PG: When does Jimmer arrive Knicks 98 Nets 109

[moocow007]

The Cavs used both guys as 6th and 7th men and brought them back when they had a chance to be free of them for A LOT of money. What more do you need?

You're literally denying a story that quotes Lebron James and JR Smith about what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

http://espn.go.com/blog/cleveland-cavaliers/post/_/id/926/cavs-rewarded-for-leap-of-faith-with-j-r-smith

This gave the Cavs major pause, as it did many teams that passed on a litany of Smith trade pitches by the Knicks. The thought of getting two starter-quality wings nearly for free -- a few end-of-the-bench players and a second-round pick four years in the future -- was tantalizing. But with any supposed great deal there were queasy conditions. They didn't need to hire an investigative firm to compile a dossier on Smith -- his history of bad decisions, reckless behavior and wildly inconsistent play was well known to all.

So Griffin went to James.

"Get him here and I'll take care of it," James said Wednesday night, recalling the pivotal discussion.

To James, the character issues weren't just secondary, they didn't matter. He saw a chance to grab the type of shooter he loves to play with, one with a quick release and endless confidence. James has been striving to get guys like this as teammates for a decade or so now. The Cavs needed talent at that position and Smith was a talent and a contemporary whom James felt he could relate.

"I knew the man he was and I didn't really care about what everybody else thought of him," James said. "Our front office, they have the last say. ... I was definitely all for it."

Griffin asked the Knicks to speak with Smith. This is somewhat unusual in the NBA. Often players find out they've been traded on social media. The Knicks, feeling like they may have a team on the hook, granted permission for the type of phone call that otherwise would've been considered tampering.

The conversation, sources said, was dead serious. Smith was not going to have rope. It was a new chance, but it was only one chance. Regardless of what James had said, this was going to be on Griffin and the Cavs' front office. If it went south, then they'd be blamed. So much of decision-making in the NBA involves assessing possible career damage of dangerous moves that probably none of Griffin's peers would've second-guessed him if he passed.

Smith didn't have any value. The Cavs came very close to turning down the Knicks' offer. These are facts.

So the "facts" that both guys immediately (as soon as they were physically able to) became major contributors in their rotation AND were both brought back for a significant amount of money are just fantasy to your "fact"? What is value to you? Maybe I'm not understanding the meaning of the word or the basic concept of proof is in the pudding?

Why don't you answer why a guy that had no value for the team he was traded to immediately became that teams 6th man? Or why the Cavs, when the had the perfect opportunity to be rid of a guy that had no value to them (JR Smith inexplicably opting out when most thought he'd be nuts to) actually brought him back for $5 million? That's not an indication of "value"?

Smith was their 6th man replacement for Dion Waiters (who was moved in the same trade). Shumpert was their top defensive wing player and I believe also spent time in their starting rotation. If that's not value I'm really not sure what is. Both those roles were clear the second the trade was announced.

So you can keep telling yourself otherwise if you want.

[Thugger HBC]

jr is a known knucklehead which hurts his value. but he can play. not in the triangle perhaps.

which is part of our current problem. be a perfect model citizen, be a good fit in the triangle. should you really be reducing the pool of players to choose from when you're as bad as we are.

I do think Jimmer fits the triangle. Problem is he doesn't fit in the NBA.

[Greenie]

I think people hate Phil because he was the coach of the Bulls that took the Knicks souls back in the 90's.

That's what it is.

If any other person came in here a did the same job Phil has done(some great, good and bad) they wouldn't get half the sh*t he does. People just don't like him.

[K_ick_God]

if i had to guess, i don't think this is gonna go on much longer. i'm sure behind the scenes there already are some questions about what's happening here. this is probably the worst summer to need to improve the team through free agency because everyone has cap room. it will be harder then ever to entice players to come here. and there aren't even that many who are gonna move the dial. a 3rd year of no playoffs and this is over.

It'll be Thibs. Wolves aren't paying him 10 per.

[Blue Ninja]

"A lot" don't equal consensus. Nobody had Kawhi and Klay in the top 4. And nobody in there right mind drafts two pg's with two top 4 picks.

Because there wasn't a consensus that year. 1/8 had Tristan Thompson as a top 5 pick. In every mock they were bunched together in different orders. Some had Klay as the best of the three, some had Kawhi, some had Tristan.

They failed to get an allstar caliber with a top 3 pick, when there were guys in the same range that they picked in that fit the bill. It's that simple.

They drafted Kyrie number one in that draft. How did they fail? Kyrie isn't all-star caliber?

In your words if there was no consensus, then why are you beating them up over it? Lots of teams missed.

Bro we're talking about the #3 overall pick. Obviously a top 3 pick is referring to that one.

Just like Klay-Thompson-Kawhi were bunched together, so we're Hezonja, Kristaps, Mudiay, WCS, and Winslow. Phil made the right pick. He deserves credit.

http://www.nba.com/news/2015-consensus-mock-draft/

[waya]

My biggest fear at this point is that another GM will come in and we'll go back to trading away 1st round picks

[god shammgod]

if i had to guess, i don't think this is gonna go on much longer. i'm sure behind the scenes there already are some questions about what's happening here. this is probably the worst summer to need to improve the team through free agency because everyone has cap room. it will be harder then ever to entice players to come here. and there aren't even that many who are gonna move the dial. a 3rd year of no playoffs and this is over.

It'll be Thibs. Wolves aren't paying him 10 per.

i don't really think that phil hires him. it would seem to be an about face from how he does things. and he seemed annoyed when someone mentioned him. he kind of snapped actually.

[j4remi]

Fam, this debate makes no sense. They didn't turn down the trade AND the re-signed JR Smith.

What almost happened<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<what actually did.

Re-signing them seems like a pretty clear path if you read the article. They say flat out that the risk worked out for them aka "now that the trade worked out we will re-sign them." If actions speak louder than words then Griffin demanding a sit down with JR before pulling the trigger is a pretty major statement no?

[moocow007]

I think people hate Phil because he was the coach of the Bulls that took the Knicks souls back in the 90's.

That's what it is.

If any other person came in here a did the same job Phil has done(some great, good and bad) they wouldn't get half the sh*t he does. People just don't like him.

You're just puling things out of nowhere.

I'm a huge Bulls fan. Have said many times that my 2nd most favorite team in the NBA is the Bulls. It's why I've taken the Bulls on several BATS. My favorite player of all time is Michael Jordan. I loved the Bulls that Jackson coached (yes I also loved the Knicks that played against them). Huge, huge fan of Phil Jackson the head coach. Feel free to go back and search posts regarding my feelings for the Bulls, Jordan and Phil Jackson the head coach.

Him being a former Bull, him being a championship head coach has absolutely NOTHING to do with his ability as a GM (or whatever you guys want to say his official title is). If anything I'm guilty of expecting him to do as well in his role as GM as he did as head coach. But to hate him because he was the coach of the Bulls is rubbish.

What is more likely...if we want to make false generalizations...is that folks who are supporting him is thinking that just because Phil Jackson was a championship caliber head coach that he is also a championship caliber GM and that all his flubs can't be for real and that there's some secret genius behind it.

[BKlutch]

Woj said we didn't. Agents and players save face by saying we didn't offer max. More teams offering the max makes his guy look good. Either side is speculation, but both sides make sense - it all depends on who you believe / what logic you want to follow.

I don't find speculation when an agent and player make a statement. Woj isn't sitting in the negotiating room, they were. he gets his info from the league office.

greg Monroe didn't go to the Bucks because of a max deal, he isn't on a max there either.

You don't think an agent / player are saving face by saying a team did not offer as much as another team? I do. Monroe's contract was 50/3 -- off the top of my head, I think the money was the max per year he could have gotten. The years are down, though.

Woj is an unbiased reporter who gets his information from league sources...but is rarely wrong. I trust him because of his position as a 3rd party over Falk and Monroe.

An agent has no incentive to tell the truth. His main incentive is to boost the value of the players he reps. That's all he's doing - cherry picking stats, minimizing injuries, presenting his guy in the best possible light.

No team is going to then go on the record to diss a player by saying "we never really thought he was worth that much, so we offered him only peanuts to play for us." So the agent's word usually goes without serious challenge from other teams.

Wow has a reputation for good tips that are often true, and he doesn't need to be a bottom scraper like Isola just to generate a few more clicks. He actually values his reputation, so he is incentivized to report as accurately as he can. I'd go with him.

[moocow007]

Fam, this debate makes no sense. They didn't turn down the trade AND the re-signed JR Smith.

What almost happened<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<what actually did.

Re-signing them seems like a pretty clear path if you read the article. They say flat out that the risk worked out for them aka "now that the trade worked out we will re-sign them." If actions speak louder than words then Griffin demanding a sit down with JR before pulling the trigger is a pretty major statement no?

Because they got a smarter and more focused JR Smith? No. They got the same Smith that was with the Knicks. They just knew how to use him. That wouldn't have taken a genius to figure out since George Karl already stated in quite some detail how best to use JR Smith. They knew exactly what they were getting and got exactly what they should have expected.

[j4remi]

So the "facts" that both guys immediately (as soon as they were physically able to) became major contributors in their rotation AND were both brought back for a significant amount of money are just fantasy to your "fact"? What is value to you? Maybe I'm not understanding the meaning of the word or the basic concept of proof is in the pudding?

The article acknowledges that the Cavs are pleased with the results of the trade...of course they re-signed the guys after the trade worked out. That doesn't change that they were scared to add JR and went through damn near unheard of procedures to accept the deal (ie: meeting with JR). The article takes care of your question...they measured the risk of the move, took a chance and after it worked out decided to re-sign the players.

Why don't you answer why a guy that had no value for the team he was traded to immediately became that teams 6th man? Or why the Cavs, when the had the perfect opportunity to be rid of a guy that had no value to them (JR Smith inexplicably opting out when most thought he'd be nuts to) actually brought him back for $5 million? That's not an indication of "value"?

I didn't think I'd have to answer that since the article covers it...take some time to read it...it explains all of this pretty clearly. They knew he was great talent, that's not what scared them. It was his off the court issues. They knew they couldn't get that level of talent in any other deal because they had no assets to offer, but they still feared the results. Seem with why they brough him back (see the paragraph above).

Smith was their 6th man replacement for Dion Waiters (who was moved in the same trade). Shumpert was their top defensive wing player and I believe also spent time in their starting rotation. If that's not value I'm really not sure what is.

So you can keep telling yourself otherwise if you want.

I'm not telling myself anything, Lebron and JR said so...you know...the guys involved in that whole situation.

[Thugger HBC]

Because there wasn't a consensus that year. 1/8 had Tristan Thompson as a top 5 pick. In every mock they were bunched together in different orders. Some had Klay as the best of the three, some had Kawhi, some had Tristan.

They failed to get an allstar caliber with a top 3 pick, when there were guys in the same range that they picked in that fit the bill. It's that simple.

They drafted Kyrie number one in that draft. How did they fail? Kyrie isn't all-star caliber?

In your words if there was no consensus, then why are you beating them up over it? Lots of teams missed.

Bro we're talking about the #3 overall pick. Obviously a top 3 pick is referring to that one.

Just like Klay-Thompson-Kawhi were bunched together, so we're Hezonja, Kristaps, Mudiay, WCS, and Winslow. Phil made the right pick. He deserves credit.

http://www.nba.com/news/2015-consensus-mock-draft/

I'm done with this discussion if you think top 3 selections is the same as 4-8.

But at any rate, I've given Phil credit for Kri6. I'm just saying picking a top 5 selection with the 4th pick isn't balsy. It isn't.

[Phish Tank]

Fam, this debate makes no sense. They didn't turn down the trade AND the re-signed JR Smith.

What almost happened<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<what actually did.

Re-signing them seems like a pretty clear path if you read the article. They say flat out that the risk worked out for them aka "now that the trade worked out we will re-sign them." If actions speak louder than words then Griffin demanding a sit down with JR before pulling the trigger is a pretty major statement no?

Because they got a smarter and more focused JR Smith? No. They got the same Smith that was with the Knicks. They just knew how to use him. That wouldn't have taken a genius to figure out since George Karl already stated in quite some detail how best to use JR Smith.

He's the same JR. Only difference is that in Cleveland, he's, at best, the 4th or 5th scoring option. With the Knicks, he was exposed after being the 2nd option. Only difference is that with us, there was almost no chance of him being the 4th or 5th scoring option.

4th of 5th scoring option JR >>>>>> 2nd or 3rd scoring option JR

[god shammgod]

you know they got okc's pick with jr and shump in that deal. it's true.

[Thugger HBC]

Fam, this debate makes no sense. They didn't turn down the trade AND the re-signed JR Smith.

What almost happened<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<what actually did.

Re-signing them seems like a pretty clear path if you read the article. They say flat out that the risk worked out for them aka "now that the trade worked out we will re-sign them." If actions speak louder than words then Griffin demanding a sit down with JR before pulling the trigger is a pretty major statement no?

Because they got a smarter and more focused JR Smith? No. They got the same Smith that was with the Knicks. They just knew how to use him. That wouldn't have taken a genius to figure out since George Karl already stated in quite some detail how best to use JR Smith. They knew exactly what they were getting and got exactly what they should have expected.

JR is the same player he's always been. Difference is he isn't labelled a 6th man, yet the second scoring option like he was here.

JR is a sixth man there and not the second scoring option there.

[BKlutch]

It was? Maybe by the guys on this board that wanted him gone. This even after folks pointed out that Smith always opted out before. I think what you are remember is based on fear (that he'll stay) and hate (for him) talking. No indication from Smith himself that he was going to opt in.

correct go back to all the reports before the trade deadline where rival executives reported JR as an "untradeable" contract.

http://nypost.com/2014/01/08/j-r-smith-fined-50k-after-second-shoelace-stunt/

does that sound like someone that is going to turn down another guaranteed 6-7 million? I don't. I'm trying to be fair here. Before JR was traded there was countless reports of no team wanting to touch JR because of his attitude and his contract status with his ability to opt in.

honestly, i was just scared that the longer JR was in the Knick organization, the higher the chance that he'd stay here for a long long time.

If you loved him as a player, you'd have loved him even more as our player-coach.

[j4remi]

Fam, this debate makes no sense. They didn't turn down the trade AND the re-signed JR Smith.

What almost happened<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<what actually did.

Re-signing them seems like a pretty clear path if you read the article. They say flat out that the risk worked out for them aka "now that the trade worked out we will re-sign them." If actions speak louder than words then Griffin demanding a sit down with JR before pulling the trigger is a pretty major statement no?

Because they got a smarter and more focused JR Smith? No. They got the same Smith that was with the Knicks. They just knew how to use him. That wouldn't have taken a genius to figure out since George Karl already stated in quite some detail how best to use JR Smith.

They absolutely did get the same exact JR that the Knicks had...so what? That doesn't change the story here which everyone in the Cavs organization seems to co-sign...they were nervous to add JR and almost turned down the offer because he was a high risk acquisition. Lebron says it happened...JR was quoted in the article...Blatt was quoted in it...the information about Griffin seems to be sourced closely too and none of those guys bothered denying ANY OF THIS. They weren't happy to add JR, they were reluctant PERIOD. You can choose to rationalize it all you want, I'm quoting the people that were actually involved here.

[moocow007]

So the "facts" that both guys immediately (as soon as they were physically able to) became major contributors in their rotation AND were both brought back for a significant amount of money are just fantasy to your "fact"? What is value to you? Maybe I'm not understanding the meaning of the word or the basic concept of proof is in the pudding?

The article acknowledges that the Cavs are pleased with the results of the trade...of course they re-signed the guys after the trade worked out. That doesn't change that they were scared to add JR and went through damn near unheard of procedures to accept the deal (ie: meeting with JR). The article takes care of your question...they measured the risk of the move, took a chance and after it worked out decided to re-sign the players.

The Cavs got exactly what they traded for. So not sure what the surprise is. Again, neither guy stepped up, neither guy changed their stripes. Meeting with JR is unheard of? Come on now. That article is written in 3rd party perspective. Do you believe every 3rd party perspective you read or just the one's that agree with you?

Why don't you answer why a guy that had no value for the team he was traded to immediately became that teams 6th man? Or why the Cavs, when the had the perfect opportunity to be rid of a guy that had no value to them (JR Smith inexplicably opting out when most thought he'd be nuts to) actually brought him back for $5 million? That's not an indication of "value"?

I didn't think I'd have to answer that since the article covers it...take some time to read it...it explains all of this pretty clearly. They knew he was great talent, that's not what scared them. It was his off the court issues. They knew they couldn't get that level of talent in any other deal because they had no assets to offer, but they still feared the results. Seem with why they brough him back (see the paragraph above).

You mean they realized they have no other choice and that he was pretty much their best option? Hate to break the news to you but that's value. Again, maybe I'm not understanding the meaning of "value"?

Smith was their 6th man replacement for Dion Waiters (who was moved in the same trade). Shumpert was their top defensive wing player and I believe also spent time in their starting rotation. If that's not value I'm really not sure what is.

So you can keep telling yourself otherwise if you want.

I'm not telling myself anything, Lebron and JR said so...you know...the guys involved in that whole situation.

Guys involved in the situation? I thought David Griffin and Phil Jackson were the guys involved in the situation?

They got the same exact players that were with the Knicks. There were no changing of the guard in JR Smiths brain. There was no refocus of on court needs from off court activities for Shumpert. They got exactly what they traded for...a talented bonehead and a sometimes focused perimeter defender. They gave up? Absolutely nothing. Diddly squat.

[moocow007]

Re-signing them seems like a pretty clear path if you read the article. They say flat out that the risk worked out for them aka "now that the trade worked out we will re-sign them." If actions speak louder than words then Griffin demanding a sit down with JR before pulling the trigger is a pretty major statement no?

Because they got a smarter and more focused JR Smith? No. They got the same Smith that was with the Knicks. They just knew how to use him. That wouldn't have taken a genius to figure out since George Karl already stated in quite some detail how best to use JR Smith.

They absolutely did get the same exact JR that the Knicks had...so what? That doesn't change the story here which everyone in the Cavs organization seems to co-sign...they were nervous to add JR and almost turned down the offer because he was a high risk acquisition. Lebron says it happened...JR was quoted in the article...Blatt was quoted in it...the information about Griffin seems to be sourced closely too and none of those guys bothered denying ANY OF THIS. They weren't happy to add JR, they were reluctant PERIOD. You can choose to rationalize it all you want, I'm quoting the people that were actually involved here.

I'm sorry did they actually interview everyone in the Cavs front office and quote them directly? You know Berman and Isola also knows what the Knicks front office was thinking and doing to. Should we believe them?