Moderators: Jeff Van Gully, Deeeez Knicks, HerSports85, j4remi, NoLayupRule, dakomish23, GONYK, mpharris36
Fury wrote:So now that melo hates Randle, does this mean this thread is over
RIP mags
Chanel Bomber wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Woj reported different returns as the negotiations went on.
But it was well reported that they were getting closer to an agreement around Grimes, RJ and 2 unprotected firsts, back when Grimes was our most valuable young player value wise. A protected first and pick swaps would have possibly been involved. That still leaves IQ, Cam, Obi, future unprotected firsts (not to mention the ones that renewed with years passing by), future protected firsts as tradeable assets, not to mention Randle down the line.
The 3 unprotected firsts were only requested when the Knicks tried to pivot from Grimes to Quickley.
The package with RJ, Grimes, 2 unprotected firsts, potential pick swaps, possibly 1-2 protected picks from other teams is the one the sides were closest on and it's the one I'm discussing. It would have been a positive trade for the Knicks.
Cleveland reportedly raised their offer to seal the deal after the Knicks shot themselves in the foot with the extension, which essentially took their out of sweepstakes.
But make no mistake, regardless of who's wrong or right about when the Cavs entered the fray, Cleveland are not regretting that trade, no matter how costly you paint the return out to be. Not even close. Mitchell is one of the best guards in the NBA and a hall-of-famer. The Cavs have the best record in the league.
And the Knicks would've still had the assets to trade for Hart, OG and KAT.
Again, you can prefer this iteration of the Knicks over the version with Mitchell. I think our team is more balanced in this way. But to regurgitate the party line and pretend that the Donovan Mitchell Knicks would have been depleted of assets and a failure is just not accurate, sorry. That's the kind of analysis I expect from the likes of Scott Perry.
There were a ton of rumors over the course of negotiations. Some true, some not but in the end we know the cost and we know what woj said:
Cost: 3 unprotected picks, 2 swaps, Lauri, Sexton, and Agbaji (lottery pick in the draft).
Knicks cost: 3 Nyk 1sts, 2 swaps, 2 other picks, a bunch of 2nds, RJ, Fournier and IQ or Grimes.
If Grimes, the last pick was protected. If IQ the last pick was unprotected. Knicks also needed that extra pick because nobody wanted Fournier and the extra pick was needed to move him to a different team. Woj broke it all down on his podcast after the trade.
You can choose to believe the facts or cherry pick the cheapest rumor from some random dude on twitter who said the Knicks could get Mitchell for RJ and 2 picks.
If we are legitimaly debating, probably the most realistic scenario would be whether the Knicks would be better with Mitchell or OG and Mikal. I would prefer OG and Mikal since we need the defense, depth and length and already have an elite offense and 2 elite scoring threats.
The thing is even you said you preferred this iteration of the Knicks so I don’t even know what your arguing about
Even the Knicks came out and said this trade would have crippled them from being able to add the nescessary pieces hence why they turned it down. A lot of people roasted them and said the Knicks needed to go all in. But turned out the Knicks were right and they built a really good team. A lot of credit to them.
I never said we could get Mitchell for RJ and two picks. Woj reported the sides were close to reaching an agreement over RJ, Grimes (the apple of Leon's eye at the time), 2 unprotected firsts, and an additional protected first. Ultimately, the Knicks backed out and proposed Quickley instead of Grimes, as they completely overvalued Grimes. But that iteration of the trade would have likely turned out to be a positive transaction for us.
You're the one who seems to be inflating the return, for instance by suggesting Grimes and IQ were interchangeable and had equal value at the time when they didn't, or by suggesting that we'd have lost all our protected picks from other teams (only one of which we used to get Hart) as part of that package, which was never reported.
I prefer the current version of the Knicks, yes. But that doesn't mean we should still make chit up about that trade and paint it as a doomsday scenario. I don't find that fair, accurate, or necessary.
And OF COURSE the Knicks defended their decision publicly. That's called corporate propaganda. You fall for it if you want to.
As for Scott Perry (if you were alluding to his interviews), he was let go by the Knicks after a calamitous tenure here, the last act of a career defined by incompetence. He attempted to save his reputation in interviews by resorting to distortion and exaggeration over events that happened during his tenure to make himself look better (including that trade), but clearly nobody in the NBA's buying it and you shouldn't either. He was always a politician, never a basketball mind, and that's how he built himself a career in the NBA.
When guard Immanuel Quickley was proposed as a replacement for Grimes in the trade, Utah wanted three unprotected first-round draft picks as part of the package -- but New York would only do a third first-round pick that included top-five protections, sources said. Those packages would've included Milwaukee's 2025 first-round pick, two second-round picks, two pick swaps and two expiring contracts from a third team, sources said. New York would've moved out Evan Fournier and a first-round pick to a third team to spare Utah taking on Fournier's remaining $37 million, sources said.
“That deal broke down over really a couple elements and to make it this simple, Utah wanted RJ Barrett, Quentin Grimes and three first round picks from New York. That would have been two unprotected and a perhaps a protected, up to top five protected pick, which probably would have still found its way to Utah. I don't know if New York would have been that bad.
Maybe, who knows by 2000, it was late in the 2020s. But, the Knicks did not want to put Grimes in a deal. They were willing to do Emmanuel quickly.
And with Emmanuel quickly, Utah's ask was three unprotected picks. They valued Grimes more than quickly. And essentially, New York said, we'll do quickly in RJ, but we want two unprotected picks and a protected third.
We essentially want what you want for Grimes, we want to put quickly in that deal. And that was the end.”
From The Woj Pod: Donovan .
Jalen Bluntson wrote:Fury wrote:So now that melo hates Randle, does this mean this thread is over
There's plenty more BS than that battle. It should all stay in here. It's a lot more fun talking about this year's team in the other threads without sifting through the horrors of the past.
KnicksGadfly wrote:Aight...just wanna say thank God we didn't bring in Dejounte or DeFrozen.
GettinitDone wrote:3toheadmelo wrote:GettinitDone wrote:
LOL you can't be serious ! WHO was comparing Cam to them?? Not me !! I was saying if DNP-CDs could affect top tier players like prime MJ and prime LeBron, it would DEFINITELY affect lower tier players like Cam...
Anyway I had not posted about Cam maybe since his first month as a Laker (last season), I've moved on.
For you? I' give a week before you start posting again wishing the team had not traded Randle, or had acquired D-Mitch, Ayton, LaVine, and all other possible non winning inefficient volume chuckers in the L
Imagine still writing essays about how cam could’ve been the next Jordan in 2024
Not me you're putting words in my mouth
GettinitDone wrote:3toheadmelo wrote:GettinitDone wrote:
LOL you can't be serious ! WHO was comparing Cam to them?? Not me !! I was saying if DNP-CDs could affect top tier players like prime MJ and prime LeBron, it would DEFINITELY affect lower tier players like Cam...
Anyway I had not posted about Cam maybe since his first month as a Laker (last season), I've moved on.
For you? I' give a week before you start posting again wishing the team had not traded Randle, or had acquired D-Mitch, Ayton, LaVine, and all other possible non winning inefficient volume chuckers in the L
Imagine still writing essays about how cam could’ve been the next Jordan in 2024
Not me you're putting words in my mouth
Clyde_Style wrote:Jalen Bluntson wrote:Fury wrote:So now that melo hates Randle, does this mean this thread is over
There's plenty more BS than that battle. It should all stay in here. It's a lot more fun talking about this year's team in the other threads without sifting through the horrors of the past.
My understanding is this thread will continue to exist so when anyone starts trolling other threads or getting too vindictive or taunting other posters about players they have or have not liked the mods can say "Go To Your Room" and send them here to evacuate their bowels
Deeeez Knicks wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:
There were a ton of rumors over the course of negotiations. Some true, some not but in the end we know the cost and we know what woj said:
Cost: 3 unprotected picks, 2 swaps, Lauri, Sexton, and Agbaji (lottery pick in the draft).
Knicks cost: 3 Nyk 1sts, 2 swaps, 2 other picks, a bunch of 2nds, RJ, Fournier and IQ or Grimes.
If Grimes, the last pick was protected. If IQ the last pick was unprotected. Knicks also needed that extra pick because nobody wanted Fournier and the extra pick was needed to move him to a different team. Woj broke it all down on his podcast after the trade.
You can choose to believe the facts or cherry pick the cheapest rumor from some random dude on twitter who said the Knicks could get Mitchell for RJ and 2 picks.
If we are legitimaly debating, probably the most realistic scenario would be whether the Knicks would be better with Mitchell or OG and Mikal. I would prefer OG and Mikal since we need the defense, depth and length and already have an elite offense and 2 elite scoring threats.
The thing is even you said you preferred this iteration of the Knicks so I don’t even know what your arguing about
Even the Knicks came out and said this trade would have crippled them from being able to add the nescessary pieces hence why they turned it down. A lot of people roasted them and said the Knicks needed to go all in. But turned out the Knicks were right and they built a really good team. A lot of credit to them.
I never said we could get Mitchell for RJ and two picks. Woj reported the sides were close to reaching an agreement over RJ, Grimes (the apple of Leon's eye at the time), 2 unprotected firsts, and an additional protected first. Ultimately, the Knicks backed out and proposed Quickley instead of Grimes, as they completely overvalued Grimes. But that iteration of the trade would have likely turned out to be a positive transaction for us.
You're the one who seems to be inflating the return, for instance by suggesting Grimes and IQ were interchangeable and had equal value at the time when they didn't, or by suggesting that we'd have lost all our protected picks from other teams (only one of which we used to get Hart) as part of that package, which was never reported.
I prefer the current version of the Knicks, yes. But that doesn't mean we should still make chit up about that trade and paint it as a doomsday scenario. I don't find that fair, accurate, or necessary.
And OF COURSE the Knicks defended their decision publicly. That's called corporate propaganda. You fall for it if you want to.
As for Scott Perry (if you were alluding to his interviews), he was let go by the Knicks after a calamitous tenure here, the last act of a career defined by incompetence. He attempted to save his reputation in interviews by resorting to distortion and exaggeration over events that happened during his tenure to make himself look better (including that trade), but clearly nobody in the NBA's buying it and you shouldn't either. He was always a politician, never a basketball mind, and that's how he built himself a career in the NBA.
I am not making anything up. This is straight from Woj. Like I said, if the Knicks included Grimes the last pick would be protected. If the Knicks included IQ the last pick would be unprotected. That was basically the difference per Woj. IQ, Grimes, and the protection of picks is what they couldn’t agree on. Woj said THOSE deals, meaning both deals would have included the swaps, milw pick, Fournier, 2nds, and another pick to move Fournier. People cut that part out. But yea, woj said that was the base in all the packages. And makes sense comdisdering what Utah got.
I mean, in what world would Grimes be worth multiple swaps and other picks and why would Utah settle for so much less than Cleveland’s offer? That makes absolutely no sense what your arguing here.
And if you don’t believe woj, then just use common sense and look at what Clev gave up:
Cost: 3 unprotected picks, 2 swaps, Lauri, Sexton, and Agbaji (lottery pick in the draft).
Knicks would have to beat that. That is a big haul. For Cleveland it was worth it…..for the Knicks to beat that then no….we wouldn’t have enough for OG or Mikal. If you use up assets on one deal, you can’t use them on another. It is what it is man.
And yea Scott Perry sucks. I really don’t care about him.
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/34502825/sources-cleveland-cavaliers-trade-3-first-round-picks-two-swaps-utah-jazz-star-donovan-mitchellWhen guard Immanuel Quickley was proposed as a replacement for Grimes in the trade, Utah wanted three unprotected first-round draft picks as part of the package -- but New York would only do a third first-round pick that included top-five protections, sources said. Those packages would've included Milwaukee's 2025 first-round pick, two second-round picks, two pick swaps and two expiring contracts from a third team, sources said. New York would've moved out Evan Fournier and a first-round pick to a third team to spare Utah taking on Fournier's remaining $37 million, sources said.“That deal broke down over really a couple elements and to make it this simple, Utah wanted RJ Barrett, Quentin Grimes and three first round picks from New York. That would have been two unprotected and a perhaps a protected, up to top five protected pick, which probably would have still found its way to Utah. I don't know if New York would have been that bad.
Maybe, who knows by 2000, it was late in the 2020s. But, the Knicks did not want to put Grimes in a deal. They were willing to do Emmanuel quickly.
And with Emmanuel quickly, Utah's ask was three unprotected picks. They valued Grimes more than quickly. And essentially, New York said, we'll do quickly in RJ, but we want two unprotected picks and a protected third.
We essentially want what you want for Grimes, we want to put quickly in that deal. And that was the end.”
From The Woj Pod: Donovan .
Chanel Bomber wrote:This board really is full of bad people.
?stuporman wrote:Way too much serious relitigation and not enough baseless sh** talking going on in here.
JXL wrote:
All it took was 1 practice scrimmage to say "Yep, Kevin Knox is that dude"
Damn you Scott Perry.
Chanel Bomber wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:I never said we could get Mitchell for RJ and two picks. Woj reported the sides were close to reaching an agreement over RJ, Grimes (the apple of Leon's eye at the time), 2 unprotected firsts, and an additional protected first. Ultimately, the Knicks backed out and proposed Quickley instead of Grimes, as they completely overvalued Grimes. But that iteration of the trade would have likely turned out to be a positive transaction for us.
You're the one who seems to be inflating the return, for instance by suggesting Grimes and IQ were interchangeable and had equal value at the time when they didn't, or by suggesting that we'd have lost all our protected picks from other teams (only one of which we used to get Hart) as part of that package, which was never reported.
I prefer the current version of the Knicks, yes. But that doesn't mean we should still make chit up about that trade and paint it as a doomsday scenario. I don't find that fair, accurate, or necessary.
And OF COURSE the Knicks defended their decision publicly. That's called corporate propaganda. You fall for it if you want to.
As for Scott Perry (if you were alluding to his interviews), he was let go by the Knicks after a calamitous tenure here, the last act of a career defined by incompetence. He attempted to save his reputation in interviews by resorting to distortion and exaggeration over events that happened during his tenure to make himself look better (including that trade), but clearly nobody in the NBA's buying it and you shouldn't either. He was always a politician, never a basketball mind, and that's how he built himself a career in the NBA.
I am not making anything up. This is straight from Woj. Like I said, if the Knicks included Grimes the last pick would be protected. If the Knicks included IQ the last pick would be unprotected. That was basically the difference per Woj. IQ, Grimes, and the protection of picks is what they couldn’t agree on. Woj said THOSE deals, meaning both deals would have included the swaps, milw pick, Fournier, 2nds, and another pick to move Fournier. People cut that part out. But yea, woj said that was the base in all the packages. And makes sense comdisdering what Utah got.
I mean, in what world would Grimes be worth multiple swaps and other picks and why would Utah settle for so much less than Cleveland’s offer? That makes absolutely no sense what your arguing here.
And if you don’t believe woj, then just use common sense and look at what Clev gave up:
Cost: 3 unprotected picks, 2 swaps, Lauri, Sexton, and Agbaji (lottery pick in the draft).
Knicks would have to beat that. That is a big haul. For Cleveland it was worth it…..for the Knicks to beat that then no….we wouldn’t have enough for OG or Mikal. If you use up assets on one deal, you can’t use them on another. It is what it is man.
And yea Scott Perry sucks. I really don’t care about him.
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/34502825/sources-cleveland-cavaliers-trade-3-first-round-picks-two-swaps-utah-jazz-star-donovan-mitchellWhen guard Immanuel Quickley was proposed as a replacement for Grimes in the trade, Utah wanted three unprotected first-round draft picks as part of the package -- but New York would only do a third first-round pick that included top-five protections, sources said. Those packages would've included Milwaukee's 2025 first-round pick, two second-round picks, two pick swaps and two expiring contracts from a third team, sources said. New York would've moved out Evan Fournier and a first-round pick to a third team to spare Utah taking on Fournier's remaining $37 million, sources said.“That deal broke down over really a couple elements and to make it this simple, Utah wanted RJ Barrett, Quentin Grimes and three first round picks from New York. That would have been two unprotected and a perhaps a protected, up to top five protected pick, which probably would have still found its way to Utah. I don't know if New York would have been that bad.
Maybe, who knows by 2000, it was late in the 2020s. But, the Knicks did not want to put Grimes in a deal. They were willing to do Emmanuel quickly.
And with Emmanuel quickly, Utah's ask was three unprotected picks. They valued Grimes more than quickly. And essentially, New York said, we'll do quickly in RJ, but we want two unprotected picks and a protected third.
We essentially want what you want for Grimes, we want to put quickly in that deal. And that was the end.”
From The Woj Pod: Donovan .
Exactly what I said, only 2 unprotected firsts and a protected first in addition to Grimes and RJ, or 3 unprotected firsts in addition to IQ and RJ. I was against the latter (and would still be today), but the former was more than a fair trade.
I think the Knicks' organization simply overvalued Grimes, and it cost them a fair deal for one of the NBA premier guards and a future hall-of-famer who was entering his prime. I wouldn't trade for him now because I think a cliff awaits his athleticism within the next 3 seasons.
I'm not losing sleep over it, but the Grimes package was a fair deal in my opinion, and one that would have put the Knicks in an advantageous position in the NBA landscape, with high top-end talent, solid depth, and still some remaining assets to trade for Hart and other players down the line. We can debate KAT or OG - but the trade for Hart would've definitely still been there.
Sorry re: Scott Perry, he was outspoken on KFTV after he was let go (and in my opinion full of chit), so I thought perhaps this is the official voice you were referring to. Didn't mean to associate you with him. But I don't believe a word from MSG after the trade - companies revert to corporate propaganda to justify their decisions all the time. It's just PR.
During an interview with Sirius/XM, Barkley revealed that he had talked to William Wesley, aka Worldwide Wes, and Wes said the Knicks weren’t buying: “He said, ‘Oh man, don’t go by the media stuff. They (Jazz) wanted my wife, my kids, they wanted my grandkids. They were just trying to rip somebody off.’
NBA insider Marc Stein reported the latest update Tuesday on Stein Line Live (via HoopsHype) about Jazz CEO Danny Ainge's push for more of New York's future selections.
"My intel has been that the Knicks are trying to do this only surrendering four or five firsts," Stein said. "But someone I trust told me today that they think that Danny was going for seven of the eight firsts."
I was told it was RJ (Barrett) and hella (draft) picks. That’s what I heard. And I thought that was happening. I thought that was it. I’m there (on the East Coast) all offseason.
Guano wrote:Frank hive in shambles
3toheadmelo wrote:Guano wrote:Frank hive in shambles
You know dude sucked ass when a guy who hesitates to shoot 3s passed him already in 2 years
Smoking on that frank hive pack!
Chanel Bomber wrote:This board really is full of bad people.
3toheadmelo wrote:Guano wrote:Frank hive in shambles
You know dude sucked ass when a guy who hesitates to shoot 3s passed him already in 2 years
Smoking on that frank hive pack!
