RealGM

Chris Kirchner wrote:With the 10th pick, from those I’ve talked to inside the organization, it seems like they are open to moving the pick for future assets. Is there one player who’s projected in that 10 range where trading down wouldn’t be a good option for the Hawks?

The Athletic



Conflicting reports indicating the same general idea, Hawks are open to moving 8 and/or 10.


Smokescreen? Or actual smoke?

Thoughts?
Predictions?
Concerns?

hmm. i'd probably be down with that. can we bring back Knox too? I know he didn't have a good season but i think he can develop.

macd-gm wrote:hmm. i'd probably be down with that. can we bring back Knox too? I know he didn't have a good season but i think he can develop.

I tend not to believe any Knick-related rumors, however, this does jive with what KingSupes has been saying w.r.t. the Hawks exploring moving up.

I could see us moving up to 3 only to auction the pick for future assets. Like holding the pick hostage for one of the teams coveting a pg, which is what a lot of us kinda wanted to do if we'd gotten a favorable lotto-land in the first place.

If we can get ahead of PHX, LAL (if they do indeed want Garland badly), CHI, that would be favorable. Add a guy we wanted at 8/10 plus some future 1sts.

Oh and they can keep Knox. Dude looks lazy/content to me.

macd-gm wrote:hmm. i'd probably be down with that. can we bring back Knox too? I know he didn't have a good season but i think he can develop.

It'll likely cost us Taurean.

But I would be okay with that. Based on age and contract status -- Knox fits better with our timeline.

Jamaaliver wrote:

Read on Twitter

Chris Kirchner wrote:With the 10th pick, from those I’ve talked to inside the organization, it seems like they are open to moving the pick for future assets. Is there one player who’s projected in that 10 range where trading down wouldn’t be a good option for the Hawks?

The Athletic



Conflicting reports indicating the same general idea, Hawks are open to moving 8 and/or 10.


Smokescreen? Or actual smoke?

Thoughts?
Predictions?
Concerns?

I'd trust The Athletic over any other news outlet / source. They seem to be on their game and connected. So I'd say it's most likely that they move back to acquire additional assets.

I've talked myself into either getting 2 wings or 1 wing / 1 big with 8 and 10 so not sure how I feel about trading up for Barrett (assuming that would be the choice). Doesn't he need the ball in his hands to be successful?

Poor Memphis --

Jonathan Givony wrote:The Grizzlies' ownership group is still telling people around the league the team is locked in on Morant, but the front office has requested to have Barrett in for a private workout -- something he has declined but might revisit over the next three weeks, sources told ESPN.

ESPN Insider

Spud2nique wrote:I swear I didn’t see this before posting on nba draft thread about grabbing RJ. Wow. Thoughts? Too hefty a price?

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/254010/Knicks-Explore-Trading-Down-From-No-3

It all depends on how much you love RJ Barrett.


NOTE: I wouldn't be surprised if we were considering doing it for J Culver, though, instead of RJ.

Not a fan of Barrett.

The draft inventory is virtually flat from #3 - #12, imo.

If we trade up for #3, I still would want Reddish.

Jamaaliver wrote:

Spud2nique wrote:I swear I didn’t see this before posting on nba draft thread about grabbing RJ. Wow. Thoughts? Too hefty a price?

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/254010/Knicks-Explore-Trading-Down-From-No-3

It all depends on how much you love RJ Barrett.


NOTE: I wouldn't be surprised if we were considering doing it for J Culver, though, instead of RJ.

Either works for me. We gotta try and snag that Knicks pick at 3 or Lakers at 4, possible Cavs at 5. Not the smartest franchises btw so we might pull one over on them who knows. Lakers are new to this group with theMagic/Pelinka fiasco.

_s_t_u_r_t_ wrote:Not a fan of Barrett.

The draft inventory is virtually flat from #3 - #12, imo.

If we trade up for #3, I still would want Reddish.

You're not concerned with the work ethic/attitude stuff on Reddish? It's soured me on him.

Agree on things being flat from 3-12 with the major exceptions being the teams in need of a point guard. They're likely to pay a premium to land the one they want. That's the only reason to move up imho. Move up, auction the pick to add future assets from a desperate team, trade Prince to get a mid 1st to land a guy we could've gotten around 10.

Now BR

Do we want RJ? Or Culver?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2838852-knicks-2019-nba-draft-rumors-ny-considering-trading-3rd-pick-hawks-in-mix

kg01 wrote:

_s_t_u_r_t_ wrote:Not a fan of Barrett.

The draft inventory is virtually flat from #3 - #12, imo.

If we trade up for #3, I still would want Reddish.

You're not concerned with the work ethic/attitude stuff on Reddish? It's soured me on him.

Agree on things being flat from 3-12 with the major exceptions being the teams in need of a point guard. They're likely to pay a premium to land the one they want. That's the only reason to move up imho. Move up, auction the pick to add future assets from a desperate team, trade Prince to get a mid 1st to land a guy we could've gotten around 10.

Flat from4-12, RJ might be exactly what the doctor ordered. Think about it. RJ is Nash groomed. Trae is a Nash clone. We have a Nash at the 1 and the 3!

RJ is growing on me fast.

Spud2nique wrote:Now BR

Do we want RJ? Or Culver?

I think everyone is just parroting that initial report from ESPN Insider.

I'd prefer RJ. I see true star potential.

But I've heard enough whispers about us loving Culver that it's likely for him.

Sporting News - 5/28


Sporting News - 5/15

kg01 wrote:

_s_t_u_r_t_ wrote:Not a fan of Barrett.

The draft inventory is virtually flat from #3 - #12, imo.

If we trade up for #3, I still would want Reddish.

You're not concerned with the work ethic/attitude stuff on Reddish? It's soured me on him.

I am slow to accept that kind of comment on a player unless I know who is saying it and have some respect for who is saying it.

If anything, at least on the surface, I see it as a compliment to Reddish that he never sulked about Williamson getting all the attention, even though at the start of the season, all three of them were considered to be potential #1 picks.

But having said that, I'm essentially saying I'd rather have #8+#10 than #3.

kg01 wrote:Agree on things being flat from 3-12 with the major exceptions being the teams in need of a point guard. They're likely to pay a premium to land the one they want. That's the only reason to move up imho. Move up, auction the pick to add future assets from a desperate team, trade Prince to get a mid 1st to land a guy we could've gotten around 10.

That's a better plan to me than getting Barrett. I like it.

You guys would be looking pretty sweet with a Dedmon-Collins-Barrett-Huerter-Young starting lineup.

Spud2nique wrote:RJ is growing on me fast.

Of those who are considered wings, there are probably 5 guys in this draft who are just as likely as Barrett to make repeated ASG appearances.

There really is only one... Reddish... who is a threat to become an elite cornerstone player in this league. And not that he's a lock to do that. Far from it. But that's why he's available to you at #8 (if he is).

Jamaaliver wrote:

Read on Twitter

Entitled to his opinion.

Barrett seemed to be most November mock drafts' #1 player.

And he's really a good stable pick, very high floor, decent ceiling.

But he never really distinguished himself imo, and I'm just not content to draft a guy like that if Travis asks me... which you *know* he will.

_s_t_u_r_t_ wrote:

kg01 wrote:

_s_t_u_r_t_ wrote:Not a fan of Barrett.

The draft inventory is virtually flat from #3 - #12, imo.

If we trade up for #3, I still would want Reddish.

You're not concerned with the work ethic/attitude stuff on Reddish? It's soured me on him.

I am slow to accept that kind of comment on a player unless I know who is saying it and have some respect for who is saying it.

If anything, at least on the surface, I see it as a compliment to Reddish that he never sulked about Williamson getting all the attention, even though at the start of the season, all three of them were considered to be potential #1 picks.

But having said that, I'm essentially saying I'd rather have #8+#10 than #3.

kg01 wrote:Agree on things being flat from 3-12 with the major exceptions being the teams in need of a point guard. They're likely to pay a premium to land the one they want. That's the only reason to move up imho. Move up, auction the pick to add future assets from a desperate team, trade Prince to get a mid 1st to land a guy we could've gotten around 10.

That's a better plan to me than getting Barrett. I like it.

My own eyes told me something was off with him. But I saw him play at a high level in spots, which got me intrigued. Then I hear Duke-homer Chris Spatola suggesting he had motor issues and that really registered with me and confirmed by own concerns. Even if he was "ok with the others getting the hype", eh I'm fearing some Marvin Williams-esque settling which is even more concerning than the motor talk.

Anyways, that's where I'm at. And we agree that 8+10 > 3 ... unless it's to auction off the pick.

Jamaaliver wrote:

Read on Twitter

Chris Kirchner wrote:With the 10th pick, from those I’ve talked to inside the organization, it seems like they are open to moving the pick for future assets. Is there one player who’s projected in that 10 range where trading down wouldn’t be a good option for the Hawks?

The Athletic



Conflicting reports indicating the same general idea, Hawks are open to moving 8 and/or 10.


Smokescreen? Or actual smoke?

Thoughts?
Predictions?
Concerns?

Smoke and not smoke. Chris is 100% right, they are shopping #10. Smoke with the ESPN article, the Hawks are not trying to move up.