King Malta wrote:winforlose wrote:King Malta wrote:
If DLo is so up and down why are we getting FOUR firsts?! Or even three?! Simply for facilitating a trade? The Nets are giving up Kyrie and Simmons in that hypothetical and as such should be bringing back the most value.
If they don't have the value I attach to them then why would anyone give us three picks to to receive them and a guy in DLo who you seem to think is a problem influence alongside his issues on the court.
Ridiculous. This is arguably the worst trade suggestion I've seen on this forum for a while, and that's saying something.
1. You should calm down, you will live longer.
I don't know if I want to if I have to keep reading trade suggestions like this tbh 
2. Kyrie is hot trash right now. In case you didn’t notice the contract negotiations between him and the Nets have further damaged an already unstable relationship. They want Kyrie gone and not many teams are willing to take him, much less give value back.
Kyrie is worth more than any other player in that trade, even with his issues. If you think they're not getting a trade of value back for Kyrie then you're kidding yourself. If the Nets decide to move on from him he'll bring back very positive value and find a home easily enough3. Simmons is a hot mess right now. He hasn’t played in a year, has head case issues, and is recovering from back surgery. His value isn’t super high right now.
His value is still higher than anyone else in that trade who isn't named Kyrie4. The Knicks want to move on from Randle and would see getting Simmons (warts and all,) as a major win. Beasley is the available now player who sweetens the deal.
Wait, you said Simmons is a hot mess, hasn't played in a year, has head case issues and is recovering from back surgery and therefore has low value. Why would the Knicks see moving Randle for him as a win? I mean Randle must be terrible then. And if he is, why would the Nets have any interest in bringing him in unless they're heavily compensated? But they can't be because we're getting the lions share of the picks. Also, you've told me numerous times that Beasley doesn't have as much value as I seem to think he has, surely he can't be that much of a sweetener.5. The lakers need to dump Westbrook to do anything significant this season. That alone is worth 2 unprotected firsts. Prince was a sweetener, but maybe they do it without him, if that changes your mind.
There is no way the Lakers are going to move 2 unprotected picks simply to shift Westbrook. At most they may move one. As they're getting back Kyrie they would likely need to move substantially more, but again, those picks would likely have to go to the Nets in this deal because they're bringing back Randle who's one of the worst players in this trade based off your own evaluations, along with a point guard Minnesota need to move because he's apparently a bad locker room influence and flawed on the court6. The Nets with Dlo, Randle, KD, and Seth Curry would be decent. Not as good as they were, but it would be a hell of a salvage job. They can further move KD for more talent and picks as they see fit. Fournier is icing on the cake.
They're getting worse, precisely. So they would need significant compensation to even consider this trade, which would be almost all of the picks on offer. Fournier is no icing on any cake 7. Dlo and Randle are the return for Kyrie and Simmons. Maybe NYK gives a pick or two for Simmons if the Nets demand it, or maybe they don’t. The Nets don’t get Dlo without the Knicks giving us a first, not to mention we don’t take Westbrook without 2 firsts. Negotiate an extra first for Beasley and your at 4, but I would settle for 3.
That is an absolutey godawful return for Kyrie and Simmons. Randle and DLo are two players who by your own admissions aren't wanted by their teams and have baggage that is either reality or that you're further assigning to them. The Nets wouldn't do this for less than 4 first rounders, because it's an absolutely terrible trade. We're not coming away with 3 or 4 picks out of this, and we'd be lucky to get two. If you're so convinced by the logic of this trade I suggest you take it to a neutral presence at the Trade Board and see how it goes. It'd probably be locked under the assumption that it was an elaborate troll.8. If we keep Prince and still bring in Nunn then we stay at 15. We could put pretty much anyone into this deal and send them to the Lakers instead of Prince to open another roster spot. Or we could buy out or waive Westbrook and open a spot that way.
I don't care about opening up another roster spot, we're tearing apart the best team we've had in years to go backwards and chase draft picks we're not going to recieve. But even if we did achieve your magical haul, we'd then have destined ourselves to once again being a lottery team gambling on the chance of being able to find a magical piece to add with this assortment of crappy picks we'd have recieved. I'm sure Ant and KAT would be thrilled by that direction from the franchise.
I edited to simplify, but you responded already. Long story short, you and I see the Nets in different places right now. You think a team is going to pay a high value for Kyrie, I don’t. I think Kyrie is a head case who keeps ditching teams and causing drama. I don’t know what kind of return you think they get for him, but good luck with that.
Simmons is a gamble. With all his issues and his contract he will be hard to get proper value for. The Knicks are desperate enough to take the gamble. Randle is healthy and helps the Nets salvage a season. I don’t know what you think Simmons is worth, but good luck getting great value.
Beasley is in the way of Nowell, his value is greater on a team looking for a sharp shooter and not a play maker. If you don’t think he is worth a first that tells me your opinion of his value. Also worth noting I don’t see giving up Randle and Fournier for Simmons without a healthy and capable shooter being brought in. That is where Beasley comes in.
The Lakers have two more good years of Lebron if that. AD is a huge bust for them. Why do they give up two unprotected picks in the far future? Because it is all they have left to bargain with and the window is closing fast.
Edit to add: I went back and you are correct, the tone might have been a bit more hostile than I prefer, but otherwise you were on topic and kept it about the ideas. I do think part of the problem is my poor expression of the idea and the open ended way I structured the picks. Beyond that I think we just fundamentally disagree about the situation. Time will tell how things play out. Good talk
