Best Centers Available

[Texas Chuck]

With OKC being a contender, the new CBA, and their need for C, tell me who they can acquire for him? Especially if his play drops off to the point that they want to move him (understanding of course that it would be because he is a bad fit with Chet.) Also remember that OKC only has 2 years before they have to start ramping up payroll like a rookie max to Jdub. You are oversimplifying the situation.

I am absolutely not. I can't tell you which player will be available. But Hartenstein as the bulk of the salary matching isn't remotely going to be an issue with the assets OKC could attach as necessary.

We see worse contracts move all the time. From teams with far less assets. You overreacted. Which is fine, but also deserves to be corrected.

You can move anybody if you attach assets. My point was it will be seen as negative value.

I wasn't responding to that..... I tend to think he's neutral to negative too. But he fits financially for OKC because he expires when they need him to and they signed him to play him not trade him.

It's just not important. But I did respond to this notion he couldn't be moved. Of course he could.

Discussion moved past your post mate.

Sent from my SM-A136U using RealGM mobile app

[winforlose]

I am absolutely not. I can't tell you which player will be available. But Hartenstein as the bulk of the salary matching isn't remotely going to be an issue with the assets OKC could attach as necessary.

We see worse contracts move all the time. From teams with far less assets. You overreacted. Which is fine, but also deserves to be corrected.

You can move anybody if you attach assets. My point was it will be seen as negative value.

I wasn't responding to that..... I tend to think he's neutral to negative too. But he fits financially for OKC because he expires when they need him to and they signed him to play him not trade him.

It's just not important. But I did respond to this notion he couldn't be moved. Of course he could.

Discussion moved past your post mate.

Sent from my SM-A136U using RealGM mobile app

His comment is basically the same as mine. Anyone can be moved if you attach enough picks and assets. GSW could move Wiggins anywhere if they attached Curry. Your response to my take ignores the context of the conversation and takes my position to the extreme. My point was in order for him to need to be moved things would have to be bad, his value is likely damaged, and most good teams cannot afford to take him on his deal. Now you’re into bad teams and you have to start sweetening the pot to move him. Or to simplify even further, his contract isn’t one that lends itself to easy mid season trades 4-6 months after signing it.

Edit to add: saying good luck moving a bad contract is not the same thing as saying it can never be traded no matter what you offer with it.

[Texas Chuck]

Sigh.

I think he's a minor negative.
I think they signed him to play him not move him making that largely moot.
Yes, any player who plays worse after signing a big deal is harder to move--this is literally saying nothing.
He was in demand by good teams this summer. This idea only bad teams want him doesn't add up. OKC was the #1 seed lol.

And yes its relevant that OKC has a bunch of assets. It allows them to take more risks than teams with no assets. That matters. If say the Mavs or Wolves miss its harder for them to undo because of assets previously spent.

I get you don't like when someone disagrees with you, but your post really missed the mark for a number of reasons. It was a cheap throwaway line based on essentially nothing. If you don't want someone to point out the issues with your argument, make a real one. None of this is personal. But this idea that they are stuck with him is just laughable I'm sorry.

Again to sum up, they want him. To play. Not to trade. But if they decide he doesn't fit as well as they''d like or if he regresses, they are far from stuck with him.

[winforlose]

Sigh.

I think he's a minor negative.
I think they signed him to play him not move him making that largely moot.
Yes, any player who plays worse after signing a big deal is harder to move--this is literally saying nothing.
He was in demand by good teams this summer. This idea only bad teams want him doesn't add up. OKC was the #1 seed lol.

And yes its relevant that OKC has a bunch of assets. It allows them to take more risks than teams with no assets. That matters. If say the Mavs or Wolves miss its harder for them to undo because of assets previously spent.

I get you don't like when someone disagrees with you, but your post really missed the mark for a number of reasons. It was a cheap throwaway line based on essentially nothing. If you don't want someone to point out the issues with your argument, make a real one. None of this is personal. But this idea that they are stuck with him is just laughable I'm sorry.

Again to sum up, they want him. To play. Not to trade. But if they decide he doesn't fit as well as they''d like or if he regresses, they are far from stuck with him.

You took a comment that a player who was overpaid (the general consensus I have heard on the board, and my personal opinion,) would be hard to move if things went catastrophically (the only way they trade him so early in the contract,) and turned it into something else entirely. You took good luck trading him to mean you can never trade him no matter what. Now you’re lecturing me on not making a complete argument when I literally did so twice in response to your other responses of my comment. Someone else made the exact same point as me in a slightly different way and you again said “the notion he cannot be moved.” Cannot and would be difficult to are very different things. If I deliberately misinterpreted you and then went on multiple posts arguing the alternative point would you find the conversation worthwhile?

For the record, in the event things go badly and the fans and media are screaming for IHart to be traded in January or February, do you think he will be traded for positive value, neutral value, or negative value?

[zimpy27]

Sigh.

I think he's a minor negative.
I think they signed him to play him not move him making that largely moot.
Yes, any player who plays worse after signing a big deal is harder to move--this is literally saying nothing.
He was in demand by good teams this summer. This idea only bad teams want him doesn't add up. OKC was the #1 seed lol.

And yes its relevant that OKC has a bunch of assets. It allows them to take more risks than teams with no assets. That matters. If say the Mavs or Wolves miss its harder for them to undo because of assets previously spent.

I get you don't like when someone disagrees with you, but your post really missed the mark for a number of reasons. It was a cheap throwaway line based on essentially nothing. If you don't want someone to point out the issues with your argument, make a real one. None of this is personal. But this idea that they are stuck with him is just laughable I'm sorry.

Again to sum up, they want him. To play. Not to trade. But if they decide he doesn't fit as well as they''d like or if he regresses, they are far from stuck with him.

You took a comment that a player who was overpaid (the general consensus I have heard on the board, and my personal opinion,) would be hard to move if things went catastrophically (the only way they trade him so early in the contract,) and turned it into something else entirely. You took good luck trading him to mean you can never trade him no matter what. Now you’re lecturing me on not making a complete argument when I literally did so twice in response to your other responses of my comment. Someone else made the exact same point as me in a slightly different way and you again said “the notion he cannot be moved.” Cannot and would be difficult to are very different things. If I deliberately misinterpreted you and then went on multiple posts arguing the alternative point would you find the conversation worthwhile?

For the record, in the event things go badly and the fans and media are screaming for IHart to be traded in January or February, do you think he will be traded for positive value, neutral value, or negative value?

Depends how he plays. He might be overpaid but that doesn't mean he can't be traded for neutral value or slightly positive value package. It depends on which team wants him and their need for a quality C.

But y s most likely he's a negative asset if OKC are desperately trying to trade him. If OKC just want salary matching for a different player then he might be neutral value.

[R-DAWG]

I remember reading a Knicks off season summary where a league source was quoting saying “I don’t know how movable Hartenstein would be on the 4 year, 72.5mm deal”.

Having said that, the structure of contract OKC signed Hartenstein to is about their cap flexibility. It might not have trade value this year, but come next summer it’s a 30mm expiring which can be used to facilitate a trade with a few of the thousand draft picks they own.

But OKC signed Hartenstein because they needed front court depth. I think Hartenstein is going to be the unhappy one with his reduced role

[gswhoops]

I remember reading a Knicks off season summary where a league source was quoting saying “I don’t know how movable Hartenstein would be on the 4 year, 72.5mm deal”.

Having said that, the structure of contract OKC signed Hartenstein to is about their cap flexibility. It might not have trade value this year, but come next summer it’s a 30mm expiring which can be used to facilitate a trade with a few of the thousand draft picks they own.

But OKC signed Hartenstein because they needed front court depth. I think Hartenstein is going to be the unhappy one with his reduced role

In general, I think teams are more willing to take on a guy who's significantly overpaid for one year than a guy who's moderately overpaid for several years.

[Texas Chuck]

I remember reading a Knicks off season summary where a league source was quoting saying “I don’t know how movable Hartenstein would be on the 4 year, 72.5mm deal”.

Having said that, the structure of contract OKC signed Hartenstein to is about their cap flexibility. It might not have trade value this year, but come next summer it’s a 30mm expiring which can be used to facilitate a trade with a few of the thousand draft picks they own.

But OKC signed Hartenstein because they needed front court depth. I think Hartenstein is going to be the unhappy one with his reduced role

In general, I think teams are more willing to take on a guy who's significantly overpaid for one year than a guy who's moderately overpaid for several years.

This.

And he definitely isn't going to be unhappy making double the money he could have made in NY on a better team while still having a key role.

Wild how quickly so many of you are determined to re-write the narrative on this guy.

[Norm2953]

I remember reading a Knicks off season summary where a league source was quoting saying “I don’t know how movable Hartenstein would be on the 4 year, 72.5mm deal”.

Having said that, the structure of contract OKC signed Hartenstein to is about their cap flexibility. It might not have trade value this year, but come next summer it’s a 30mm expiring which can be used to facilitate a trade with a few of the thousand draft picks they own.

But OKC signed Hartenstein because they needed front court depth. I think Hartenstein is going to be the unhappy one with his reduced role

In general, I think teams are more willing to take on a guy who's significantly overpaid for one year than a guy who's moderately overpaid for several years.

This suggests the best time for Portland to move Ayton would be next summer