Per The Athletic's Shams Charania, the T-Wolves are trading the three-time All-Star to the New York Knicks in exchange for Julius Randle, Donte DiVincenzo and a first-round draft pick via the Detroit Pistons.

Charania added that Charlotte Hornets are also included in the trade as part of a three-team deal. The Knicks are sending salary, including DaQuan Jeffries, and draft compensation to the Hornets in the exchange.

The draft pick is a 2025 top-13 protected pick, per ESPN's Bobby Marks.

Deal makes sense for Knicks for sure since they need center depth and I kinda see what the wolves are going for but feels a little light on the return but maybe I’m not valuing Randle right.

I agree Minnesota is the best option, they usually have one of highest travel miles in the leagues each season and it’ll make the division rivalries match other sports more.

As a Nuggets/Bucks fan it’s really weird they play the Nuggets more than the Bucks given their locations.

Edit: I do wonder if they’ll go to 4 divisions of 4 in each conference and how that’ll affect the schedule. Can’t really go any other way and have even divisions though unless it’s 8 team divisions.

Shams typically got the breaking news about as often as Woj so he’ll be the one to follow I’d say.

Shams seemed to have more contacts with players/agents and Woj had it in with front offices so it’ll be interesting to see if 1 person fills the front office void or if it’ll be a couple people but I’m leaning towards the latter.

Oh I agree, but that’s was a whole other can of worms I wasn’t trying to get into at the moment since I’ve got a busy and long work day that’s still not over unfortunately lol

I didn't ignore what you said. My retort to

No. If 5% of my voting base sits out over a single issue, I’m going to lose my interest in trying to triangulate their support and move in another direction to identify a more persuadable bloc of voters. That goes more if the abandonment is repetitive, and if the issues constantly change, or if the issue is something I can’t bend on for electoral reasons. If one bloc of voters is easier to please than another, then I’m moving in their direction, even if it’s rightward. Unfortunately it’s winner-take-all, and you’re either in power or you’re not. There are no half-wins.

Was that if it's a clear issue like the genocide Israel is carrying out that has a lot of strong opposition to the Democrats current position it really isn't all that hard to triangulate what the cause is.

It's been known it's THE issue the democrats are losing support for given the coverage of the non committed movement. As for how tough it is to It's literally not support a genocide that's how you please that group. It's literally following our current laws to not supply and fund a country committing a genocide.

the importance of Gaza

Literally from your own link "though some questioned whether it would push them not to vote at all." In a thread where people are complaining about a small amount of people voting third party could lose the election for democrats in swing states I guess it is an important issue if it's driving even some people in swing states to not vote.

Also when the non committed movement has more support in some states than the margin of victory in 2020 I would say it's pretty important.

the “ease” of withdrawing support

So genocide is alright as long as they're an enemy of Iran, that's your argument? Israel is literally the one escalating the situation in the area, pulling their support or at least threatening to do so until the genocide is stopped would actually deescalate the situation in the region.

how much Democrats have moved rightward

I don't disagree they've moved left on most social issues when looking at at that long of a time span that's in the article you linked. I'm talking this election cycle Kamala has clearly shifted right from the policies she ran on in 2016.

how many centrist Republicans vote for Democrats.

In 1 election, that's the sample size. That's not a trend and it's against Trump who is an historically awful candidate for moderates to try and stomach. They'll be back voting R once he's gone so it's not a good long term strategy when you're alienating what should be your base to the point their considering not voting or voting third party.

Moreover, you seem to be valuing the strongly-held opinions of voters in non-swing states (what you’re calling “deep blue states” or “areas that effectively don’t matter”) more highly than the maybe-less-strongly held opinions of voters in swing states. If 5% of Democratic voters in California want sushi, and 5% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania want steak, I’m picking steak and telling the California voters to take a hike. Their opinion doesn’t even register on my radar thanks to the electoral consequences of pissing off the Pennsylvanians who wanted steak.

You completely misunderstood what my example was trying to get across. I'm not valuing non swing state voters opinions more than swing state voters.

I understand that the swing state voters are going to have an outsized role in what each party pushes. Tactically I would be saying the voters in swing states especially should be witholding their vote unless the democrats stop supporting Israel's genocide since it would be more leverage but obviously trump getting elected isn't a great alternative which is why I didn't mention that since that's a risk.

What I was saying is that given that non swing states you can safely vote third party to show your displeasure in the genocide we're supporting and possibly shed light that it's got a large amount of importance to voters.

Edit: formatting since I’m on mobile and at work.

Not funding and supplying a genocide seems to be a pretty clear and easy issue to change especially when 60%+ of democrats are in favor of it. We’re already violating our own laws by continuing to do so.

The democrats are already moving to the right even with the left continuing to vote for them. They think they can win over some centrists republicans (even though they can’t in a meaningful number) by adopting right wing policies while not losing the left because at the moment they know votes are guaranteed because “republicans worse”.

Having voters in areas that effectively don’t matter this cycle show there displeasure in the genocide we’re enabling is the least we can do to counter it.

You’re looking at things through there lens of 1 election cycle.

If a third party that’s against the genocide Israel is carrying out gets say 5% of voters in deep blue or deep red states would that not be a signal to the democrats that they should change their stance before the next election?

It definitely isn’t the only time I care about third parties. Continued direct action in the community is the most important way to affect change. The election is just a useful event for publicity and gaining support for groups.

There’s 0% chance my comment is going to convince enough people this election cycle that it effects a non swing states election. It’s about slowly building support for groups.

But at the same time why vote for a party that won't win?

Building support for change has to start somewhere, while they won’t win this election the more support they get the more visibility socialism gets as well as showing that people aren’t willing to vote for genocide. At the very least it shows the amount of people unhappy the democrats aren’t taking a harder stance on Israel.

As for the PSL specifically, they’re the best option on the ballot in my state. Thank you for the link though I’ll take a deeper look when I have a chance.

If enough people are voting third party that it’s a threat then maybe the other parties should take notice and change to support the popular policies and win back support.

Also we can do more than 1 thing at a time. We should be pushing things like ranked choice voting while also showing our displeasure with the current parties where it makes sense to do so.

Giving support to third parties gives them and the issues they’re promoting more visibility to the general public.

If you live outside the ~5 swing states that decide the election you can go ahead and ignore stuff like this saying you can’t vote third party.

Shoutout PSL

Yup and add Apartheid South Africa to the list too.

At the time of German reunification, both the U.S. and Germany repeatedly promised Gorbachev and then promised Yeltsin that the West would not take advantage of German reunification and the end of the Warsaw Pact (the Soviet Union’s military alliance) by expanding the NATO military alliance eastward. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin reiterated the importance of this U.S.-NATO pledge. Yet within just a few years, Clinton completely reneged on the Western commitment and began the process of NATO enlargement. Leading U.S. diplomats, led by the great statesman-scholar George Kennan, warned at the time that the NATO enlargement would lead to disaster: “The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.” So, it has proved.  Here is not the place to revisit all of the foreign policy disasters that have resulted from U.S. arrogance towards Russia, but it suffices here to mention a brief and partial chronology of key events.

In 1999, NATO bombed Belgrade for 78 days with the goal of breaking Serbia apart and giving rise to an independent Kosovo, now home to a major NATO base in the Balkans. In 2002, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty over Russia’s strenuous objections. In 2003, the U.S. and NATO allies repudiated the United Nations Security Council by going to war in Iraq on false pretenses. In 2004, the U.S. continued with NATO enlargement, this time to the Baltic states and countries in the Black Sea region (Bulgaria and Romania) and the Balkans. In 2008, over Russia’s urgent and strenuous objections, the U.S. pledged to expand NATO to Georgia and Ukraine. In 2011, the U.S. tasked the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Russia. In 2011, NATO bombed Libya in order to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. In 2014, the U.S. conspired with Ukrainian nationalist forces to overthrow Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. In 2015, the U.S. began to place Aegis anti-ballistic missiles in Romania, a short distance from Russia. From 2016 to 2020, the U.S. supported Ukraine in undermining the Minsk II agreement, despite its unanimous backing by the UN Security Council. In 2021, the new Biden administration refused to negotiate with Russia over the question of NATO enlargement to Ukraine. In April 2022, the U.S. called on Ukraine to withdraw from peace negotiations with Russia.

He covers very well how this all has led up to the current war. Doesn’t mean Russia is the good side by any means they’re definitely not, but the US clearly does not care for peace and it shows our word/agreements mean nothing.

Not really, if you read my other comment they’re actual journalists that have a solid history of good reporting.

For real, 1 whole Costco pizza is already a good amount.

They started this spin off of the intercept project relatively recently so that’s probably why.

Not sure on the down votes but my guess is that you mentioned the media bias sites and people would rather you come to your own conclusions based on the sources history kinda like you ended up doing by looking up the creators instead of relying on those sites.

I personally stopped interacting with the .worlds world news community after they forced the clearly biased mb/fc bot on everyone despite a lot of complaints.

On the about section of drop site news page:

Founded by Ryan Grim, Jeremy Scahill, and veterans of The Intercept.

Feel free to look them up they do good work.

I agree, I’m a former gears of war player so it feels really natural to use especially since like you said reloads take a while.