Yeah, if things were different, taking on Hunter to try to fix him (which seems like it is doable) would make some sense, but I don’t think it fits with this particular roster (and certainly not with this CBA). Heck, let’s say that I believe Hunter would be better on this team than RJ, it still wouldn’t make sense to trade the two, since RJ has some actual trade value while Hunter has nil, so you’d be wasting RJ’s trade value on Hunter (now, if you traded RJ and then acquired Hunter in a separate deal where the Hawks kick in picks, that’d be interesting. Didn’t they trade away their picks, though?).

The Hunter contract is not exactly favorable, but it solves some problems and also makes RJ more expendable in another trade.

What problems does it solve? Seems like we added another rotation player when we’re trying to consolidate.

We also need to get something back for helping them dump a bad contract while also giving them Toppin

The Hunter contract is not exactly favorable, but it solves some problems and also makes RJ more expendable

Why have one RJ Barrett when you can have two!

Hawks pick up a young player and expiring contract to get off Hunter’s long contract. The Knicks get SF/PF that can shoot the 3 better than Toppin/RJ, more size at 3 when needed, and a backup PF when needed. The Hunter contract is not exactly favorable, but it solves some problems and also makes RJ more expendable in another trade.

Yeah, DD only makes sense if they plan to make a trade. But, well, they plan to make a trade, ya know? Clearly, so it will make sense then (well, you know, it will make more sense than just adding DD to the current roster).

The only things that make any sense to me is if there is also a trade that moves of the overlapping wing guys (it won’t be Hart) or TNFH’s point from the other day that we should just view him as a solid asset. Then down the line if a great trade comes along that has to for example include Grimes, you can slide DD into some minutes and not really lose anything.

Still, I think there are going to be issues with minutes and keeping all these guys happy.

Re: chrome & leather, it seems, these days, that’s really, like, 5 guys.

That’s the problem I’m having right now: you can argue that the names linked to possibly Knick trade targets are better offensively than most of our starters but are not true chrome and leather players but are paid like they are. I mean, who are the chrome and leather guys that are under, say, age 27, that are remotely gettable?