caliber players right freaking now.

But if we did decide to cut a deal with NY, I'd first want to confirm that it doesn't short-circuit our pick swap with Phoenix in the event that we still finish the season with a top 8 pick.

[payitforward]

nate, we've got a disconnect here:

...Let's assume for argument's sake that we traded Champagnie to NY to remove the protection on the 2026 pick.

"Remove the protection" means that even if we had a pick in the top 8, the Knicks would get it all the same. Why would we give an asset to do that?

We are the ones being protected. We wouldn't give an asset to lose that protection.

[nate33]

nate, we've got a disconnect here:

...Let's assume for argument's sake that we traded Champagnie to NY to remove the protection on the 2026 pick.

"Remove the protection" means that even if we had a pick in the top 8, the Knicks would get it all the same. Why would we give an asset to do that?

We are the ones being protected. We wouldn't give an asset to lose that protection.

I see. Yeah "remove the protection" is poorly worded. I mean return the pick completely to our control.

[payitforward]

Got it! Whew! that makes more sense!

[payitforward]

Obviously, we'd have to give them more than the 2 R2 picks they would get under the current terms. Otherwise, no motivation. Hence your idea of trading Justin presumably to get back complete control of the pick -- i.e. no R2 picks going to them as the fallback either.

As I'm sure will not surprise you, I wouldn't trade Justin to, in effect, get back that pair of R2 picks. To justify doing so, I'd have to think there was a better than 50% chance that 1 of the 2 guys I'd get with those picks would turn out as well as Justin.

Could that happen? Of course! But, there's little reason to expect it. History says it's pretty unlikely.