Markkanen signing long-term extension (untradeable this season)

[SkyHook]

I'm actually fairly high on GS. But not so high that I think Luari (minus Podz and/or JK) makes them able to beat Denver or Boston. I'd rather keep all those picks.

I know Ainge has a history of getting good returns, but I really doubt Lauri will bring the haul we've seen associated with the potential GS trade. His contract is too close to even value for that.

I still expect this to be a signing to keep Lauri long term rather than to trade him, but we'll see.

[gavran]

Agree. I think Lauri would have been a better acquisition. Or sitting on their hands and keeping Hartenstein. I believe that Bridges trade will not look good in the near future. Time will tell

You do realize that the Mikal trade has literally 0 effect on the Hartenstein deal, right?

Does it? It hard capped them so limited their flexibility in signing players.

Yes, it does. The Knicks had Hartensteins's eary bird rights, and offered the max they could. OKC offered more. So in your little world, without the Bridges trade, Oklahoma would have offered less money, and the Knicks could have kept Hartenstein, orrrrrr.......? How does this work exactly?

[ConSarnit]

As much as I like Lauri but that deal is gonna become long term untradeable, not just this season untradeable

please. It'll be a bargain compared to the ridiculous contracts given out in the upcoming years. People that say Lauri doesn't fit the Jazz' timeline are wrong. Signing him completely changes things. They won't be tanking. I expect them to showcase all the rest of their guys and trade them to give Lauri and elite running mate.

What’s your definition of elite? The Jazz can probably get a Markkanen-level player but they can’t get a top 10 guy. The truly elite guys get to control where they want to go. They don’t want to go to Utah.

[brackdan70]

You do realize that the Mikal trade has literally 0 effect on the Hartenstein deal, right?

Does it? It hard capped them so limited their flexibility in signing players.

Yes, it does. The Knicks had Hartensteins's eary bird rights, and offered the max they could. OKC offered more. So in your little world, without the Bridges trade, Oklahoma would have offered less money, and the Knicks could have kept Hartenstein, orrrrrr.......? How does this work exactly?

Do we know that they offered IH a one year early bird max and expressed that they wanted to keep him long term and were willing to pay him? The Bridges trade went down before free agency.
Maybe they did all that and he wanted to go anyway.
We don’t really know that.

[doogie_hauser]

I'm actually fairly high on GS. But not so high that I think Luari (minus Podz and/or JK) makes them able to beat Denver or Boston. I'd rather keep all those picks.

I know Ainge has a history of getting good returns, but I really doubt Lauri will bring the haul we've seen associated with the potential GS trade. His contract is too close to even value for that.

I think you are right, but from a Jazz perspective, it's still better that they signed him to a long term deal than lose him for zilch at the end of the season..

He is not a franchise level player so there was no harm in Ainge throwing his name around.

The right time to trade him was probably a year ago tbh.

Dubs will eventually have to trade away a couple of their future picks if they want to keep Steph happy. Would hate it if he finished his iconic and legendary career in anything but Dubs colours.

[doogie_hauser]

Does it? It hard capped them so limited their flexibility in signing players.

Yes, it does. The Knicks had Hartensteins's eary bird rights, and offered the max they could. OKC offered more. So in your little world, without the Bridges trade, Oklahoma would have offered less money, and the Knicks could have kept Hartenstein, orrrrrr.......? How does this work exactly?

Do we know that they offered IH a one year early bird max and expressed that they wanted to keep him long term and were willing to pay him? The Bridges trade went down before free agency.
Maybe they did all that and he wanted to go anyway.
We don’t really know that.

OKC bided their time in their pursuit of Hartenstein very well..I think the knicks organisation themselves were taken aback by the offer The Thunder offered him, life changing money for IHart and his family that the Knicks couldn't possibly match.
Suspect the Knicks will miss IHart more than any think, slim pickings now on available back up centres market right now.

[gavran]

Does it? It hard capped them so limited their flexibility in signing players.

Yes, it does. The Knicks had Hartensteins's eary bird rights, and offered the max they could. OKC offered more. So in your little world, without the Bridges trade, Oklahoma would have offered less money, and the Knicks could have kept Hartenstein, orrrrrr.......? How does this work exactly?

Do we know that they offered IH a one year early bird max and expressed that they wanted to keep him long term and were willing to pay him? The Bridges trade went down before free agency.
Maybe they did all that and he wanted to go anyway.
We don’t really know that.

No, we know that the Knicks offered 4 years and $72.5 million. That's the max they could have offered before the Bridges trade, after the Bridges trade and during the Bridges trade. I'm not sure why you're arguing against facts. It's OK to say 'Thanks, I didn' t know that, will look after myself'.

[brackdan70]

Yes, it does. The Knicks had Hartensteins's eary bird rights, and offered the max they could. OKC offered more. So in your little world, without the Bridges trade, Oklahoma would have offered less money, and the Knicks could have kept Hartenstein, orrrrrr.......? How does this work exactly?

Do we know that they offered IH a one year early bird max and expressed that they wanted to keep him long term and were willing to pay him? The Bridges trade went down before free agency.
Maybe they did all that and he wanted to go anyway.
We don’t really know that.

No, we know that the Knicks offered 4 years and $72.5 million. That's the max they could have offered before the Bridges trade, after the Bridges trade and during the Bridges trade. I'm not sure why you're arguing against facts. It's OK to say 'Thanks, I didn' t know that, will look after myself'.

I never saw that there was an actual offer on the table. After the Bridges trade they couldn’t have made that offer since they were hard capped.
Maybe they did before the trade?
We don’t know how the conversation went. Knicks could have given him a 1 year at his max so he would get full bird rights and then sign next year to a big contract. We don’t know if that was on the table.
You are saying emphatically that he was gone no matter what. I don’t think you know that, and clearly the Bridges trade tied their hands.
Doesn’t really matter anyway. It’s done. I was more responding to the post that Lauri was probably a better trade target for the Knicks.