The (Quintessential) Trade Thread, 2017 (Part 5.0)

[gocelts]

I mean, why would the Knicks trade O'Quinn for just a first?

This kid is on a cheap contract, very young, can play, fills a HUGE need....the Knicks are stupid for trading him to be honest. He should be linked with Prozingas.

To draft a player like that with a mid first is a home run. Now to get one without the risk of drafting one??? Of course he's worth more than that.

Now id hate to lose Crowder...but O Quinn could be a starting center while Crowder is a 3 and D guy...it's not that crazy when you take the green goggles off. In fact, Smart and Brown could still be special...we know what Crowder is.

Personally I'd do Rozier and toss in the MN 2nd pick. Losing Crowder would wreck chemistry/intangibles...but it does carve out a crystal clear path to sign Hayward this offseason.

[leper-con]

Here is my sneaky trade for the future and this playoff run.

KOQ and Derick Rose (roe is the 6th man to facilitate the second unit offence.

We give up Amir, Zeller and young.

[TheOGJabroni]

Here is my sneaky trade for the future and this playoff run.

KOQ and Derick Rose (roe is the 6th man to facilitate the second unit offence.

We give up Amir, Zeller and young.

I don't even dislike Rose but we have Smart for that.

[BfB]

tl;dr

I don't hate IT a bit. Just have a different impression of how to build a championship team, and not a pretender like the Raps or Horford Hawks. Regardless of my opinions on them, the Warriors are the gold standard right now. IMO, more of you IT pom-pom wavers should watch more of the Ws, to get a clearer idea of exactly how far away we are right now.

How many different franchises have even won titles since 1980, like 8-9? It's not good enough to be good enough in this league. More than any other sport, you have to be great. If we go for greatness and fall short, I can live with it. But there's no excuse for settling for pretty good just because you are entertained, and that's what an IT-led team is.

Bright side is, because of a historically great trade that I was the biggest advocate here for (and which you probably would have argued against haha), we do have a shot to be great someday. Let's not **** it up.

I would generally agree with this - just the caveat that if there were ever a time in NBA history where a title winner could have one of its 2-3 best players be a 5-9 no-defense PG, it is today. I honestly don't see much of any difference in IT's limitations defensively and Curry's. Now, as good as IT is, he's no Curry on offense, just that his flaws are less of a deal-killer in this era than they would be any other time in the NBA.

The challenge I see is finding 2 more elite guys who fit the needs we have. We need a truly dominant rebounder/defender inside, and we need an all-around, 2-way wing who doesn't necessarily need to dominate the ball. In a perfect world, those two guys are DAJ and Paul George IMO, or analogues of them. I can see us finding one of them in a trade - pretty easily, in fact. The 2nd piece is the challenge. It's unfair to him, but if Jaylen can become that elite two-way wing, it is the clearest path to true contention. At that point, you can overpay for the last piece in the frontcourt.

Ultimately that's what this comes down to - Ainge is going to have to hit the jackpot on one of these draft picks and find an elite player who we have on a relatively affordable contract to make the math work.

Draft, Free agency, and summer trade season should provide numerous liquid strategic avenues to pursue. Unless a
super-value deal presents itself now, no rush to burn key assets before the draft order is set.

Zizic is going to play a huge situational role as a rebounder/Rim Roller. His footwork has improved immensely on the perimeter defensively and his size/quicks/agility ratio is off the charts. Got the makings
of an elbow J, absolutely uncanny off-ball instincts, great hands, and finishing ability - i'll count on him to fill a key "roll player"
role of need next year.

The Brooklyn 17 should be virtually untouchable as a Top 3 pick with the team having max cap space. Pick is always moveable post-draft with the talent in the draft this year.

With assets they have, adding a significant value player for straight-cash is a no-brainer. You shoot for a max guy, but you absolutely fill a major need area...because you still get to keep your picks.

There's no reason to fret on core expenditure because your fallback is a Rozier/Smart/Jaylen/Zizic/BKN17/BKN18 future regardless of if you max the cap out your starting 5. The age difference between vets and youth gives you veritable 8-10 year window of "peak transition", lets call it.

I fully believe IT can be a starter on a championship team, I don't think Captain Caveman gives enough credit to how a title team can be constructed - He has first option scoring ability, but he needs two teammates who are his equal impact-wise, he has neither.

Cave is 100% right about not making the asset crushing trades if it doesn't get you both of those two guys. That's not going
to happen at the deadline. Can't make one move if the other isn't set up yet - bang, bang - which doesn't look feasible at the deadline.

So no sneaky finals appearance this year, so what. The worst case scenario is a young, veteran, 55+ win core WITH all the young "upside" prospects serving as understudies while playing real
roles....

...If any of those understudies hit big in the next 5 years, the team will morph into a contender at the apex of the veteran core's prime...thats how you win a title.

Fre


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[165bows]

I don't hate IT a bit. Just have a different impression of how to build a championship team, and not a pretender like the Raps or Horford Hawks. Regardless of my opinions on them, the Warriors are the gold standard right now. IMO, more of you IT pom-pom wavers should watch more of the Ws, to get a clearer idea of exactly how far away we are right now.

How many different franchises have even won titles since 1980, like 8-9? It's not good enough to be good enough in this league. More than any other sport, you have to be great. If we go for greatness and fall short, I can live with it. But there's no excuse for settling for pretty good just because you are entertained, and that's what an IT-led team is.

Bright side is, because of a historically great trade that I was the biggest advocate here for (and which you probably would have argued against haha), we do have a shot to be great someday. Let's not **** it up.

I would generally agree with this - just the caveat that if there were ever a time in NBA history where a title winner could have one of its 2-3 best players be a 5-9 no-defense PG, it is today. I honestly don't see much of any difference in IT's limitations defensively and Curry's. Now, as good as IT is, he's no Curry on offense, just that his flaws are less of a deal-killer in this era than they would be any other time in the NBA.

The challenge I see is finding 2 more elite guys who fit the needs we have. We need a truly dominant rebounder/defender inside, and we need an all-around, 2-way wing who doesn't necessarily need to dominate the ball. In a perfect world, those two guys are DAJ and Paul George IMO, or analogues of them. I can see us finding one of them in a trade - pretty easily, in fact. The 2nd piece is the challenge. It's unfair to him, but if Jaylen can become that elite two-way wing, it is the clearest path to true contention. At that point, you can overpay for the last piece in the frontcourt.

Ultimately that's what this comes down to - Ainge is going to have to hit the jackpot on one of these draft picks and find an elite player who we have on a relatively affordable contract to make the math work.

Draft, Free agency, and summer trade season should provide numerous liquid strategic avenues to pursue. Unless a
super-value deal presents itself now, no rush to burn key assets before the draft order is set.

Zizic is going to play a huge situational role as a rebounder/Rim Roller. His footwork has improved immensely on the perimeter defensively and his size/quicks/agility ratio is off the charts. Got the makings
of an elbow J, absolutely uncanny off-ball instincts, great hands, and finishing ability - i'll count on him to fill a key "roll player"
role of need next year.

The Brooklyn 17 should be virtually untouchable as a Top 3 pick with the team having max cap space. Pick is always moveable post-draft with the talent in the draft this year.

With assets they have, adding a significant value player for straight-cash is a no-brainer. You shoot for a max guy, but you absolutely fill a major need area...because you still get to keep your picks.

There's no reason to fret on core expenditure because your fallback is a Rozier/Smart/Jaylen/Zizic/BKN17/BKN18 future regardless of if you max the cap out your starting 5. The age difference between vets and youth gives you veritable 8-10 year window of "peak transition", lets call it.

I fully believe IT can be a starter on a championship team, I don't think Captain Caveman gives enough credit to how a title team can be constructed - He has first option scoring ability, but he needs two teammates who are his equal impact-wise, he has neither.

Cave is 100% right about not making the asset crushing trades if it doesn't get you both of those two guys. That's not going
to happen at the deadline. Can't make one move if the other isn't set up yet - bang, bang - which doesn't look feasible at the deadline.

So no sneaky finals appearance this year, so what. The worst case scenario is a young, veteran, 55+ win core WITH all the young "upside" prospects serving as understudies while playing real
roles....

...If any of those understudies hit big in the next 5 years, the team will morph into a contender at the apex of the veteran core's prime...thats how you win a title.

Fre


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I agree, trades are fun, but you just can't beat adding an impact player in FA for nothing but cash.

[Dr Positivity]

I predict you guys get Paul George this summer. Indiana getting someone like Fultz or Ball and adding it to Turner as their new 1 2, looks too appealing on their end

[Captain_Caveman]

As far as him being a top 5 or 10 player of all time that is a joke he isn't a top 5 player of his own era.

CBS Sports just came out with a top 50 ever list. Curry is 19th only halfway through his career, ahead of all Celtics save Russell, Bird and KG (who would not be ahead of Curry with only his post-Minny career).

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/cbs-sports-50-greatest-nba-players-of-all-time-where-do-lebron-curry-rank/

[SmartWentCrazy]

As far as him being a top 5 or 10 player of all time that is a joke he isn't a top 5 player of his own era.

CBS Sports just came out with a top 50 ever list. Curry is 19th only halfway through his career, ahead of all Celtics save Russell, Bird and KG (who would not be ahead of Curry with only his post-Minny career).

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/cbs-sports-50-greatest-nba-players-of-all-time-where-do-lebron-curry-rank/

There is plenty of evidence that Curry could/should be a top 20 player of all time once his career is over. He's changed the game and the way it's played.

But putting him there now is just stupid. 2 MVPs and 1 title does not make you a top 20 player of all time. If he retired tomorrow to play professional golf, would you really consider him a top 20 player of all time?

[Captain_Caveman]

As far as him being a top 5 or 10 player of all time that is a joke he isn't a top 5 player of his own era.

CBS Sports just came out with a top 50 ever list. Curry is 19th only halfway through his career, ahead of all Celtics save Russell, Bird and KG (who would not be ahead of Curry with only his post-Minny career).

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/cbs-sports-50-greatest-nba-players-of-all-time-where-do-lebron-curry-rank/

There is plenty of evidence that Curry could/should be a top 20 player of all time once his career is over. He's changed the game and the way it's played.

But putting him there now is just stupid. 2 MVPs and 1 title does not make you a top 20 player of all time. If he retired tomorrow to play professional golf, would you really consider him a top 20 player of all time?

Top 25, without question.

Only 3-4 names below him on that list I'm even hearing an argument for.

[CelticsLV]

"We're not looking for Band-Aids and we're not looking to give up future assets. We're trying to build something that is a little bit more sustainable than we are to rent a player."

"You can't just put a rebounder that can't shoot out on the court because it might provide a little bit of help on the rebounding end, but it takes away from what our strength is on the offensive end," Ainge said. "We know what our weaknesses are. We'd like rim protection and rebounding. But at the same time we do like skilled bigs to play around our guards."

Ainge also said somewhere something about injuries and that this team hasn't really played a lot together at full strenght. Basically pointing to that he wants to see this team after the all-star break at full strenght.

Don't expect even a trade for an expiring big. This is all you need to hear. No minor moves at all. It's either a blockbuster or a trade for someone who's in our future plans.

This reads like Danny is trying to thread a needle. A skilled big who can space the floor and yet still defend the rim and rebound?

How many of those guys are there in the NBA? 5? AD, the ghost of Joel Embiid, Towns someday, headcase DMC, maybe Myles Turner or Niko Jokic. Are any of these guys remotely attainable? Great if so, but otherwise we're waiting for Godot.

I think this organization is way too in love with IT. Let's get a really good big and not worry about building everything around IT.

I don't think he means exactly 4in1 player. You know which name keeps coming up in my mind when i hear skilled big who can space the floor and rebound? Kevin Love.

[Captain_Caveman]

I mean, why would the Knicks trade O'Quinn for just a first?

This kid is on a cheap contract, very young, can play, fills a HUGE need....the Knicks are stupid for trading him to be honest. He should be linked with Prozingas.

To draft a player like that with a mid first is a home run. Now to get one without the risk of drafting one??? Of course he's worth more than that.

Now id hate to lose Crowder...but O Quinn could be a starting center while Crowder is a 3 and D guy...it's not that crazy when you take the green goggles off. In fact, Smart and Brown could still be special...we know what Crowder is.

Personally I'd do Rozier and toss in the MN 2nd pick. Losing Crowder would wreck chemistry/intangibles...but it does carve out a crystal clear path to sign Hayward this offseason.

We have no need to trade for that guy. Our max cap room is tenuous enough as it is, and he's just another bench guy. Buy low or not at all.

[darrendaye]

I mean, why would the Knicks trade O'Quinn for just a first?

This kid is on a cheap contract, very young, can play, fills a HUGE need....the Knicks are stupid for trading him to be honest. He should be linked with Prozingas.

To draft a player like that with a mid first is a home run. Now to get one without the risk of drafting one??? Of course he's worth more than that.

Now id hate to lose Crowder...but O Quinn could be a starting center while Crowder is a 3 and D guy...it's not that crazy when you take the green goggles off. In fact, Smart and Brown could still be special...we know what Crowder is.

Personally I'd do Rozier and toss in the MN 2nd pick. Losing Crowder would wreck chemistry/intangibles...but it does carve out a crystal clear path to sign Hayward this offseason.

I don't know how he has earned this type of sentiment. Guy has not started for 2 teams he's played on. There's a reason Knicks got him on a cheap contract. Had he continued to develop as a 3 point shooter, it would be one thing, but, he's a decent rebounder and a solid shot blocker. Rozier and a 2nd, ok. But I pass, I'm not adding salary next year. For Crowder? Wow, I really don't see it.

[Andrew McCeltic]

Funny the news came out Cousins wants to stay in Sacramento, then Bucher reports that Vivek - who's been insistent on not trading him - is hesitating at a super max. SMDH.

They wanted Vucevic for him, and Orlando turned it down? Jesus.

If Hennigan gets Reggie Jackson (who's struggling coming back from an injury) for Jeff Green and Augustin, that's a huge win.

Van Gundy is dicking it up in Detroit, it's too bad.

[Andrew McCeltic]

Anyway interesting Ainge is implying he'd take on money in a trade if the price isn't too high. He's using our max cap space - which is genuinely valuable - as trade leverage. Dude is smart.

[DarkAzcura]

Hands-down one of the worst takes I have ever read on all of RealGM.

Only two players in a Celtics uniform have ever been better than Curry has over the last couple of years. Russell and Bird, that's it. Only other one who was even close was KG. Curry miles ahead of Pierce, Hondo, Cowens, McHale, etc...

You don't luck your way to 73 wins with plucky role players.

No kiddng that is what makes your position so bizarre. Nobody is saying Curry is a plucky role player the exact opposite Warriors roster goes 7-8 deep with guys who would be a #1 or #2 option on most teams. Harrison Barnes is a great example. That said I don't think any of them are top 5 guys except for Durant. Steph is not much of a defender and average as a PG. Tremendous shooter and scorer and plays big in the postseason.

As far as him being a top 5 or 10 player of all time that is a joke he isn't a top 5 player of his own era.

Saying Curry hasn't been a top 5 player the last couple of years is just not a credible take. All the greats great in their own way, but no one has ever been great in the way Steph has been.

You can have your whole franchise pick this guy up at halfcourt, and he will drill a contested 30-footer right in your face. Again and again and again.

No one has ever had floor spacing like the Warriors have had, and Steph is why.

Not Harrison Barnes. Yeah, Barnes can be a top 1-2 guy on your team... if your team **** SUCKS.

It's such a stark contrast when you speak this way of Curry, lol. You did it even before he officially won the MVP, and I'm with you on that. I love Curry and think he is definitely up there in this current era of players the last three seasons. What makes it a stark contrast is that you can't see that currently IT is pretty much doing what Curry was doing two years ago.

But at the same time I get what sully is saying. When I think about Curry, and most others think of Curry, they see his amazing shooting and scoring ability, but don't care about his passing, turnover proneness, and defense. For whatever reason, IT gets the opposite effect where it doesn't matter how much he impacts the offense with his shooting and scoring, because someone will always be calling out his defense, passing, and height. Seems a bit hypocritical but I've found NBA rankings to be consistently very hypocritical throughout my life. It is what it is.

So is one great season and another absolutely historic season currently enough to put Curry in the top 25 of all time? Maybe. Feels a bit odd, though. Curry's career arc has been so odd that putting him that high when he wasn't even an all star a few years ago just feels odd, but I wouldn't say it's wrong when I really think about it, heh.

[VeryMuchWoke]

I've seen claims that Curry had the best offensive season of all time just last year. That may be true from an absolute standpoint, but you have to adjust for how much more efficient offenses are in the pace-and-space era. In 90-91 Jordan posted an O-Rating of 125 with a usage rate of 32%. Last year Curry posted nearly identical numbers (his usage was slightly higher than MJs). But in 90-91 the league average offensive rating was 107.9, while last year it was 108.6. Not a huge difference for those 2 seasons, but enough where I'd give MJ the edge. In some seasons, the difference is huge, however, like in 03-04 when the average offensive rating was 102.

My point is, I think there is some recency bias at play here, but it's hard and certainly subjective to rank players across eras. If you rank players by "highest peak" then Curry has a case for being named in the top 20, but I'd have him at least 5-10 spots lower.

[Captain_Caveman]

I've seen claims that Curry had the best offensive season of all time just last year. That may be true from an absolute standpoint, but you have to adjust for how much more efficient offenses are in the pace-and-space era. In 90-91 Jordan posted an O-Rating of 125 with a usage rate of 32%. Last year Curry posted nearly identical numbers (his usage was slightly higher than MJs). But in 90-91 the league average offensive rating was 107.9, while last year it was 108.6. Not a huge difference for those 2 seasons, but enough where I'd give MJ the edge. In some seasons, the difference is huge, however, like in 03-04 when the average offensive rating was 102.

My point is, I think there is some recency bias at play here, but it's hard and certainly subjective to rank players across eras. If you rank players by "highest peak" then Curry has a case for being named in the top 20, but I'd have him at least 5-10 spots lower.

I grew up on Larry and Magic's entire careers and am not prone to recency bias. I think some are prone to nostalgia, which is especially silly when they were too young to see Larry and Magic play. A very similar dynamic exists with Niners fans trying to discredit Brady over Montana, and they are equally as wrong.

Like it or not, Curry is already historically elite. He does not need anyone's permission slip for that.

FWIW, should we adjust for the lack of parity and team defense in the 1980s? Or MJ's lack of elite rivals in the 1990s?

Curry being a top 20-25 player already at this point in his career is not even a debatable point, quite frankly.

[Captain_Caveman]

What makes it a stark contrast is that you can't see that currently IT is pretty much doing what Curry was doing two years ago.

Curry was winning a title out of a historically elite conference two years ago.

[chrisab123]

FWIW theres a rumor coming from the knicks board saying theres a three way deal involving cle/nyk/bos where cavs get melo we get love knicks get picks. I guess it came the same guy who broke the love to cavs trade a couple years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Former Cavs Austin Carr's son Jason Carr is the source.

Love doesn't do anything this year for the team. Can't protect the rim and is out for around 8 weeks.

[chrisab123]

Anyway interesting Ainge is implying he'd take on money in a trade if the price isn't too high. He's using our max cap space - which is genuinely valuable - as trade leverage. Dude is smart.

I haven't seen this. Did this just come out in the last few hours or so?