Kevin Durant: Won’t practice Saturday
(Saturday, June 01, 2019 10:42:00 AM)
Kevin Durant: Durant (calf) will not participate in Saturday’s practice, Anthony Slater of The Athletic reports.
Visit RotoWire.com for more analysis on this update.
Ja Morant: To undergo minor knee scope
(Saturday, June 01, 2019 8:20:00 AM)
Ja Morant: Morant is set to undergo a minor scope on his right knee to remove a “loose body” on Monday, Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN reports.
Visit RotoWire.com for more analysis on this update.
(Saturday, June 01, 2019 6:24:38 PM)
Since the combine, Ja Morant getting drafted by Memphis at No. 2 overall in the NBA Draft seemed like a lock. But is it possible he’s there for the Knicks at No. 3?
(Saturday, June 01, 2019 11:13:55 AM)
Metta World Peace explains why he was responsible for the Knicks to pass up on him with the 15th pick in the 1999 NBA Draft.
(Saturday, June 01, 2019 5:33:29 PM)
The Knicks’ golden era was built through the draft. The final pieces that came later on — Dave DeBusschere, Dick Barnett, and later still Pearl Monroe and Jerry Lucas — were the auxiliary pieces that put them over the top. But from 1964-67, the following players arrived directly to the Knicks, who were smart enough…
(Saturday, June 01, 2019 4:00:26 PM)
TORONTO — When Long Island’s Danny Green re-signed with the Spurs in 2015, ignoring the Knicks’ inquiry, he felt destined to make a third Finals appearance. That didn’t happen until San Antonio traded Green to Toronto in the Kawhi Leonard package last July. The North Babylon product is back for a third try and made…
(Saturday, June 01, 2019 9:33:42 AM)
Could Ja Morant slide to the Knicks at No. 3 now that he’s undergoing minor knee surgery? Morant will undergo an arthroscopic procedure on his right knee to remove loose fragments of bone or cartilage and will be fully recovered in 3-4 weeks, according to ESPN. The Post reported Memphis was leaning toward the Murray…
53 replies on “Knicks Morning News (2019.06.02)”
I actually think that those scenarios are the most likely, as KD’s return is pretty much scheduled for Game 3. And I can’t see the Warriors losing the series, with or without him.
EDIT: but still, there’s no denying that he’s not part of the core of this team. Even Boogie looked more ingrained in the team in two games than KD ever appeared to be in three years.
Man — Draymond Green is really something else. Steph is probably the most indispensable Warrior, but I think Draymond is a close second. Nearly 2 straight triple-doubles in the NBA finals, guarded everyone including Kawhi down the stretch, amazing passing. That dude is clearly worthy of whatever contract he is eligible for.
And shouts out to Boogie who really was great last night. Dude must be completely out of shape after not playing much at all over the last month, but still gave all-out effort and played really well. Good for him.
Like I said the other day, the Raptors were very unlikely to get another game 1 caliber performance out of Siakam and/or Gasol in game 2. That the Warriors hung in there on the Raptor’s home court despite those efforts was kind of ominous.
That said, the injuries are really piling up on the Warriors. They are the better team, but there’s only so much they can spot the Raptors and still have an edge. Curry did not look himself last night and now Thompson has a hamstring issue that could easily slow him down or get worse before this series it over even if he play Wednesday.
That really was some vintage Draymond last night: filling up the box score, wreaking havoc on defense, leading the fast break.
I would argue that he’s the most indispensable player on the Warriors. You take any one of Steph, Klay or KD away and they still beat most teams. Without Draymond, their defense suffers and their offense isn’t as fluid either.
I agree about the injuries. Once Thompson went out the Raptors were catching up. They just ran out of time.
I have to say, watching Cousins play made me want him, except that the Knicks would want him just to score one on one instead of passing the ball and he doesn’t fit the Knick’s timeline. He fits great on the Warriors. As soon as he has the ball in the high post, they start cutting and getting open and he finds them with the pass. He only looked to score himself when he was really open or he was the only option.
Really gutty performance by the Warriors and just a terrible job of shot making by the Raptors in the second half. They really blew that one.
Yeah, the Raptors missed so many good shots, it was super annoying to watch. There’s this sense of inevitability with the Warriors, they play like they’re the superior team every time.
I still Toronto has a chance, but if they come out sloppy like this yet again it doesn’t matter who the Warriors put on the court, as long as Curry and Draymond are out there.
No thanks on Demarcus Cousins. Well, depending on the price I guess, but I wouldn’t pay him any more than MLE-type money, which he can get from the Warriors anyway. I imagine he’d rather stay there.
I have some feeling/dread that somehow we are coming out of this draft with Cam Reddish in a trade-down scenario. It is semi-interesting to me that he had this core muscle injury the entire season at Duke. It’s a little bit of a mitigating factor re: how horrible he was this year.
I could imagine a trade like this – Knicks send #3 to Cleveland
Cleveland sends #5, #26, and a top 8-10 protected “first available” 1st round pick (they owe a protected pick to Atlanta in 2020 but if not conveyed in 2020 it will turn into 2 second rounders).
5, 26, and another asset (prefer another pick to Sexton) seems like pretty good value. We could come away with Culver, who I prefer to Barrett anyway, and maybe someone like Matisse Thybulle or Cameron Johnson with 26. I would insist that the extra pick eventually convey unprotected, because the Cavs are terrible every year they don’t have LeBron James. I could easily see them running out the clock on any protection that eventually conveys into two seconds or something.
If the Lakers take Culver at 4 (which I think is unlikely) the situation gets a lot dicier, but I still think, Garland/White + Thybulle/Johnson/any other well-reasoned pick at 26 + an extra first is worth more than one RJ Barrett. That’s much closer for me though, to the point where I might not make the trade until after the Lakers make their pick.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s wise to part ways with Barrett before knowing if premium free agents (and which ones) will sign for us. While in a vacuum I’d prefer Culver + #26 + 2023 unprotected pick or whatever to Barrett, RJ’s perceived trade value is unrivaled by any prospect #4 and below. We might need to hold onto him, as he could be a very valuable trade piece after free agency.
If the Warriors win and Cousins is a factor, I’m sure he is going to want to stay there. But even if Durant leaves, I doubt the Warriors will have more than the mid level exception to sign him with. Does anyone know if they will have cap space to offer him more than the MLE if Durant leaves?
Another team that might want him is the Bucks. If they had him instead of Lopez, they would be a better team. And Lopez’s contract expires this summer.
The Warriors can offer Boogie only this year’s MLE + 20% even if Durant leaves (unless they also renounce Klay’s cap hold, which doesn’t make a lot of sense honestly).
Milwaukee isn’t that suited to sign Boogie for more than the MLE either, since they’ll need to resign Middleton and Brogdon.
My guess is Boogie doubles down with Golden State and waits for his body to fully heal for a max in 2020.
I say no thanks to Boogie, he does enough stupid shit to offset a lot of the good things he brings to the table. We don’t need a 6’10 JR Smith, once was enough for me.
He could certainly do that, but if some team offers him a big long term contract, he’s going to be really torn. There’s going to be a lot of cap space available this summer. He could end up being some teams second choice after they miss out on their first choice.
Thinking about which teams might do such a thing, the Bulls and the Nets seem the most likely to me. But no one is a clear favorite, so he could certainly return to the Warriors.
Cousins played well last night because he’s on a team that is well coached, has won championships and plays the best team/system basketball in the NBA the last 5 years. It goes to show how a good coach and system can make “dumb” players smart. Seeing him make those passes last night was really nice and I’m happy for him because he always seemed like ultimately a really nice/kind person who has battled with depression and behavorial issues earlier in his career and now injuries. I hope he does the smart thing and stays with the Warriors playing a smaller role from her on out. Its nice to see players chose team over self and he’s had enough losing and problems in his career (and made enough money) where maybe he is now ready to take that role.
I still think the Raptors have a good chance to win this thing. They were hot in game one and cold on game two and barely lost last night. If Klay is hurt and not 100 percent, its really going to slow the warriors down I believe.
Watching the 2nd half last night made me think of Phil’s desire to have “system basketball”, which was entirely not implemented here. It looks like Kerr is doing just that. No matter which player got on the court they continued to play the same system and executed it beautifully to get good open shots. Truly amazing.
Would anyone mind explaining why no one is high on Deandre Hunter at no. 3? I’m not familiar with his game but his advanced stats look good.
“That dude is clearly worthy of whatever contract he is eligible for.”
Draymond is like Deandre Jordan or, an even more Knicksian guy, Tyson Chandler. They can be amazing contributors as the fourth guy on a great team but paying them to be the #1 or 2 guy is a blueprint for futility.
Mike
There’s been some disagreement on him, and I’m personally higher on him than djphan and some others, but the knocks on him include his paltry steal rate, bad rebounding numbers if you think he’s more of a forward than a wing, his FT% indicating the 3PT% might be a bit of a mirage, his bad AST%, and his age.
When you add it all up, he definitely feels like a stretch at 3. At 8/10, maybe less so.
Thanks!
Swift and abundant, the converse of what you say is that on a bad team players will look worse than they are.
As a guy who has been defending taking Barrett #3, I absolutely would be all about trading down to #5 for another 1st rounder and Sexton. I think Culver and Hunter are just as good prospects, and wouldn’t be upset if we took either at #3, much less being able to get one of them and an additional 1st rounder. My worry is that Reddish comes into play at #5 and our stupid front office would definitely draft him there. So, better to stay at #3, especially if Memphis is having second thoughts about taking Ja.
I find Draymond to be the closest contemporary analogue to a Bill Russell for the modern NBA game. He is an indispensable passer and defender for that team.
I don’t think Boogie is bad. I think “good” and “bad” are also very relative terms in basketball. Boogie at the max on Chicago is bad. Boogie at the mid level on the warriors is good. His entire career Boogie was on a horrible franchise, The Kings, and was tasked at being the number one option. He put up good numbers in that role but ultimately wasn’t a “superstar” who was capable of making a team a playoff team by himself. He also had some mental health issues that I think held him back.
My point was just that a talented guy like boogie, even if he’s not as good now because of the injury, is at a perfect point in his career to be coached up by the Warriors and I think he would be wise to stay put and play a smaller role on a team that emphasizes sharing the ball.
I also think a lot of NBA players are talented enough to be better than they are but are not on the right teams with the right coach or system. I mean, there’s a reason why The Spurs keep finding great players and its not necessarily that they are better at scouting although I sure they are. But they have an amazing coach that can unlock player’s potential and culture is strong there, so egos are left at the door.
While the Cavs apparently are interested in trading up for Barrett, the rumored #5,26 and Sexton offer was just what one Cavs writer thought was a fair offer. It hasn’t actually been rumored.
Collin Sexton is kind of like not really a point guard. He is just a guy who shoots a lot. Maybe I’m old fashioned but I kind of want my point guards to be able to break down defenses and distribute.
I have really mixed feelings about Barrett. When he’s described as a Melo like player but one who does much more passing, he sounds really good. When he’s described as not any better that Culver, then it makes me want to trade down.
Maybe the Cavs writer thinks Sexton is worth more than he is, the same way we probably feel about some of our players.
Sexton played much better in the 2nd half of the season but he’s not a PG. We already have a player that can knock downs 3s, play no defense, and not do much else of value. We have Trier. Sexton is very young. He may still expand his game and become a very good player, but I don’t see the point.
Imagine the Knicks wind up with Boogie, Kyrie Irving, Dennis Smith Jr, and Trier. At that point I’m immediately going to start hoping the earth is actually flat and they fall off it.
It’s hard to see Barrett as a significantly better prospect than at least Culver and IMO Hunter, so trading down a couple spots with the Cavs for nearly anything of value would be fine, for a competent front office. If the Knicks did that, they’d definitely waste the pick on Reddish.
🙂
I don’t get the Melo comparisons for RJ. In terms of mentality it makes sense but not as a player comp. The big difference is that Melo was a lot bigger, 6’8″ 230 lb vs RJ’s 6’7″ 202 lb. Melo was also a somewhat better shooter and averaged a combined 2.5 steals and blocks/game compared to 1.3 for RJ. OJ Mayo, Evan Turner, and Jeff Green still feel like the best comps to me.
I can’t wait for the draft and free agency period to be over. Basketball is supposed to be fun. I’m starting to find this period of waiting a little stressful. I guess that’s because I don’t have much faith in management. I can’t take any more major missteps leading to another rebuild in 4-5 years.
It would be the most Knicksy outcome if we trade down with Cleveland, then Memphis passes on Morant to take RJ and we end up with Reddish at 5
Yeah I’m kinda pro-standing pat and taking Barrett at this point just so they’ll stay away from Reddish. That’s not a great show of faith in the FO.
The fact that RJ is a pretty good passer is promising to me. Also, some people worry that with Durant and Irving, he wouldn’t accept a role player role but he could be that third option on a good team. It seems like being the third option behind Durant and Irving could possibly be the best place for a good high prospect rookie to start out as and then maybe he reaches superstar status by the time Irving and Durant are getting older and near the end of their contracts.
I won’t get into whether he is actually a star in the making vs. other guys like Clarke. But if the thinking is trade back for more picks for role players vs. being afraid to draft another possible all-star alpha male, I don’t think we should bank on Durant and Irving to come here when drafting and I think even if they do come here, being the third option could be a great place to start for RJ and he can grow from there. Right now if we did draft Durant and Irving, who is our number 3? Knox? DSJ? Mudiay?
Any scenario in which we pick Reddish is a failed draft, period. I am not bullish on Barrett but he has a lot of qualities I like. Chucking? Obviously one I hate. But he looks like an NBA player of some sort to me. I just don’t want DeRozan 1.2b at #3.
And yet you advocate for a high-risk draft strategy that swings for the fences on the hardest player to evaluate, the 19-year-old one-and-done scoring wing. Why?
I’m nuts?
I think when you choose to tank, the goal is to try to get a franchise caliber player or at least a really good #2 option. Unfortunately, that kind of “potential” is usually found among the 18-19 year old kids that are the hardest to evaluate. That’s been the crux of my argument against tanking being the “way, light, and truth”. First the ping pong balls have to cooperate, then you have to select the right player, then you may have to extend him before you are even sure he’s the right player. And if it all goes right, you have to do it 2-3 more times and wait 6-7 years until they all start peaking.
But as long as we are here, I think we should take the best prospect for stardom. You need star players to contend at a high level and we may have a chance to get one in this draft.
I have no magic formula for evaluating these kids. I don’t even have any good insights. But part of it is the probability of improvement and their potential top.
I fully understand why you are attracted to Clarke and I fully understand why scouts are more interested in Barrett. I just don’t have the insights to estimate the “probability” that Barrett can become a star #1 or #2 option. I am depending on scouts and management to have some data on his chances of developing a much better outside shot, insights into his character, etc.. to make that educated guess.
Except we’ve discussed at length just how expensive it is to acquire those high picks if you want to pry it out of another team’s asset pile.
And so getting real assets through the trading of those high-risk single draft picks is an alternative use. Not only do you get more opportunities to throw the dart at the board, but you pay less for them, provided they’re a lower draft slot. Or you get lucky and end up with a high future pick due to the failure of that traded-for prospect.
You don’t have to do any of this with a high lottery pick. Truly, you don’t. This is what most lottery GMs do, and they fucking suck at it.
I’m attracted to Clarke because of his value, not his star potential. Turning the #3 into, say, the #10 (Clarke) and multiple future picks and/or young, good players would be fantastic. Barrett could very well be a better player, long-term. But trading down is a guarantee that you get more chances to fill out the roster.
Ideally we don’t pull the trigger on any trade until after Memphis picks.
Where is the ‘Knicks like Reddish chatter’ coming from? Just general Knicksiness?
There have been a couple reports that they like Reddish:
https://www.sny.tv/knicks/news/sources-knicks-talent-evaluators-are-fans-of-dukes-cam-reddish-ahead-of-nba-draft/306917978
https://www.sny.tv/knicks/news/sources-knicks-plan-to-visit-in-person-with-prospect-cam-reddish/307547322
@41
I don’t have time to address your post point by point.
In general we are on the same page. We are both value oriented.
Where we differ is in our way of valuing players. I’m more into using stats as a way of filling out a checklist of skills on both sides of the ball (and their degree) to come to an overall assessment and player “profile”. Then I think in terms of trying to put the pieces and profiles together in a way that maximizes the team output.
I think you need at least a couple of multi skilled high usage above average efficiency scorers (the more efficient the better) to contend. Those are the hardest players to get. You can draft one, trade for one, or get one in free agency, but you won’t get one focusing on solid role players lower in the draft that represent good value unless you get VERY lucky.
In a coin toss decision, imo we need to star hunt. It’s not hard to find those solid role players. It’s hard to find stars.
(I am open to trading draft picks to get bona fide stars)
I dunno, one report from Begley that some talent evaluators like Reddish isn’t a very strong indicator, nor is an in person meeting when the one thing we know about this FO is they do their homework. If the question is “do you like Reddish” the answer could have been “sure, I think his skills will translate.” There’s not much there.
Last year weren’t there a bunch of indicators they were going with Knox? Maybe I’m remembering that wrong.
I don’t think we heard much about Knox until the now-famous 3-on-3 scrimmage where he supposedly ruined Miles Bridges’ life. Idk if Barrett will agree to play 3-on-3, though.
Is there a single Finals team in the last 25 years without a great volume scorer (or two) outside of the ‘04-‘05 Pistons? Of course volume scoring stars are important.
In the interest of risk management, I would rather pay for one in free agency (since they’re capped often far below their actual open-market value) or trade for one than try to see the future in the draft — in the former scenario, you are 100% sure of what you’re getting. Was there any real doubt (i.e. not talk-radio punditry) that Durant would be great on the Dubs? Garnett on the Celts? Gasol on the Lakers? LeBron on the Heatles? Chris Paul on the Clippers? (Note that all of those players arrived at their destination and immediately competed deep in the playoffs, if not winning outright. None of them arrived on a shitty roster that needed to be built up around them, even if LeBron was not well served by Mario Chalmers and Joel Anthony as starters on his first Heat squad.)
Outside of Zion, there is no sure thing in this draft. And Zion is a prospect that beats you over the head with his violent, beautiful greatness. Just play the numbers game: there will be a higher success rate on finding WS48 .150 players than .250 players because of the sheer dumb math of it: there are simply more of them to go around. A lot more.
Missing: any actual evidence or acknowledgement that outside of ‘sure things,’ stars aren’t significantly more likely to come from the top of the draft. Your argument remains an appeal to the talent projecting abilities of authorities that we know are extremely bad at projecting talent.
The Knicks might be about to sign two max stars. Where precisely do you think we’re going to get these solid role players at the vet minimum? The solid role player tree? You make this claim all the damn time. Yes, it is hard to find a star in the draft. It’s also hard to sign one in free agency, or to get one via trade. It is also hard to find solid role players on the budget you have left after acquiring said stars if you’ve not already got them on value contracts.
Well, on one hand, Kawhi was picked 15th, Siakam 27th, Giannis 15th, Curry 7th, Jokic 41st, Lillard 6th, Gobert 27th, and George 10th.
But on the other hand, Harden was picked 3rd, KD 2nd, Anthony Davis 1st, Embiid 3rd, Simmons 1st, Kyrie 1st, Westbrook 4th, and Oladipo 2nd.
None of the top 5 picks had numbers as mediocre as RJ in college except Oladipo in his first seasons and Westbrook, and those two guys had much better defensive numbers than RJ. And Oladipo proved he could play at a high level as a junior. I guess what I’m getting at is that it’s better to take multiple guys who’ve actually produced at a high level lower down rather than take one guy you ‘hope’ ‘might’ produce at a high level in the top 3.
Look at the Clippers for instance. They had 2 picks last year and did ok with one (Shai) and not so great with the other (Robinson [imagine if they’d picked our Robinson!])
Aside from one or two sure things, the draft is a crapshoot, so it’s easier when you have twice as many picks per year.
Yep. This seems obvious. And I think Strat has actually argued this before. And yet, here we are. The kicker is all the guys we’re discussing would be a pick em situation at 7-10 in a normal draft.
I strongly agree with this draft philosophy once you’re outside the range of players who will obviously be stars. It’s much easier to hit a single or double in the draft than a home run, and we always swing for the fences. Conversely, not only are you more likely to hit a home run in free agency when you know how good a player is, it’s actually a lot harder to hit a single or a double in free agency, because you usually have to overpay for those players. That’s how we end up with decent players like Lee and Hardaway on unmovable contracts.
Smart resource management would be using the draft to stock the roster with the guys who will fill the 3rd through 6th spots on your roster at a high level and using free agency and trades for your top 2.
(Side comment to Grocer, who asked “where do you find these solid role players”: he meant in the draft.)
Having said all that, I don’t know that these are arguments against Barrett. This classification of him as a volume scorer seems off to me. He has a wide range of skills and I don’t think it’s certain that he can’t be extremely good in the role of the 3rd or 4th option.
That’s not what Strat meant, which is who I was responding to.