Update: Shams says NY/Utah have began trade discussions for Donovan Mitchell part 3

[god shammgod]

my usual response to stuff like this would be......jesus.......but in this case......jesus ?

[HerSports85]

[baldur]

Don't give more than 3-4 picks. This is beyond crazy now. Ainge must be stopped.

[Mills Mustache]

This what I think happened:

That was amazing, and probably closer to accurate then we think.

[rammagen]

Read on Twitter

Rose will get slaughtered if he doesn't get this done and he knows it. Utah is gonna eventually make him pony up the assets they're asking for. Sucks, but it is what it is. Rose has locked himself into this deal now. I can't see him walking away no matter what the demands are. This deal has become too public and has become too much of a foregone conclusion by the media and fans.

Imagine if it comes out later that Rose turned it down because of Grimes or Obi, or one of the protected 1sts. He won't be able to live it down.

There's a high percentage of Knicks fans on this board that don't want this deal, but if you polled the millions of 'regular' Knicks fans out there they want Mitchell. This board is not reflective of Knicks fans as a whole. Rose will get crushed if he doesn't close this.

That’s dumb logic. With that logic what’s to stop Ainge for asking for everything? “You gave me Grimes, Obi, and IQ and 5 firsts but I want a 6th first now” “oh and now and you added a 6th first round pick so now I want McBride too.” “Add RJ and we have a deal”

When negotiating you have to draw a line at some point.

Rose should be applauded for drawing a line in the sand.
You cant gove IP all your assets for one player period. 2 young player and 4 to 5 picks. Because the twolves over paid why should we. Lets say another player comes on the market during the yr as these negotiations drag on that is leakage.

Personally I would move Randle. Promote Top in amd sign Bamba as a back up 4. This does 2 things it shows we can move on and gathers more assets. But they may see a starting line up with Randle at the 3 and Topping at the 4 with RJ playing the 2 with Brunson. Charlotte needs a 4 and Randle can fill that role there and I think they have the space

[thebuzzardman]

I am here for about 8 years now and have seen some weird ****, but the last 20 pages are something else.

Yeah, those two young teens discussing their insider information about the Donovan Mitchell trade was disturbing.
Can't spell NAMBLA without NBA, I guess.

This is what you meant, right?

[WargamesX]

It's like attending a domestic violence group session in the basement of a cult church in here.

Except we have no chance at redemption

[thebuzzardman]

It's like attending a domestic violence group session in the basement of a cult church in here.

Except we have no chance at redemption

Incorrect.

*rings your doorbell, at an inopportune time*

Do you have a minute to discuss something important with me?

The multiple aspects of God are like the various positions around the court. Along with being the creator of the game and designer of the rules, He now stands on the court acting as the referee. He sees everything we do and watches to see if it meets his standards. As such, it is imperative that we understand His rules about how it operates.

But how blessed are we that the designer of life, the creator of the world, is also our coach? Yes, God didn’t just make the rules and then leave the world to its own devices. This other aspect of God stands just across the sideline cheering us on. He wants a personal relationship with us; He wants to know us and be known by us. He uses the Bible, the book entirely inspired by him, ghost-authored through writers over millennia, as a playbook to teach us how the rules work and how to operate safely within them. He wants nothing more than to see us succeed!

But the Bible shows us a problem. It tells us that God is perfect, holy, consistent and uncompromising. He is his own standard for perfection, and cannot lower his standard for our sake. We have all broken the rules of the game; we’ve all fallen short of our coach’s his expectations. The Bible calls these failures “sin” and unlike in a game where penalties are minor inconveniences like free throws, points, or turnovers, the penalty for sin is death.

Let us take a moment to consider what God thinks of how Tom Thibedeau and his approach to life and basketball.

[thebuzzardman]

All along I thought the league office was rigging the games but it turns out it was Jesus.

Having a bit of crisis of faith now.

[thebuzzardman]

I have a lot of cool quotes to share with you all.

[Kampuchea]

[thebuzzardman]

Here's one for Randle:

"He made that sacrifice for you just as much as he did for me. Don’t let that go to waste because of pride or ignorance. The coach wants what’s best for you. Accept His substitution, and stay in the game for the rewards yet to come."

[thebuzzardman]

Here's one Thibs is fond of:

"Now there are more than 5 players on a team. The rest of the players watch the game from the bench, or as it’s called, “Riding the Pine”. Some players are there because they’re just not as good as some other players, but they’re there if they need them in a pinch. But some players are on the bench because they might not use their full potential.However, we all have talents that are given to us by God to use for His Kingdom"

[Chanel Bomber]

There’s enough groundwork out there that proves a big 2 can very much so score 20 ppg.
The 3rd option is the one that usually hovers around 15-18 ppg while scoring 20 sporadically game to game.

You harp a lot of the inefficient play of RJ and Randie but they were apart of a historically bad lineup that included other players .
One of them being one of the worst starting centers in the nba in Mitch Robinson . The Knicks had a league worst interior offense so his efficient scoring meant nothing and theoretically his clogging the lane hurts the efficiency of the higher volume players.

You seem to have a negative outlook which I admit I do too but trying to see silver linings.
As constructed and the best version of this team that would include Mitchell , I see them as a .500 team because the reason they have 1 of the worst starting centers in the league.
By worst I mean a starting center who has never produced a season of positive play as a starter .

So maybe you are right , adding Mitchell only looks good on paper . We have the same destination but got there using different routes.

Then why did Mitch and Burks have better net ratings (even when isolating the games where they started) and on/off numbers than RJ and Randle, if it were about the rest of the historically bad line-up and not about them?

It would seem to suggest that the team was better (or at least not demonstrably worse) when the other teammates were sharing the floor with Mitch and Burks rather than Randle and RJ. Which in my opinion highlights their lack of impact. As scorers, they had the spacing they supposedly needed this year.

We've debated about Mitch before. The best available impact metrics (including RAPM and RAPTOR) that aim to extract contextual noise paint Mitch as an impactful player, and the only starter who was a positive on defense alongside Burks. We can agree to disagree on the eye test as it inevitably involves a level of subjective bias, and by no means am I saying your skepticism is unfounded, but I don't think it's a coincidence that these impact metrics come to the same conclusion. I think it's meaningful.

The team's regression had little to nothing to do with Mitch in my opinion.

Burks is yesterdays news.
Yes I’m aware he was positive as a starter but that has really no bearing on Mitchs weaknesses now or in the future.

Not sure why you think the team ideal spacing . Last years team was DOA so they were behind the 8ball from the get go.

The regression from the center position was Noel having positive play and then now negative play from Mitch so there is every bit of a regression from the position .

You mentioned the line-up as a whole from last season, which Burks was a part of.

I brought him up along with Mitch because you seemed to suggest that Randle and RJ could be excused for their inefficiency because they were part of a "historically bad lineup". Yet both Randle and RJ performed worse than their fellow starters (Fournier, Burks, Mitch) according to the best available impact metrics.

The play of Randle and RJ was the primary reason why the line-up was historically bad to begin with.

The same metrics show that Mitch played better this past season than Noel did the year before. They are both rim protectors/rim-runners, so the change didn't affect the structure of the team or the way they played. The reasons behind the Knicks' regression are found elsewhere: the injury to our best player (Derrick Rose), the team's spectacular regression to the mean in 3-point shooting and the defensive regression (Randle's regression, RJ's regression, the regression from Bullock to Fournier). Those things demonstrably happened. There's no statistical evidence backing your stance that Mitch's play was negative or that there was a regression from the 5 spot that would explain the team's regression.

[iLLmatic860]

I don’t see us trading IQ.. he been chilling with Dmitch all summer




Then if obi get traded. Free agent Pashall is coming to replace

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=DCW_FDcjQLGeOpQygMVYGA

[thebuzzardman]

Here's a topic while we wait.

Dogs are totally tripping out always. Can you imagine the gravity of a situation that would cause you to bark? And they're constantly doing it. What a roller coaster life they lead.

Thoughts?

As a dedicated student of fur and all things associated with fur I have come to the conclusion that being sheathed in fur leads to overheating which provokes emotional outbursts such as barks, growls and disruptive sniffing.

Right? My suit always bothers me too at the conventions until later I take it off and get release.

This is what we are talking about, right?

[thebuzzardman]

Then why did Mitch and Burks have better net ratings (even when isolating the games where they started) and on/off numbers than RJ and Randle, if it were about the rest of the historically bad line-up and not about them?

It would seem to suggest that the team was better (or at least not demonstrably worse) when the other teammates were sharing the floor with Mitch and Burks rather than Randle and RJ. Which in my opinion highlights their lack of impact. As scorers, they had the spacing they supposedly needed this year.

We've debated about Mitch before. The best available impact metrics (including RAPM and RAPTOR) that aim to extract contextual noise paint Mitch as an impactful player, and the only starter who was a positive on defense alongside Burks. We can agree to disagree on the eye test as it inevitably involves a level of subjective bias, and by no means am I saying your skepticism is unfounded, but I don't think it's a coincidence that these impact metrics come to the same conclusion. I think it's meaningful.

The team's regression had little to nothing to do with Mitch in my opinion.

Burks is yesterdays news.
Yes I’m aware he was positive as a starter but that has really no bearing on Mitchs weaknesses now or in the future.

Not sure why you think the team ideal spacing . Last years team was DOA so they were behind the 8ball from the get go.

The regression from the center position was Noel having positive play and then now negative play from Mitch so there is every bit of a regression from the position .

You mentioned the line-up as a whole from last season, which Burks was a part of.

I brought him up along with Mitch because you seemed to suggest that Randle and RJ could be excused for their inefficiency because they were part of a "historically bad lineup". Yet both Randle and RJ performed worse than their fellow starters (Fournier, Burks, Mitch) according to the best available impact metrics.

The play of Randle and RJ was the primary reason why the line-up was historically bad to begin with.

The same metrics show that Mitch played better this past season than Noel did the year before. They are both rim protectors/rim-runners, so the change didn't affect the structure of the team or the way they played. The reasons behind the Knicks' regression are found elsewhere: the injury to our best player (Derrick Rose), the team's spectacular regression to the mean in 3-point shooting and the defensive regression (Randle's regression, RJ's regression, the regression from Bullock to Fournier). Those things demonstrably happened. There's no statistical evidence backing your stance that Mitch's play was negative or that there was a regression from the 5 spot that would explain the team's regression.

Reading these constant RJ bashings is like The Tribulations of Job!

[Clyde_Style]

Here's a topic while we wait.

Dogs are totally tripping out always. Can you imagine the gravity of a situation that would cause you to bark? And they're constantly doing it. What a roller coaster life they lead.

Thoughts?

As a dedicated student of fur and all things associated with fur I have come to the conclusion that being sheathed in fur leads to overheating which provokes emotional outbursts such as barks, growls and disruptive sniffing.

Right? My suit always bothers me too at the conventions until later I take it off and get release.

This is what we are talking about, right?

Yes, 100%. That’s just like the werewolf film Top Razor where Tom Cruise says “I feel the need for speed” and shaves off his fur suit. Not only was his wind shear reduced significantly, but he also experienced a profound cooling effect. People forget they cannot see the beads of sweat on a a werewolf’s brow when they’re covered in fur.

[thebuzzardman]

I don’t see us trading IQ.. he been chilling with Dmitch all summer




Then if obi get traded. Free agent Pashall is coming to replace

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=DCW_FDcjQLGeOpQygMVYGA

*reluctantly shuffles over to youtube to watch Pashall highlights*

[Clyde_Style]

Reading these constant RJ bashings is like The Masturbations of Job!