I'd definitely entertain trading EG …. I think he gets you a better return over BK+ a first and if you attach a first to EG you could get a really solid player back. Where we differ is on the returning contract , I don't necessarily want an expiring as it does us no good in terms of team building. If I'm moving EG , I want to get back a 3/4 who's still has another year beyond this or comes with full bird rights allowing me to exceed the cap to retain that player. That leaves us with Knight but hopefully he can play his way to being an asset instead of just a salary matching contract.
Hey, I would want that too, but the truth is we're HIGHLY unlikely to get it. The crux of my argument is: we are guaranteed to dump salary. We are getting an expiring contract for a non-expiring contract. I'm saying let's be creative and try to get an expiring contract that gives us a quality/dimension we're SORELY lacking, rather than getting a largely dysfunctional expiring contract (which imo is what we would get with Knight/1st). As far as team building goes, if we traded EG without a pick, then we would be in good position this summer to get 2 role players for Knight's expiring and the pick. Maybe even just trade/keep the pick and keep Knight if he surprises us towards the end of the season, that's 2 new functional rotation guys as well. Knight will be better as the season goes and obviously his contract gets shorter too. We wouldn't be at a wall in terms of team building and we would be able to be patient with Clark/House/Hartenstein development - players who I think are rotation players next season, but not fully ready for a contender right now. These are not ideal circumstances, but given the constraints, I have to say I'd rather live with the problem you describe than the possibility of going into a series with House, Ennis and Clark as 3 of our top 4 forwards.
I couldn't disagree more man. I'll summarize into: 1) We can't dedicate 3 roster spots making $25m to backup a CP3 making $30m+. What happens is what we have, heavily weakened spots in the rest of the roster. We are facing a team that has everyone making what they're worth or far less and willing to pay up because they have the championship + superstar-heavy revenue boost. We MUST become more financially efficient than them, our top 2 guys are not way better than their top 2 guys. The margins on talent are slim in this series. 2) On future 1sts, and I am certain Morey agrees with me on this, you are undervaluing them. Trading picks for replacement level players is an antiquated concept. If there is a big player whose contract is under team control, we do it even with multiple picks. But that's not going to happen all the time, and it looks unlikely as hell right now. Things can change, but won't change is the West and the Warriors and how much pressure we'r putting on Harden's mind and body. We've seen that Harden in past playoffs. That Harden is pointless. The main value of these picks is if we have to unexpectedly tank or if we have an unexpectedly terrible season, it insulates us from the damage. We can't trade that insurance policy away unless the guy we're getting back is going to be in his prime the next 2 years and can outplay a Warrior. 3) The problem with saying he will not spend luxury tax unless it's for a championship is that we don't have unlimited time. When Harden's time is over, and when CP3's contract/performance drops, it might be another 10 years after that before we're here again. We're spoiled. Lots of people have forgotten how far this felt. This is a moment and I would rather Tilman tank for 5 years paying minimum salary from 2021 to 2026. But right now is not the time. That's a reality we can't change. So instead of Tilman making the sacrifice, I'm saying replacing Gordon with Rivers and Knight is much more manageable than any other REALISTIC scenario in front of us. He's going to dump salary for an expiring. We're not going to get a shot at another top 20 player. We don't know who gets bought out, and we don't know if we'll succeed in signing them. House, Ennis and Clark are 3 of our top 4 forwards. Something's gotta give. We can end up with Jeremy Lin for Knight and a 1st. Then what?
The only way id wanna trade EG is for an upgrade at the SF position. Anything short of Jaylen Brown, Jimmy Butler or Robert Covington would hurt the team. I know im just repeating everyone. But our line up with any other players than those three (im not counting cant gets - KD, Bron etc) would be worse than what we have now. Ingram could be added to that list.. but from how hes played this year id take EG over him. Future and potential 100% in Ingrams favour, as of right now i dont think swapping him out for EG does any more good than harm.
Those are all better players than Gordon. Why would we get that for Gordon? lol Not to mention Gordon is having the worst season of his career.
The signal of recent trade (40% chance?) Tilman wants to get luxury tax distribution income from nba because his cash flow is tight. Morey could deal him for a smaller contract, but does not improve the roster.
Thats kind of my point. The only thought behind trading Gordon is for a better player (obvs), and would take more than just Gordon in any of these hypothetical trades. All im saying out of the ""rumoured" available guys out there, anything short of the guys listed to me would be a downgrade, and we're better off sticking with Gordon in that respect.
The hornets want to get rid of Batums contract so bad you wouldn’t even have to attach a first to it.
I don't feel there is a chance to upgrade by dealing Gordon, and I don't feel there is a chance to unload Knight and only 1 First.
I don't think that's obvious is it? If we're packed at guard and have terrible depth at forward, why wouldn't you trade Gordon for a not-better, roughly-equivalent forward? On top of that, a guy who's 6'8 and can do everything Gordon can do... is simply better than Gordon. Which is why they cost more. Which is why trading Gordon for a slightly lesser forward is an equal value deal. We're not losing anything there. We may be losing some talent, but we are gaining defensive flexibility, depth at another position, more efficient distribution of salaries, etc. Then why trade Knight? We're not going to get a better player than Knight. Why trade Melo? We're not going to get a better player. The point I'm trying to make is, there are other reasons to make trades. There are things that generate wins besides talent. 5 superstar PG's on the same team wouldn't beat the Warriors. As for whether it will take Gordon or more than Gordon, whatever your assessment is, it will take one extra pick with Knight. So if it takes Gordon and a pick, it will also take Knight and at least 2 picks. Knight and a pick will not get us much, if anything. Put yourself in the receiving team's shoes, which do you want? Knight and a late first or Gordon? The whole point of trading Gordon is because he would require less picks attached and he plays a position where we're best in the league even without him. Harden/Rivers/Paul/Knight is the best backcourt rotation in the NBA. We can live with Rivers/Knight as backups, we can't live with the current state of affairs at forward. If we can get a starter level forward with Gordon, we should do it. Knight seems unlikely to net us that even with a pick attached.
If Gordon, Knight, Chriss, Melo, and picks can get you a really good role player like an elite rebounding PF or 3&D wing, I make that trade. Otherwise, keep him. Note that we were undefeated with him in the starting lineup with CP3... until the Miami game where CP got hurt. This injury isn't a fluke. He's been injury prone and we've been lucky with that the last few years. That and playing a big role in the nightmare shooting exhibit in Game 7, I'm fine with parting ways if we get someone good.
It's cause Gordon is an important rotation player and Knight isn't. Sure you can get a slightly-worse-than-Gordon forward by trading him but then you wouldn't have EG who I think would be essential in the playoffs as a playmaker when Harden rests. I don't want to have everything rely on CP3's health all the time there has to be a backip plan. Rivers cannot completely replace Gordon as an on ball playmaker. If we trade Knight for a much-worse-than-Gordon-but-decently-servicable forward that's better than House/Ennis/Green/Clark then we still have EG to playmake off the bench and we get to improve our forward rotation at the same time.
Are you talking about playmaker or just scorer? I think it's difficult to argue that Gordon is a better playmaker than Rivers. Gordon is a better scorer and better defender. There's no doubt that Gordon is the better overall player. I think you're missing a very key point. There is no chance we trade Knight for a much-worse-than-Gordon-but-decently-servicable Forward. First of all, there's no such thing. Gordon is an average starter, someone much worse than him is exactly House/Ennis/Clark. We need an upgrade from that. Second of all, you have to attach a pick to Knight to get a 0. Knight is a negative in the eyes of most teams (and he would be in our eyes if someone offered him to us) so the pick is simply the cost of making him a neutral financial asset. Finally, we are dumping salary for an expiring. That's been rumored, reported, hinted and demonstrated heavily thus far. So our options are limited with Knight and a 1st. What we're talking about here is WHICH expiring contract we can get and it's clear the best expiring contracts can't be had imo for Knight and a 1st. To improve our forward rotation with Knight, we have to include at least one pick. Giving up picks for replacement level players is now understood to be a terrible idea by successful front offices. What are we protecting here? Rivers/Knight is still among the best backup guard rotations in the NBA even if Knight (the 4th guard) is good at nothing else but hitting 3's from the corner for 5-10 minutes. Rivers is as good a playmaker (though not as good a scorer or player) as Gordon, and there's a very strong chance Rivers will be among the best 3rd lead guards in the NBA and Knight will be among the best 4th lead guards in the NBA. Also, Green/Ennis/House are already helping and very well suited to helping at the backup SG spot. Not to mention, Gordon is simply not playing well when he's healthy and we have been winning without him thanks to Harden. To reduce Harden's burden, CP3 will return, sending Rivers to the bench. To reduce the burden a bit more Knight can give us 5-10 minutes especially now that he's shaking off that rust. To put this in better perspective, Rivers and Knight will be going up against Livingston and Quinn Cook and they will be sharing the floor with either Harden or Paul the whole time they're on the floor. I think you're imagining a circumstance where Knight and a first gets us a Forward clearly better than House/Ennis/Clark. I don't agree with that. I also don't agree we need depth. We need quality. We have plenty of mediocre forwards.
