Rockets acquire Suns picks, return Nets picks to Brooklyn

My problem with this is we just dont know the exact details of previous negotiations. Stone very well could have gotten more value than he originally wanted.

The earliest rumors were always the nets picks for the suns picks. Prolly a 3or4 for 4 scenario that got denied because the suns picks were deemed more valuable. maybe this exact trade was the framework in january but it didnt seem like it at the time of a 2 for 4 scenario.

now here we are. we did a 2 for 4. we kept #3 this year and the 27 swap, that im not sure wasnt orignially on the table.

to questions nuances of a trade and determine what value was or wasnt there seems a bit silly. maybe he could have gotten more, and maybe he could have missed out on an oppurtunity he thought was good value.

at the end of the day we should judge the trade on what the trade WAS not what hypothetical scenarios it could have been.

imho

 

What you said was meaningless.

 

I don't think he is saying that Stone didn't counter - what he is saying is that Stone should have gotten more than he did when you consider that the Nets were in a terrible situation.

Do you really believe that the Nets would not rebuild for another 3 years? Their own GM said there was no available star to add........ Bridges is a free agent in two seasons....... do you really believe that the Nets would not have cashed out Bridges for what will be 5-7 first rounders?

This is a lot like the Paul George trade - the Nets were going to have to rebuild with or without their picks because of the players they have on their team having trade value.

 

They wouldn't have tanked on purpose. They would have just been a bad team. I think they would have loaded up on short-term deals with the hopes of trading those players for more assets.

Were the picks they turned down unprotected? It is literally the best a team is allowed to offer unless it owns other team's unprotected picks. Something Brooklyn would know a lot about, losing the #3 pick in 2016, #1 pick in 2017, #8 pick in 2018, & now #3 pick in 2024. Boston wound up with Brown, Tatum, & Kyrie Irving (now Porzingis).

 

Anyway, as for the merits of the argument, Windhorst said today that he's never seen a trade like this in 22 years of covering the NBA. There's not much in the way of precedent. In this case, they objectively did get a greater quantity of FRP assets (4) than what they gave up (2), which confirms they weighted the 2025/2026 Brooklyn assets as being higher in quality. Two extra FRP assets is significant.

Now, can you argue they should have gotten even more, in terms of quantity? Sure, just like if they had hypothetically gotten 5 assets, you can argue for 6. There's almost no precedent for this type of deal, so we're all trying to project as best we can.

If you still disagree, fair enough, to each their own. Just not sure why we need to do the ad hominem, personal stuff. Reasonable people can disagree.

 

I have no idea if Stone got more or less than he wanted in the previous negotiations - that is irrelevant to me, because the only thing that matters is the situation and conditions that this deal was made. The Nets were in an incredibly bad situation from a leverage perspective when they made this deal with the Rockets - and the return he got under the circumstances wasn't as good as it should have been..... and that is the only real issue I have with the trade.

 

Look in the mirror.

 

Well, what you are saying is you don’t understand the point that is counter yours. Plenty of people have laid out the argument clearly.

Stating that you don’t understand that doesn’t make it any less accurate.

Just read what nook has been writing.

To keep saying that the nets do not make the Knicks trade without the rockets part is what I disagree with the most. It feels more like Stone got played and didn’t know that knicks deal was on the table. There is no way the nets turn down what is basically six picks for bridges.

And even if they wouldn’t do that trade, that pick is still worth more than pretty much everything they got back in the trade. There was no stars available for trade. That’s why they decided to do these deals. They had no money to get a star in FA. they can’t overpay anyone to come there because there’s not enough good players as there is teams with cap space. No one is forcing a trade to play with bridges.

they were going to be a bad team, no matter what with the chance of a major injury or something of this pick being another top five pick as it was. 2025 is a loaded draft… no one knows what 27 and 29 will be. Could be worse than this years

If you believe that the nets don’t take that trade, no matter what I don’t know what to say … I can’t help you. There is no other team or no other scenario where they get that kind of haul for bridges.

 

lol at least you used fewer words this time to say nothing.

 

I think it really depends on the next move.

I don’t mind this trade because the Nets absolutely had a path to be mediocre to play-in good this season. We got “lucky” with the #3 pick.

 

He didn't get an identical leverage play on Phoenix.

First, he didn't get control of Phoenix's draft for 3 straight years.

Second, the Nets had a team offering what will amount to 5-7 first round draft picks for Bridges, they can also get more first rounders for Claxton and Cam Johnson. Those are all opportunities that the Nets don't have if they don't have their picks back from the Nets (if you believe ownership wouldn't allow for the trade of Bridges without the picks back). That is tremendous leverage.

 

No - you are either too stubborn or too stupid to understand.

Either way, that is your problem and not mine.

 

Well damn

 

Maybe you already wrote it somewhere but what else do you think they could have got?

 

Well, I was just saying what you were implying with your tweet.

saying that you don’t understand a perfectly reasonable counter argument is saying basically that the person making it is dumb. I’m just less PC and don’t care.

 

It's Twitter and character limits. What I don't understand is the certainty of what the asset price should be in a fairly unprecedented scenario.

Your very next paragraph includes the word "feels" and an assumption that Stone didn't know about the Knicks deal, which I can promise you is inaccurate.

Even so, to each their own, not like I can "prove" otherwise.

 

Whatever. Please continue your fantasy as a pretend insider. Continue to tag me, though, and I’ll continue to give you a dose of reality.

 

we don't want a 36 year old Durant

 

but the only perspective to base this on is previous discussions no? If stone felt a straight 4 for 4 trade was worth it in january, and ultimately ended up with a 2 for 4 now. is that not extracting value via leverage? Its hard to understande nuance of negotiations without being in the room. For all we know, Stone did leverage quite a bit or maybe he likes the trade enough and just took it, idk. But the deal is solid value.

You also keep saying its a 2for3 instead of a 2for4 and thats not true. Okc will take our pick over theirs almost suredly, as they are likely to be much better then us, and so we will be swapping with the OKC 1st for the suns pick.

The 25 swap isnt amazing rn on the surface but it is only one injury away from being pretty dang good.