It is truly a ridiculous hill to die on.

Mark Jackson is destined to the next Knicks coach, because he’s by far the dumbest realistic move possible.

Hiring Mark Jackson because he took those two teams from 21 to 51 wins is like poaching the concierge from Mar A Lago because you want to know how to attract to these full price paying foreign dignitaries.

I guess building around the decline phase of Carmelo Anthony and giving him a mega-max no-trade contract, signing the funkified corpse of Joakim Noah to a 4/72 deal because passing out of the pinch post is so essential, trading a still-valuable Tyson Chandler for a useless Jose Calderon because Calderon is so triangle-y, giving away Iman Shumpert for nothing, burning a first-round pick on a rookie contract to acquire the 2016 version of Derrick Rose, wasting cap space on one pointless season of Derrick Williams and Arron Afflalo, trading a second round pick to create roster space for Travis Wear, and generally acting like an embarrassing ass make up the other 10%.

Yeah, that’s exactly the kind of guy I want running my team.

Strong thread people. That story about Curry and the anointing is pretty amazing.

Mark Jackson is my redline.

bagley has shades of okafor…. except he happens to be a great rebounder…. duke’s played a lot of zone so there’s a chance bagley’s been hidden defensively but i’m willing to bet that he will probably be a liability… it’s possible he could turn into a kevin love type who can be incredible by just having efficient offense and good boardwork but there’s also a good chance that his offense falls apart…

that makes him a huge risk and i have no idea why he’s a consensus top 5….

I think he’s a competent coach and keeping him is one less change for Knicks management to make and mess up.

I still think he’s a good prospect, but his less flashy teammate Wendell Carter seems to be the more well-rounded player, and the more effective player for Duke.

I wanted no part of Monk and I agree that I would have taken Mitchell over him last year, but what shocks me is that the guy can’t even shoot. That was, like, his one thing that he could do!

There were arguments everywhere, but we really need to stop with the idea that front offices are much better than us making those guesses. Some are, some probably are, some probably aren’t and some definitely aren’t. I’m 100% sure our conversations here about basketball are more insightful than Stan Van Gundy’s entire tenure in Detroit or Rick Cho in Charlotte, not even going into the Kings and Suns of the league.

Monk is a rookie. You can’t make any claims about an nba player good or bad until at least their third year unless they’re an absolute superstar.

I’m just pointing out that you have a track record of pointing to “upside” when referring to the actual worst players in the league, so maybe your opinion on “upside” isn’t so hot.

It’s one thing to quibble about whether a player is a role player or a highly-productive semi-star (J. Bell, Faried, Whiteside, Crowder, Porter et al.) or whether a decent rookie (Porzingis) might end up a better player than an offensive-genius rookie who can’t really play D (Jokic). Those are heated conversations we’ve had on this board and with good reason: there’s a lot of grey area about player ability. I can even see how a person might think in 2012 that Harden’s ceiling was 6MoY, rather than perennial MVP candidate (and soon to be the league MVP). It was wrong, and I called it wrong at the time, but there’s some room to argue.

It’s another thing to have a track record of defending the “upside” of the actual worst players in the league. When you see a shitty player, just call them shitty and focus on the good players that are available. The NBA’s front offices make a lot more mistakes than they do successes.

Don’t worry, they’ll be picking 10th so this decision won’t be an issue for Mills and Perry. Miles Bridges will be waiting for his name to be called