(01-27-2023, 08:30 AM)juanc Wrote: [ -> ]Cmon Kamm, be a good lad and help us cheap... out. What does it say? 
Nothing new about Wood. That is the only Mav’s mention. Sorry.
(01-27-2023, 09:45 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]NYK is a good trade partner as far as salary matching deals go. DFS/Bullock/SD/Frank/Powell for Rose/IQ/Fournier/Toppin/Hartenstein/Reddish works well as far as salaries. I’d do that with the trade of the 23 for the lightly protected 28 you proposed.
Most of those guys are having down years and the guys we’re sending are our good players while receiving both their worst contracts. Plugs their hole at the 3 and gives them a vet bench that they can be proud of and they know they’ll work well with JB. We get 3 ball handlers in Rose, IQ and Fournier and a youth movement.
One of the challenges of having injured players is fielding an 8 man team for the games we don’t have our guys and don’t have the new guys yet either. So, something less ambitious is probably more realistic.
(01-26-2023, 11:57 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]I would MUCH rather just keep Dinwiddie. You and I are far apart on some of these evaluations.
How much Toronto have you watched this year? I don’t ask to be snarky, it’s just that I don’t think VanVleet is the same player you are remembering. They hate him up there right now. Like MavsForum/THJ level hate.
Your right, we are on different sides of some of these players. Fred's shot might be a little off and that entire team is in a funk, but he is still a legit two way player. He is the kind of player we need next to Luka. A Din for Fred trade would be selling high and buying low. I seriously doubt Toronto would be willing to make that trade.
FWIW, I”m not a fan of adding FVV or D’Lo nor am I a fan of swapping out Dinwiddie for one of them (I’ll take the devil I know). Both want big time long term money. I’d rather deal with SD at the end of 2024 than sign up for four years with either of those guys.
What I’d prefer is my third ball handler be younger and a better defender while also competent at O. I think Quickley fits that really well. If you can’t make it work out with SD once his contract is up, you have a ready-made replacement. In the mean time, you can play any two of Luka, SD and Quickley at the same time. Maybe Hardy is ready to be that third guy by the time SD’s deal is up.
(01-27-2023, 12:40 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]FWIW, I”m not a fan of adding FVV or D’Lo nor am I a fan of swapping out Dinwiddie for one of them (I’ll take the devil I know). Both want big time long term money. I’d rather deal with SD at the end of 2024 than sign up for four years with either of those guys.
What I’d prefer is my third ball handler be younger and a better defender while also competent at O. I think Quickley fits that really well. If you can’t make it work out with SD once his contract is up, you have a ready-made replacement. In the mean time, you can play any two of Luka, SD and Quickley at the same time. Maybe Hardy is ready to be that third guy by the time SD’s deal is up.
The question is how do we get Quickley. My personal opinion is you have to go wide like the trade I proposed in order to get the value right without giving up picks. If we’re in the pick trading market, then Reggie and the 28 for Reddish and Quickley works while losing a ton off Cuban’s tax bill.
(01-27-2023, 12:05 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]Your right, we are on different sides of some of these players. Fred's shot might be a little off and that entire team is in a funk, but he is still a legit two way player. He is the kind of player we need next to Luka. A Din for Fred trade would be selling high and buying low. I seriously doubt Toronto would be willing to make that trade.
With that horse trader Masai Ujiri pulling the strings, I seriously doubt it also.
(01-27-2023, 07:18 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]Multiply $5.9mm times 1.25 and add $100k. It doesn't work. It would be 1.75 instead of 1.25 if the outgoing stayed under $6.5mm if Dallas wasn't a taxpaying team after the trade. But, if this is all that is happening, then the 1.25% spread applies.
So, you have to add salary to Reddish to get to Bullock.
Are you sure?
Doesn't the 1.25 versus 1.75 variance depend on whether the Knicks are the ones that end up over the tax?
(01-27-2023, 01:11 PM)Jym Wrote: [ -> ]Are you sure?
Doesn't the 1.25 versus 1.75 variance depend on whether the Knicks are the ones that end up over the tax?
You are correct. My bad. Yeah, it is the team that needs the 1.75 (the team trading the contract under $6.5mm for the larger contract), that needs to be under the tax.
(01-27-2023, 12:40 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: [ -> ]FWIW, I”m not a fan of adding FVV or D’Lo nor am I a fan of swapping out Dinwiddie for one of them (I’ll take the devil I know). Both want big time long term money. I’d rather deal with SD at the end of 2024 than sign up for four years with either of those guys.
What I’d prefer is my third ball handler be younger and a better defender while also competent at O. I think Quickley fits that really well. If you can’t make it work out with SD once his contract is up, you have a ready-made replacement. In the mean time, you can play any two of Luka, SD and Quickley at the same time. Maybe Hardy is ready to be that third guy by the time SD’s deal is up.
I would be more than happy adding quickley, and if we could work out some kind of Bullock for Quickley I would be very happy. I have no interest in Reddish, but I would take him as salary filler in that deal.
(01-27-2023, 01:41 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]I would be more than happy adding quickley, and if we could work out some kind of Bullock for Quickley I would be very happy. I have no interest in Reddish, but I would take him as salary filler in that deal.
Hartenstein/Quickley for Bullock/28?
(01-27-2023, 12:53 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]The question is how do we get Quickley. My personal opinion is you have to go wide like the trade I proposed in order to get the value right without giving up picks. If we’re in the pick trading market, then Reggie and the 28 for Reddish and Quickley works while losing a ton off Cuban’s tax bill.
I think Bullock is more valuable to both teams than Reddish, and I'm not sure Quickley is worth a first. I would send out two seconds in that deal, but not a first.
(01-27-2023, 01:44 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]Hartenstein/Quickley for Bullock/28?
Hmmmm. I really liked Hartenstein in the offseason. He has really fallen off in NY. If I thought he could get back to what he was, I think I pull this trigger.
(01-27-2023, 01:47 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]I think Bullock is more valuable to both teams than Reddish, and I'm not sure Quickley is worth a first. I would send out two seconds in that deal, but not a first.
I agree with the Bullock line. Not sure about the Quickley assessment. He needs 2 more shots per game (which he could get here) and to have the 3% at his rookie season level and he would be (which isn’t out of the realm of possibility here either), right now, the offensive player SD is without the defensive warts. They didn’t want to include him in the Mitchell trade though, so we might need to add more to get him too.
This is why I propose we go wide in the trade with NYK. They have the youth movement we are in dire need of and we have some of the most perfect role players for their playoff push. JB, Barrett and Randle are all 20+ ppg players. They don’t need a whole lot more scoring, they need spot up shooting to create space and defenders that Thibs can work with.
Surprised there's not more Dwight Powell fans on this board advocating to try to pry Jericho Sims away from the Knicks. Very similar players, he'd fit in great with Luka in the PnR and has all the tools to play well in a high switching defense. With Powell expiring, it would be nice to have his skill set locked up in a younger player on a much cheaper contract.
(01-27-2023, 01:44 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]Hartenstein/Quickley for Bullock/28?
Hartenstein is another guy who has fallen really out of favor on his own team. I don't bring that up to discourage your interest (although maybe it should, a little) but to say that he might not cost as much as we assume in trade.
(01-27-2023, 01:47 PM)mvossman Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure Quickley is worth a first
So why do we want him then? A guy not worth a first is not really good
(01-27-2023, 03:14 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Hartenstein is another guy who has fallen really out of favor on his own team. I don't bring that up to discourage your interest (although maybe it should, a little) but to say that he might not cost as much as we assume in trade.
Ya, Hartenstein was a way to get closer money-wise to Bullock more than adding much more value to the trade (much more value than Reddish that is). I don’t know how good he would be here, but he did have a good stint with the Clippers last year snd is only 24 yo. Lots of development room with him. I just want to get younger on this team. That is my main goal.
(01-27-2023, 03:20 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]So why do we want him then? A guy not worth a first is not really good
Well, it would take the team from 0 true PG's to 1. Or, 2, if you consider Luka a PG, which is certainly something that flies.
I think adding Quickley to the bench would be a positive move, depending on what they'd have to give up, but I have no idea why people think NY wants to trade him. Even if they have decided he's not in their future (which we don't know) it seems like they'd want to throw him as a fairly attractive sweetener in a package with Toppin and some 1sts for the next star they go after.
The reason we're talking about FVV and Russell is that both players are very likely to be moved at the deadline.