Trade & FA Ideas & Discussion 3: #TheTimeline

jredsaz · Post #1542 » by **jredsaz** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:39 am

AtheJ415 wrote:I don't understand the urgency some have to get rid of Knight. Also, stretching a player should be a near last resort. It keeps the cap player as a problem even longer than the contract.

People need to realize where this team is. It is rebuilding around 20 year olds. Unless Knight is standing in the way of acquiring a star who fits our timeline, we shouldn't be trading him with picks attached, nor taking on cap space well beyond his contract via stretching either. If we can't trade him without giving up additional assets, we should hold him until we are at a point where we have to dump him to take a big step forward. I cannot understand who on next year's FA list people see as that step forward. Only Cousins even makes the most remote sense of the available stars, and I don't think he alone would force our hand with Knight given the rest of the team's cap situation, and that is even if the FO wants him and even if he wants to come here.

I agree with what you're saying. However, as Gambo talks about it, Knight agreed to be a good soldier last year. Bets are off this year. If he chooses to be difficult it could cause internal problems/locker room problems that can hinder a young teams growth.

I am still thinking that we will trade for another bad contract as opposed to parting with an asset to dump the contract, particularly if it will cost a first or more.

Solomon Hill makes a lot of sense. Similar money. Pelicans need more wing/playmaking/shooting help. Hill is more effective as a small ball 4, less important with Boogie. Both bad contracts. Asik would work too with the minimum 3 year guarantee. Hill we could get something. Asik there isn't anything.

Dwayne Wade might be a possibility. Rumors about a buyout. Bulls sold Jordan Bell for $3.5 million. They may appreciate $13.5 over three years, paid per game, as opposed to $20+ million lump sum in October or December. Plus if they want to tank no better floor general than Knight.

Alec Burks maybe. Myers Leonard. Crabbe if Paul Allen decides $9 million more in Luxury tax for a six to ten seed in the West isn't worth the difference between he and Knight.

Sent from my SM-N920V using RealGM mobile app

jredsaz · Post #1543 » by **jredsaz** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:54 am

Kerrsed wrote:

Shams hung large. Who did they pay to get that kind of access I'm one place and no wonder Yahoo let Woj walk. Shams has 40% of the contacts at 20% of the cost

Sent from my SM-N920V using RealGM mobile app

Post #1544 » by **lilfishi22** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:00 am

I agree we should be finding a a trade for Knight. What we asked of him last year wasn't fair to him and asking him to do the same again this year would be unprofessional and you're certainly risk making him rightfully disgruntled. The guy had been an absolute pro the whole way through and it's in both of our best interest to move him.

If we need to take back an equally bad contract to make it happen, I'm all for it. I'm not for giving up positive assets to trade him though. But we trade him we must. We can't keep a guy in his prime sitting on the pine doing nothing and just collecting cheques. If a guy with a bad contract comes back, as long as he can make some sort of impact on the court, then we should look into doing it.

BobbieL · Post #1545 » by **BobbieL** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:37 am

Kerrsed wrote:

Kyler, Kennedy or Schultz

None of those guys broke one of these signings, or trades.

Sticking with Woj and Cham for news

BobbieL · Post #1546 » by **BobbieL** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:41 am

lilfishi22 wrote:I agree we should be finding a a trade for Knight. What we asked of him last year wasn't fair to him and asking him to do the same again this year would be unprofessional and you're certainly risk making him rightfully disgruntled. The guy had been an absolute pro the whole way through and it's in both of our best interest to move him.

If we need to take back an equally bad contract to make it happen, I'm all for it. I'm not for giving up positive assets to trade him though. But we trade him we must. We can't keep a guy in his prime sitting on the pine doing nothing and just collecting cheques. If a guy with a bad contract comes back, as long as he can make some sort of impact on the court, then we should look into doing it.

Maybe not an equally bad contract but maybe something like this. Instead of trying to fit Knight or Bledsoe into the KLove/Carmelo triangle - what if Rose truly wants to go to Milwaukee , Knicks do not get anything. Three team sign and trade

NYK: Knight
Milwaukee: Rose
Phoenix: So the Bucks stay under the lux tax - Rose kind of takes Teletovic dollars so his contract plus a first to the Suns to help facilitate

If the Bucks REALLY want to get under the lux tax - add Hawes to the deal as basically Hawes/Teletovic makes almost as much as Knight. But Hawes has one year left, Teletovic two years so the "Clean in 19" would be handled - as Chandler, Dudley, Teletovic all roll off in 2019; Bledsoe as well

Knicks get a player to run the PG position
Suns get a draft pick and out of Knights deal one year earlier
Bucks get Rose

I throw in Chandler for Monroe as didn't Tyson play with JKidd when Dallas won

Moochthemonkey · Post #1547 » by **Moochthemonkey** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:59 am

Adrian Wojnarowski confirmed for Illuminati

WeekapaugGroove · Post #1548 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:03 am

lilfishi22 wrote:I agree we should be finding a a trade for Knight. What we asked of him last year wasn't fair to him and asking him to do the same again this year would be unprofessional and you're certainly risk making him rightfully disgruntled. The guy had been an absolute pro the whole way through and it's in both of our best interest to move him.

If we need to take back an equally bad contract to make it happen, I'm all for it. I'm not for giving up positive assets to trade him though. But we trade him we must. We can't keep a guy in his prime sitting on the pine doing nothing and just collecting cheques. If a guy with a bad contract comes back, as long as he can make some sort of impact on the court, then we should look into doing it.

I don't think anything was unfair with knight last year. He got moved to the bench because he wasn't very good and hurt two years ago. The start of last year he had a solid spot in the rotation but proceeded to litterally play like the worst player in the league by some metrics and was terrible to watch. Because of this he got benched. Hell had they not been looking to trade him he would have been benched earlier.

Now with that said if they bring him back I think he should be allowed to compete for minutes but if he sucks again he should be back on the bench.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

Mulhollanddrive · Post #1549 » by **Mulhollanddrive** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:21 am

Knight sucked if he had a different name he'd be irrelevent.

jredsaz · Post #1550 » by **jredsaz** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:34 am

WeekapaugGroove wrote:
lilfishi22 wrote:I agree we should be finding a a trade for Knight. What we asked of him last year wasn't fair to him and asking him to do the same again this year would be unprofessional and you're certainly risk making him rightfully disgruntled. The guy had been an absolute pro the whole way through and it's in both of our best interest to move him.

If we need to take back an equally bad contract to make it happen, I'm all for it. I'm not for giving up positive assets to trade him though. But we trade him we must. We can't keep a guy in his prime sitting on the pine doing nothing and just collecting cheques. If a guy with a bad contract comes back, as long as he can make some sort of impact on the court, then we should look into doing it.

I don't think anything was unfair with knight last year. He got moved to the bench because he wasn't very good and hurt two years ago. The start of last year he had a solid spot in the rotation but proceeded to litterally play like the worst player in the league by some metrics and was terrible to watch. Because of this he got benched. Hell had they not been looking to trade him he would have been benched earlier.

Now with that said if they bring him back I think he should be allowed to compete for minutes but if he sucks again he should be back on the bench.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

I see it that way but I would guess knight and his agent do not. It also matters what was said to the player by management. Regardless, I'm guessing he will be dealt.

Sent from my SM-N920V using RealGM mobile app

BobbieL · Post #1551 » by **BobbieL** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:35 am

WeekapaugGroove wrote:
lilfishi22 wrote:I agree we should be finding a a trade for Knight. What we asked of him last year wasn't fair to him and asking him to do the same again this year would be unprofessional and you're certainly risk making him rightfully disgruntled. The guy had been an absolute pro the whole way through and it's in both of our best interest to move him.

If we need to take back an equally bad contract to make it happen, I'm all for it. I'm not for giving up positive assets to trade him though. But we trade him we must. We can't keep a guy in his prime sitting on the pine doing nothing and just collecting cheques. If a guy with a bad contract comes back, as long as he can make some sort of impact on the court, then we should look into doing it.

I don't think anything was unfair with knight last year. He got moved to the bench because he wasn't very good and hurt two years ago. The start of last year he had a solid spot in the rotation but proceeded to litterally play like the worst player in the league by some metrics and was terrible to watch. Because of this he got benched. Hell had they not been looking to trade him he would have been benched earlier.

Now with that said if they bring him back I think he should be allowed to compete for minutes but if he sucks again he should be back on the bench.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

Easier said than done but it he would be opening or the coaching staff figuring out how to "re-invent" himself as a Vinnie Johnson type sixth man - gunslinger, scorer type - he could be a great benefit. It works for Jamal Crawford - 37 years old still getting 5m per year.

Granted, Vinnie wasn't always the Microwave - sometimes probably the Icebox - but those games he was the Microwave, just let him go

Post #1552 » by **lilfishi22** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:40 am

WeekapaugGroove wrote:
lilfishi22 wrote:I agree we should be finding a a trade for Knight. What we asked of him last year wasn't fair to him and asking him to do the same again this year would be unprofessional and you're certainly risk making him rightfully disgruntled. The guy had been an absolute pro the whole way through and it's in both of our best interest to move him.

If we need to take back an equally bad contract to make it happen, I'm all for it. I'm not for giving up positive assets to trade him though. But we trade him we must. We can't keep a guy in his prime sitting on the pine doing nothing and just collecting cheques. If a guy with a bad contract comes back, as long as he can make some sort of impact on the court, then we should look into doing it.

I don't think anything was unfair with knight last year. He got moved to the bench because he wasn't very good and hurt two years ago. The start of last year he had a solid spot in the rotation but proceeded to litterally play like the worst player in the league by some metrics and was terrible to watch. Because of this he got benched. Hell had they not been looking to trade him he would have been benched earlier.

Now with that said if they bring him back I think he should be allowed to compete for minutes but if he sucks again he should be back on the bench.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

I'm not saying playing himself out of minutes in the first half of the season was unfair. I was saying us basically telling him to sit and not be allowed to compete for minutes was unfair. He definitely didn't look good but there were certainly games where Ulis didn't look good either and Knight could've played. He took it like a champ when asked to sit. It's unfair to ask him to do it again or not be allowed to compete for minutes.

Sitting him does him no favors and does us no favors either by having a depreciating asset not produce at all. At least if we take on a bad contract who actually plays, he could at least contribute in some way.

Post #1553 » by **bwgood77** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:50 am

jredsaz wrote:
AtheJ415 wrote:I don't understand the urgency some have to get rid of Knight. Also, stretching a player should be a near last resort. It keeps the cap player as a problem even longer than the contract.

People need to realize where this team is. It is rebuilding around 20 year olds. Unless Knight is standing in the way of acquiring a star who fits our timeline, we shouldn't be trading him with picks attached, nor taking on cap space well beyond his contract via stretching either. If we can't trade him without giving up additional assets, we should hold him until we are at a point where we have to dump him to take a big step forward. I cannot understand who on next year's FA list people see as that step forward. Only Cousins even makes the most remote sense of the available stars, and I don't think he alone would force our hand with Knight given the rest of the team's cap situation, and that is even if the FO wants him and even if he wants to come here.

I agree with what you're saying. However, as Gambo talks about it, Knight agreed to be a good soldier last year. Bets are off this year. If he chooses to be difficult it could cause internal problems/locker room problems that can hinder a young teams growth.

I am still thinking that we will trade for another bad contract as opposed to parting with an asset to dump the contract, particularly if it will cost a first or more.

Solomon Hill makes a lot of sense. Similar money. Pelicans need more wing/playmaking/shooting help. Hill is more effective as a small ball 4, less important with Boogie. Both bad contracts. Asik would work too with the minimum 3 year guarantee. Hill we could get something. Asik there isn't anything.

Dwayne Wade might be a possibility. Rumors about a buyout. Bulls sold Jordan Bell for $3.5 million. They may appreciate $13.5 over three years, paid per game, as opposed to $20+ million lump sum in October or December. Plus if they want to tank no better floor general than Knight.

Alec Burks maybe. Myers Leonard. Crabbe if Paul Allen decides $9 million more in Luxury tax for a six to ten seed in the West isn't worth the difference between he and Knight.

Sent from my SM-N920V using RealGM mobile app

I agree with this. If we can flip him for another equally bad contract, do it. If we could do it for Crabbe I definitely would, even though he makes more. Alec Burks for sure, if he passes physical.

DRK · Post #1554 » by **DRK** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:59 am

Man, Baynes only got 1 year 4 million. Is that the going rate for backup centers?
Quite a few centers left on the market, and money seems to already be drying up. Dedmon, Tarik Black, Bogut, Withey, all backup centers yet to be signed to deals either.

This makes me think that the deal Williams reportedly was offered from us was very generous. Wouldnt be surprised if he takes it within the next few days if we havent already retracted the offer.

As for Len, I can totally see him taking the QO, or signing a one year deal. I think all Suns fans can breathe a sigh of relief that w wont have to offer Len a 4 year 60 million dollar contract. That notion is over

Zelaznyrules · Post #1555 » by **Zelaznyrules** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:18 am

lilfishi22 wrote:
WeekapaugGroove wrote:
lilfishi22 wrote:I agree we should be finding a a trade for Knight. What we asked of him last year wasn't fair to him and asking him to do the same again this year would be unprofessional and you're certainly risk making him rightfully disgruntled. The guy had been an absolute pro the whole way through and it's in both of our best interest to move him.

If we need to take back an equally bad contract to make it happen, I'm all for it. I'm not for giving up positive assets to trade him though. But we trade him we must. We can't keep a guy in his prime sitting on the pine doing nothing and just collecting cheques. If a guy with a bad contract comes back, as long as he can make some sort of impact on the court, then we should look into doing it.

I don't think anything was unfair with knight last year. He got moved to the bench because he wasn't very good and hurt two years ago. The start of last year he had a solid spot in the rotation but proceeded to litterally play like the worst player in the league by some metrics and was terrible to watch. Because of this he got benched. Hell had they not been looking to trade him he would have been benched earlier.

Now with that said if they bring him back I think he should be allowed to compete for minutes but if he sucks again he should be back on the bench.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

I'm not saying playing himself out of minutes in the first half of the season was unfair. I was saying us basically telling him to sit and not be allowed to compete for minutes was unfair. He definitely didn't look good but there were certainly games where Ulis didn't look good either and Knight could've played. He took it like a champ when asked to sit. It's unfair to ask him to do it again or not be allowed to compete for minutes.

Sitting him does him no favors and does us no favors either by having a depreciating asset not produce at all. At least if we take on a bad contract who actually plays, he could at least contribute in some way.

When did that happen? The coach kept giving him chances and from what we heard, Knight refused to do what Watson demanded of him. And it's not like Ulis played a bunch of minutes and Knight was forced to sit, Brandon actually played a few more minutes last season than Tyler did. Knight has been given more chances than his performance has warranted. He sat stoically on the sidelines, showing neither positive nor negative emotion and rarely provided anything close to the support you'd expect from someone who was really being a good teammate.

I think you're making excuses for a player that simply doesn't deserve that kind of consideration. He's shown a few flashes but for the most part he's been a huge disappointment from the moment he got here. The best I can say about him is that he didn't appear to try and cause havoc in the locker room but frankly, we have a right to expect a heck of a lot more than that from him.

WeekapaugGroove · Post #1556 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:28 am

Read on Twitter

Williams back 3 yrs 17mil.

Good contract. Have to wonder if this is the end of Len.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

Post #1557 » by **ATTL** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:39 am

Glad to have Alan back, solid contract given his potential production.

YouTube · Post #1558 » by **Kerrsed** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:41 am

WeekapaugGroove wrote:

Read on Twitter

Williams back 3 yrs 17mil.

Good contract. Have to wonder if this is the end of Len.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

Post #1559 » by **Qwigglez** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:45 am

If we can get Len to a 3 year deal under 8 figures a year I will be very happy.

jredsaz · Post #1560 » by **jredsaz** » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:49 am

bwgood77 wrote:
jredsaz wrote:
AtheJ415 wrote:I don't understand the urgency some have to get rid of Knight. Also, stretching a player should be a near last resort. It keeps the cap player as a problem even longer than the contract.

People need to realize where this team is. It is rebuilding around 20 year olds. Unless Knight is standing in the way of acquiring a star who fits our timeline, we shouldn't be trading him with picks attached, nor taking on cap space well beyond his contract via stretching either. If we can't trade him without giving up additional assets, we should hold him until we are at a point where we have to dump him to take a big step forward. I cannot understand who on next year's FA list people see as that step forward. Only Cousins even makes the most remote sense of the available stars, and I don't think he alone would force our hand with Knight given the rest of the team's cap situation, and that is even if the FO wants him and even if he wants to come here.

I agree with what you're saying. However, as Gambo talks about it, Knight agreed to be a good soldier last year. Bets are off this year. If he chooses to be difficult it could cause internal problems/locker room problems that can hinder a young teams growth.

I am still thinking that we will trade for another bad contract as opposed to parting with an asset to dump the contract, particularly if it will cost a first or more.

Solomon Hill makes a lot of sense. Similar money. Pelicans need more wing/playmaking/shooting help. Hill is more effective as a small ball 4, less important with Boogie. Both bad contracts. Asik would work too with the minimum 3 year guarantee. Hill we could get something. Asik there isn't anything.

Dwayne Wade might be a possibility. Rumors about a buyout. Bulls sold Jordan Bell for $3.5 million. They may appreciate $13.5 over three years, paid per game, as opposed to $20+ million lump sum in October or December. Plus if they want to tank no better floor general than Knight.

Alec Burks maybe. Myers Leonard. Crabbe if Paul Allen decides $9 million more in Luxury tax for a six to ten seed in the West isn't worth the difference between he and Knight.

Sent from my SM-N920V using RealGM mobile app

I agree with this. If we can flip him for another equally bad contract, do it. If we could do it for Crabbe I definitely would, even though he makes more. Alec Burks for sure, if he passes physical.

I think we just got to get him out the door. Bad money for bad money. IMO I think out of all the options I've seen I like Hill the most.

Sent from my SM-N920V using RealGM mobile app