Shams: Jalen Brunson to New York on 4 year/$104m deal

[thebuzzardman]

We got back a future 2nd? Cool

I thought that was known.

I had it as, grand total, Knicks sending out 6 2nd rounders and getting back 2. (In the combined Kemba/Burks & Noel trades)

Not reviewing the 1st round picks. This is a Brock Aller centric discussion.

With MJ Burks and Noel leading the way and building the culture, Pistons could be a top 5 team in 3 years

Read on Twitter

?s=21&t=xiwk9pSmgS_td-C_-NK1AA

The best 2nd rounder the Knicks sent the Pistons was their own 2nd back. That should be fairly high next few years, and I think it was the pick for next year or year after.

One of the other picks the Knicks SENT to the Pistons was this super convoluted 2nd rounder that has changed hands 98 times, is protected, and basically won't convey, and if it does, it's in the 50's.

So, what the Knicks did was, in the instance of one of the picks, exchange a crappy pick that won't convey, for another crappy pick th at won't convey.

I feel like I had to explain this as you posted this to show how sh*tty the 2nds the Knicks got were, or something, just like Moocow is going on about it.

They sent out 6, they got back two. One of the 6 picks was ass, one of the two coming back was ass.

If it's easier to take and understand, Knicks traded away 5 2nd rounders and got 1 back, when it's all said and done.
(aside from the 1st rounders. Again this is a Brock Aller centric discussion)

I don't think it's all groovy Knicks have "X amount of picks", any more than I thought it was neato or something when the Knicks had like 8 future 2nd round picks.

[Bob Ross]

When is this signing gonna actually happen

[j4remi]

So all of these trades amounted to:

- 2023 first round pick via Detroit (protected 1-18 until 2024, protected 1-13 in 2025, protected 1-11 in 2026, protected 1-9 in 2027)
- 2023 first round pick via Washington (protected 1-14 in 2023, protected 1-12 in 2024, protected 1-10 in 2025, protected 1-8 in 2026)
- 2025 first-round pick via Milwaukee (protected 1-4)
- 2025 second-round pick via Detroit? (protected 1-55)
- Draft rights to Nikola Radicevic
- $18 million in cap space

I think this is right...?

The key here is that the Detroit and Washington picks end up being nothing if those conditions are not met by 2027 and 2026 respectively. I don't think it becomes unprotected in 2028 and 2027 respectively if not conveyed. It just disappears.

But to be fair, those two teams have to be pretty bad for consecutive years for the picks not to convey. Most GM's can't afford to lead teams into the lottery for 3 or 4 years running. It's the Pistons and Wizards though...they could probably find a way to manage being that bad, but I'd bet on at least one conveying.

[Jalen Bluntson]

So all of these trades amounted to:

- 2023 first round pick via Detroit (protected 1-18 until 2024, protected 1-13 in 2025, protected 1-11 in 2026, protected 1-9 in 2027)
- 2023 first round pick via Washington (protected 1-14 in 2023, protected 1-12 in 2024, protected 1-10 in 2025, protected 1-8 in 2026)
- 2025 first-round pick via Milwaukee (protected 1-4)
- 2025 second-round pick via Detroit? (protected 1-55)
- Draft rights to Nikola Radicevic
- $18 million in cap space

I think this is right...?

The key here is that the Detroit and Washington picks end up being nothing if those conditions are not met by 2027 and 2026 respectively. I don't think it becomes unprotected in 2028 and 2027 respectively if not conveyed. It just disappears.

But to be fair, those two teams have to be pretty bad for consecutive years for the picks not to convey. Most GM's can't afford to lead teams into the lottery for 3 or 4 years running. It's the Pistons and Wizards though...they could probably find a way to manage being that bad, but I'd bet on at least one conveying.

Detroit is building a nice young team. I can see that pick conveying. Whereas Washington just gave Beal a gazillion dollars and I can see them not being very good because...they haven't been for a long time with Beal. What else do they have going forward?

Also...who is Radicevic?

[Kampuchea]

The key here is that the Detroit and Washington picks end up being nothing if those conditions are not met by 2027 and 2026 respectively. I don't think it becomes unprotected in 2028 and 2027 respectively if not conveyed. It just disappears.

But to be fair, those two teams have to be pretty bad for consecutive years for the picks not to convey. Most GM's can't afford to lead teams into the lottery for 3 or 4 years running. It's the Pistons and Wizards though...they could probably find a way to manage being that bad, but I'd bet on at least one conveying.

Detroit is building a nice young team. I can see that pick conveying. Whereas Washington just gave Beal a gazillion dollars and I can see them not being very good because...they haven't been for a long time with Beal. What else do they have going forward?

Also...who is Radicevic?

I am thinking Washington pick does convey - they have KP, Kuzma. Not some great roster but treadmilly enough for them not to get top 10 pick every year

[j4remi]

But to be fair, those two teams have to be pretty bad for consecutive years for the picks not to convey. Most GM's can't afford to lead teams into the lottery for 3 or 4 years running. It's the Pistons and Wizards though...they could probably find a way to manage being that bad, but I'd bet on at least one conveying.

Detroit is building a nice young team. I can see that pick conveying. Whereas Washington just gave Beal a gazillion dollars and I can see them not being very good because...they haven't been for a long time with Beal. What else do they have going forward?

Also...who is Radicevic?

I am thinking Washington pick does convey - they have KP, Kuzma. Not some great roster but treadmilly enough for them not to get top 10 pick every year

Yeah, I think the Beal team makes it more likely to convey. Because you can't really tank with Beal. I see Detroit and Washington getting ready to chase play-in slots and that should line them up to convey their picks eventually. Maybe not next year, but we're talking about 5 year windows.

[KnixinSix]

When is this signing gonna actually happen

The way it is ultimately structured is likely tied into some other future moves they are trying to make.

[Bob Ross]

When is this signing gonna actually happen

The way it is ultimately structured is likely tied into some other future moves they are trying to make.

Ok

[moocow007]

So all of these trades amounted to:

- 2023 first round pick via Detroit (protected 1-18 until 2024, protected 1-13 in 2025, protected 1-11 in 2026, protected 1-9 in 2027)
- 2023 first round pick via Washington (protected 1-14 in 2023, protected 1-12 in 2024, protected 1-10 in 2025, protected 1-8 in 2026)
- 2025 first-round pick via Milwaukee (protected 1-4)
- 2025 second-round pick via Detroit? (protected 1-55)
- Draft rights to Nikola Radicevic
- $18 million in cap space

I think this is right...?

The key here is that the Detroit and Washington picks end up being nothing if those conditions are not met by 2027 and 2026 respectively. I don't think it becomes unprotected in 2028 and 2027 respectively if not conveyed. It just disappears.

But to be fair, those two teams have to be pretty bad for consecutive years for the picks not to convey. Most GM's can't afford to lead teams into the lottery for 3 or 4 years running. It's the Pistons and Wizards though...they could probably find a way to manage being that bad, but I'd bet on at least one conveying.

Sure but the problem is most GM's also don't value draft picks that are in the distant future as they could very much likely be the next GM that will be making those picks. Goes both ways. That's why OKC was fine in trading 3 for 1 right? I personally think OKC got the better part of that deal to be very honest. As the saying goes "a bird in hand is worth two (or in this case 3) in the bush". That applies to every other deal where the Knicks bring up those 3 OKC picks. The value (at best) right now is 1 now pick or 1 now player comparable to that one pick (i.e. Ousmane Dieng). Those picks won't have value until we get closer to getting a feel for if it will actually even materialize. And if the sense is that it won't materialize then it has even less value. At best, it doesn't have great value now, which is a problem cause they are in the here and now with this team. This is not as bad as a top 55 protected 2nd in terms of never happening (i.e. waste) but it's not as good as Leon Rose want people to make it sound like. Ergo...smoke and mirrors.

[j4remi]

The key here is that the Detroit and Washington picks end up being nothing if those conditions are not met by 2027 and 2026 respectively. I don't think it becomes unprotected in 2028 and 2027 respectively if not conveyed. It just disappears.

But to be fair, those two teams have to be pretty bad for consecutive years for the picks not to convey. Most GM's can't afford to lead teams into the lottery for 3 or 4 years running. It's the Pistons and Wizards though...they could probably find a way to manage being that bad, but I'd bet on at least one conveying.

Sure but the problem is most GM's also don't value draft picks that are in the distant future as they could very much likely be the next GM that will be making those picks. Goes both ways. That's why OKC was fine in trading 3 for 1 right? I personally think OKC got the better part of that deal to be very honest. As the saying goes "a bird in hand is worth two (or in this case 3) in the bush". That applies to every other deal where the Knicks bring up those 3 OKC picks. The value (at best) right now is 1 now pick or 1 now player comparable to that one pick (i.e. Ousmane Dieng).

I definitely think future picks have less value than upcoming picks and that's why we were able to pick up three for the cost of one. I don't think that makes it an inherently bad trade...nor a good one for that matter. It comes down to how you feel about what was available when they picked and where the acquired picks convey/if they convey.

Those picks won't have value until we get closer to getting a feel for if it will actually even materialize. And if the sense is that it won't materialize then it has even less value. At best, it doesn't have great value now, which is a problem cause they are in the here and now with this team. This is not as bad as a top 55 protected 2nd in terms of never happening (i.e. waste) but it's not as good as Leon Rose want people to make it sound like. Ergo...smoke and mirrors.

Sure, the picks could lose value if they don't appear ready to materialize. But that's a two-way street. They gain value if they appear ready to convey and that value increases further if they convey later in the cycle and appear to be conveying in the 10-13 range as opposed to 15-18, as opposed to 18-20, etc.

It's not as simple as "the Knicks got three firsts for the price of one" but it's also not "the picks aren't gonna convey" bad either. The variables leave this about as murky as can be at the moment. It's even more confusing when you consider that draft classes have varying amounts of talent. I don't think Dieng is a top-15 pick the year prior and probably not next year either.

Idk about smoke and mirrors. I just think it's risk vs reward plays. If you look at the worst case scenarios, which are definitely possible. The trade could be complete ass. But it could also be a steal. And more than likely it'll just be "okay" which is how I feel about most of this FO's moves. They're not too bad, not too good.

The Rose era gets a big "eh...better than we've had recently" which is neither a compliment nor an insult.

[moocow007]

But to be fair, those two teams have to be pretty bad for consecutive years for the picks not to convey. Most GM's can't afford to lead teams into the lottery for 3 or 4 years running. It's the Pistons and Wizards though...they could probably find a way to manage being that bad, but I'd bet on at least one conveying.

Sure but the problem is most GM's also don't value draft picks that are in the distant future as they could very much likely be the next GM that will be making those picks. Goes both ways. That's why OKC was fine in trading 3 for 1 right? I personally think OKC got the better part of that deal to be very honest. As the saying goes "a bird in hand is worth two (or in this case 3) in the bush". That applies to every other deal where the Knicks bring up those 3 OKC picks. The value (at best) right now is 1 now pick or 1 now player comparable to that one pick (i.e. Ousmane Dieng).

I definitely think future picks have less value than upcoming picks and that's why we were able to pick up three for the cost of one. I don't think that makes it an inherently bad trade...nor a good one for that matter. It comes down to how you feel about what was available when they picked and where the acquired picks convey/if they convey.

Those picks won't have value until we get closer to getting a feel for if it will actually even materialize. And if the sense is that it won't materialize then it has even less value. At best, it doesn't have great value now, which is a problem cause they are in the here and now with this team. This is not as bad as a top 55 protected 2nd in terms of never happening (i.e. waste) but it's not as good as Leon Rose want people to make it sound like. Ergo...smoke and mirrors.

Sure, the picks could lose value if they don't appear ready to materialize. But that's a two-way street. They gain value if they appear ready to convey and that value increases further if they convey later in the cycle and appear to be conveying in the 10-13 range as opposed to 15-18, as opposed to 18-20, etc.

It's not as simple as "the Knicks got three firsts for the price of one" but it's also not "the picks aren't gonna convey" bad either. The variables leave this about as murky as can be at the moment. It's even more confusing when you consider that draft classes have varying amounts of talent. I don't think Dieng is a top-15 pick the year prior and probably not next year either.

Idk about smoke and mirrors. I just think it's risk vs reward plays. If you look at the worst case scenarios, which are definitely possible. The trade could be complete ass. But it could also be a steal. And more than likely it'll just be "okay" which is how I feel about most of this FO's moves. They're not too bad, not too good.

The Rose era gets a big "eh...better than we've had recently" which is neither a compliment nor an insult.

lol so true. That's exactly how I'm feeling about them.

[j4remi]

Sure but the problem is most GM's also don't value draft picks that are in the distant future as they could very much likely be the next GM that will be making those picks. Goes both ways. That's why OKC was fine in trading 3 for 1 right? I personally think OKC got the better part of that deal to be very honest. As the saying goes "a bird in hand is worth two (or in this case 3) in the bush". That applies to every other deal where the Knicks bring up those 3 OKC picks. The value (at best) right now is 1 now pick or 1 now player comparable to that one pick (i.e. Ousmane Dieng).

I definitely think future picks have less value than upcoming picks and that's why we were able to pick up three for the cost of one. I don't think that makes it an inherently bad trade...nor a good one for that matter. It comes down to how you feel about what was available when they picked and where the acquired picks convey/if they convey.

Those picks won't have value until we get closer to getting a feel for if it will actually even materialize. And if the sense is that it won't materialize then it has even less value. At best, it doesn't have great value now, which is a problem cause they are in the here and now with this team. This is not as bad as a top 55 protected 2nd in terms of never happening (i.e. waste) but it's not as good as Leon Rose want people to make it sound like. Ergo...smoke and mirrors.

Sure, the picks could lose value if they don't appear ready to materialize. But that's a two-way street. They gain value if they appear ready to convey and that value increases further if they convey later in the cycle and appear to be conveying in the 10-13 range as opposed to 15-18, as opposed to 18-20, etc.

It's not as simple as "the Knicks got three firsts for the price of one" but it's also not "the picks aren't gonna convey" bad either. The variables leave this about as murky as can be at the moment. It's even more confusing when you consider that draft classes have varying amounts of talent. I don't think Dieng is a top-15 pick the year prior and probably not next year either.

Idk about smoke and mirrors. I just think it's risk vs reward plays. If you look at the worst case scenarios, which are definitely possible. The trade could be complete ass. But it could also be a steal. And more than likely it'll just be "okay" which is how I feel about most of this FO's moves. They're not too bad, not too good.

The Rose era gets a big "eh...better than we've had recently" which is neither a compliment nor an insult.

lol so true. That's exactly how I'm feeling about them.

lots of shoulder shrugging and "we'll see"s with this FO. I like Aller and Perrin though.

[aggo]

So all of these trades amounted to:

- 2023 first round pick via Detroit (protected 1-18 until 2024, protected 1-13 in 2025, protected 1-11 in 2026, protected 1-9 in 2027)
- 2023 first round pick via Washington (protected 1-14 in 2023, protected 1-12 in 2024, protected 1-10 in 2025, protected 1-8 in 2026)
- 2025 first-round pick via Milwaukee (protected 1-4)
- 2025 second-round pick via Detroit? (protected 1-55)
- Draft rights to Nikola Radicevic
- $18 million in cap space

I think this is right...?

wow

I kinda stayed away from the draft thread after I saw all the crying about the picks not conveying

but these protections are very light.


we will get the Detroit AND Washington pick before 2026. And the Milwaukee pick will convey


as usual the crying was wrong.

[KnixinSix]

But to be fair, those two teams have to be pretty bad for consecutive years for the picks not to convey. Most GM's can't afford to lead teams into the lottery for 3 or 4 years running. It's the Pistons and Wizards though...they could probably find a way to manage being that bad, but I'd bet on at least one conveying.

Sure but the problem is most GM's also don't value draft picks that are in the distant future as they could very much likely be the next GM that will be making those picks. Goes both ways. That's why OKC was fine in trading 3 for 1 right? I personally think OKC got the better part of that deal to be very honest. As the saying goes "a bird in hand is worth two (or in this case 3) in the bush". That applies to every other deal where the Knicks bring up those 3 OKC picks. The value (at best) right now is 1 now pick or 1 now player comparable to that one pick (i.e. Ousmane Dieng).

I definitely think future picks have less value than upcoming picks and that's why we were able to pick up three for the cost of one. I don't think that makes it an inherently bad trade...nor a good one for that matter. It comes down to how you feel about what was available when they picked and where the acquired picks convey/if they convey.

Those picks won't have value until we get closer to getting a feel for if it will actually even materialize. And if the sense is that it won't materialize then it has even less value. At best, it doesn't have great value now, which is a problem cause they are in the here and now with this team. This is not as bad as a top 55 protected 2nd in terms of never happening (i.e. waste) but it's not as good as Leon Rose want people to make it sound like. Ergo...smoke and mirrors.

Sure, the picks could lose value if they don't appear ready to materialize. But that's a two-way street. They gain value if they appear ready to convey and that value increases further if they convey later in the cycle and appear to be conveying in the 10-13 range as opposed to 15-18, as opposed to 18-20, etc.

It's not as simple as "the Knicks got three firsts for the price of one" but it's also not "the picks aren't gonna convey" bad either. The variables leave this about as murky as can be at the moment. It's even more confusing when you consider that draft classes have varying amounts of talent. I don't think Dieng is a top-15 pick the year prior and probably not next year either.

Idk about smoke and mirrors. I just think it's risk vs reward plays. If you look at the worst case scenarios, which are definitely possible. The trade could be complete ass. But it could also be a steal. And more than likely it'll just be "okay" which is how I feel about most of this FO's moves. They're not too bad, not too good.

The Rose era gets a big "eh...better than we've had recently" which is neither a compliment nor an insult.

Time to cash some of the chips. Let's see what toy they bring home.

[Knicksrule2k4]

Read on Twitter

[xsaberx]

Read on Twitter

I just want to know the structure of these deals...

[SARGO127]

#11

[evevale]

Read on Twitter

Spoiler:

[iLLmatic860]

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=ldDDBKUGrSwJTa_OgjwjGQ

[Sprewell4Three]

Cuban has been worse than Dolan tbh I don't know why he isnt mocked the way we are. Wonder where Luka is gonna want to go. Lemme guess LA or Miami

How has Cuban been worse then Dolan? Homerism makes no sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk