NBA Thread 2022-23 Season | Page 26 | Syracusefan.com

NBA Thread 2022-23 Season

OrangeDW said:
Best in game dunkers:
1. Vince Carter
2. Dominique Wilkins/Shawn Kemp (tie)
Expand...
Funny you mention that... I was going to pose the question of the best in-game dunker, Kemp or Carter?
Nique was awesome too.
 
samspann1 said:
Expand...

Maybe he can be a starter this year -- I say that jokingly... sort of.
The Heat are apparently planning to use a starting lineup where 6'6 Caleb Martin is the starting 4.
 
Maybe I will have to eat crow for this but KD will still go out next season and give it 110% for Brooklyn. He is not the type to show low effort on the court or miss games when he is unhappy with contract/team situation. That is why I will always kind of like him despite the antics. When the whistle blows it's time to hoop
 
DoctahLexus said:
Maybe I will have to eat crow for this but KD will still go out next season and give it 110% for Brooklyn. He is not the type to show low effort on the court or miss games when he is unhappy with contract/team situation. That is why I will always kind of like him despite the antics. When the whistle blows it's time to hoop
Expand...
I think you're spot on. He's a weird dude, but he competes.

It's Kyrie you don't ever know about.
 
Supposedly the number of unprotected picks is the sticking point in the Jazz-Knicks-Mitchell-Tradeapalooza deal.

That seems like a dumb sticking point to me. For the Knicks, holding back protections is basically a lack of confidence in the certainty that you're competing.

I mean, if that's what you're worried about, you probably shouldn't even be entertaining making deals to get good players.
 
OttoinGrotto said:
Supposedly the number of unprotected picks is the sticking point in the Jazz-Knicks-Mitchell-Tradeapalooza deal.

That seems like a dumb sticking point to me. For the Knicks, holding back protections is basically a lack of confidence in the certainty that you're competing.

I mean, if that's what you're worried about, you probably shouldn't even be entertaining making deals to get good players.
Expand...
If Ainge pulls this off it will change my mind about my dislike of him. But what is going to happen to Conley, Clarkson and Bogey. Does he send them all packing as well?
 
cliftonparksufan said:
If Ainge pulls this off it will change my mind about my dislike of him. But what is going to happen to Conley, Clarkson and Bogey. Does he send them all packing as well?
Expand...
Yeah man
 
OttoinGrotto said:
Supposedly the number of unprotected picks is the sticking point in the Jazz-Knicks-Mitchell-Tradeapalooza deal.

That seems like a dumb sticking point to me. For the Knicks, holding back protections is basically a lack of confidence in the certainty that you're competing.

I mean, if that's what you're worried about, you probably shouldn't even be entertaining making deals to get good players.
Expand...

You would say that!

The further out you go with the lack of protections, there are just more and more unknowns. The talk is they offered two unprotected, seems likely to me those are the first two available, so 23 and 25. I am for the most part fine parting with those; if they trade for Mitchell they should at least be good next season (your definition of good may vary, but like, not a bottom 4 team) and 25, I dunno, probably decent? But if you go further out you're talking 27 and 29; 2027 is a long time from now. A lot can happen between now and then. I would be very apprehensive about sending those picks out.
 
Knicks411 said:
You would say that!

The further out you go with the lack of protections, there are just more and more unknowns. The talk is they offered two unprotected, seems likely to me those are the first two available, so 23 and 25. I am for the most part fine parting with those; if they trade for Mitchell they should at least be good next season (your definition of good may vary, but like, not a bottom 4 team) and 25, I dunno, probably decent? But if you go further out you're talking 27 and 29; 2027 is a long time from now. A lot can happen between now and then. I would be very apprehensive about sending those picks out.
Expand...
Right. The Knicks org is saying even with Mitchell in the fold they aren't confident that they'll be good down the road.

That's the thing that I think gets lost in the Minnesota deal. Yeah, they gave up a bunch of picks. But they were comfortable with that because they think they're going to be really good that whole time and the picks won't be great.

Knicks front office needs to let their nuts hang and believe in themselves. If the team isn't competing they're not going to have jobs by the time 2027 and 2029 picks convey anyway. Won't be their problem.
 
OttoinGrotto said:
Right. The Knicks org is saying even with Mitchell in the fold they aren't confident that they'll be good down the road.

That's the thing that I think gets lost in the Minnesota deal. Yeah, they gave up a bunch of picks. But they were comfortable with that because they think they're going to be really good that whole time and the picks won't be great.

Knicks front office needs to let their nuts hang and believe in themselves. If the team isn't competing they're not going to have jobs by the time 2027 and 2029 picks convey anyway. Won't be their problem.
Expand...

Now that is absolutely a good point (and something that scares the hell out of me)

5 and 7 years is a long time. A lot happens in the NBA. I really can't handle giving up those unprotected ones. I really dont wanna give up 3, I think for me, if thats the price, I'd be a pass on Mitchell.
 
Knicks411 said:
Now that is absolutely a good point (and something that scares the hell out of me)

5 and 7 years is a long time. A lot happens in the NBA. I really can't handle giving up those unprotected ones. I really dont wanna give up 3, I think for me, if thats the price, I'd be a pass on Mitchell.
Expand...
But think of how illogical what you're saying is. You're saying rather than make a move on a guy that provides some insurance that you'll be good, you'd rather not, increasing the likelihood that you're not good. Which is what you're trying to avoid.

Mitchell's got years on his deal, and he's not going to leave the Knicks. He'll sign another contract.

With an actual perennial all-star in the fold, the franchise floor rises. We're not talking about a "maybe he reaches that level" guy like Barrett, or a flash in the pan all-star like it looks like Randle is (unfortunate, btw, I like Randle and think he gets more flak than he deserves). We mean a guy that's an Eastern conference all-star game fixture that's probably making all-NBA on occasion.

I know it's the Knicks, but come on - who doesn't think they could build around that?* You can put a team around that player that competes, at least to the degree where those picks aren't going to be lotto or anything. Sure, years down the road catastrophic injury or something could happen that blows up a season, but having that pick on hand isn't going to fix that season, it's a consolation prize.

I think the impasse on this trade is because the protected picks the Knicks can offer from other teams just don't have a lot of upside. The Jazz probably aren't getting a lot of legit talent in this trade, it's all speculated talent on the picks.

*The Jazz don't believe they can because they know Mitchell's out when free agency hits, so better to trade him now and start the rebuild when he has more value due to the additional years on the deal.
 
OttoinGrotto said:
But think of how illogical what you're saying is. You're saying rather than make a move on a guy that provides some insurance that you'll be good, you'd rather not, increasing the likelihood that you're not good. Which is what you're trying to avoid.

Mitchell's got years on his deal, and he's not going to leave the Knicks. He'll sign another contract.

With an actual perennial all-star in the fold, the franchise floor rises. We're not talking about a "maybe he reaches that level" guy like Barrett, or a flash in the pan all-star like it looks like Randle is (unfortunate, btw, I like Randle and think he gets more flak than he deserves). We mean a guy that's an Eastern conference all-star game fixture that's probably making all-NBA on occasion.

I know it's the Knicks, but come on - who doesn't think they could build around that?* You can put a team around that player that competes, at least to the degree where those picks aren't going to be lotto or anything. Sure, years down the road catastrophic injury or something could happen that blows up a season, but having that pick on hand isn't going to fix that season, it's a consolation prize.
Expand...

I don't think I am exactly saying that. I (think) I am saying: Mitchell is a good player, probably even a very good player. He would make the team better. There is a price I'm willing to pay for him. (A price that is, by historical standards, very high. Look at what we sent out for Melo, for instance, vs what we're talking here.) But I think 3 (or 4!) is just too high a price.
I do think you can build a team around him. But if you're sending out 4 unprotected ones, you're also depleting the assets you can use to trade for more players. Even if you're just sending out 3, that basically means all you can move is youre 2029 first. Who are you bringing in with that if the price for Mitchell is 3 unprotected ones plus whatever else you have to throw in? And like I said, simply the further you go out in time, the more unknowns there are and the less sure I am about how good the team is going to be and what the value of those picks are.
Like I said, Mitchell is very good and he clearly wants to be here. He's not great, he's not a guy who automatically makes you a contender. I just think you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere on price. I'm fine missing out on him if it's 3 or 4 unprotected ones going out the door.
 
Knicks411 said:
I don't think I am exactly saying that. I (think) I am saying: Mitchell is a good player, probably even a very good player. He would make the team better. There is a price I'm willing to pay for him. (A price that is, by historical standards, very high. Look at what we sent out for Melo, for instance, vs what we're talking here.) But I think 3 (or 4!) is just too high a price.
I do think you can build a team around him. But if you're sending out 4 unprotected ones, you're also depleting the assets you can use to trade for more players. Even if you're just sending out 3, that basically means all you can move is youre 2029 first. Who are you bringing in with that if the price for Mitchell is 3 unprotected ones plus whatever else you have to throw in? And like I said, simply the further you go out in time, the more unknowns there are and the less sure I am about how good the team is going to be and what the value of those picks are.
Like I said, Mitchell is very good and he clearly wants to be here. He's not great, he's not a guy who automatically makes you a contender. I just think you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere on price. I'm fine missing out on him if it's 3 or 4 unprotected ones going out the door.
Expand...
So you miss out on Mitchell... what's the plan to get better? I'm guessing you're not confident in where they are right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jncuse
SyracuseFan NBA Fantasy League
Replies
0
Views
203
jncuse
jncuse
Pyle
    • Like
    • Angry
Echoes of Coach P
Replies
19
Views
2K
The Viking
T
Cusefan0307
    • Like
    • Love
Can we all agree making the tournament at large is the bare minimum expectation this season
5 6 7
Replies
154
Views
11K
djcon57
djcon57
OttoinGrotto
    • Like
    • Love
This passing attack will become a virtuous cycle
2 3
Replies
70
Views
4K
sufandu
sufandu
SWC75
    • Like
The Upside - Pittsburgh
Replies
5
Views
681
Dmcnabbrules
Dmcnabbrules

Forum statistics

Threads
170,361
Messages
4,887,403
Members
5,996
Latest member
meierscreek

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
346
Guests online
1,558
Total visitors
1,904
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom