Knicks Morning News (2022.12.30)

To me D-Rose looks cooked. KB Hive’s opinion?

*************************

The multi-year contract bestowed upon him in the incompetent summer of 2021 not directly, but not indirectly either, cost them a 2022 lottery pick.

He’s Thibs’s guy. Thibs had the juice that summer and it was an abject disaster.

I’ll leave the intramural debate over team’s “best player” to those with a bigger investment in it, but I’ll simply add that Julius Randle is the quintessential — and I mean straight out of Central Casting — purgatorial asset. I don’t know that there’s been a player in my lifetime who fits the “just good enough to lose with” archetype any better.

Thibs is by far the most likely leaker of the “Grimes/Utah” stuff.

“The stubborn fact remains

The stubborn fact remains that Julius Randle is inherently antithetical to winning basketball.

On this, we should prolly all just agree to disagree.

*******************

More precisely, it’s certainly not 100% certain that I’m right about this, so let’s say it’s 75-25. What am I getting in return for taking a chance on the 25? It’s not as though I can’t go out and find a 3rd option who’s more suited to the role. Why am I taking the very real risk that he’s unsuitable? What am I getting in return? A relatively light contract if it pans out? Still not worth the risk.

Once this point is reached the answer is clear — let some other team speculate on the “opportunity.” If his contract is so light, it should be reflected in the trade marketplace.

Once again, this is a wilful misrepresentation of Randle by someone who can’t separate his visceral dislike for him and his coach from reality.

*************************

A “misrepresentation” is an untrue statement. Which of the things I said that you quoted is untrue?

**********************************

“Randle in fact has totally rolled with the 1a-1b-1c hierarchy that describes this team’s offense”

How does rolling with a 1a-1b-1c arrangement show that you’d be ok being a 3?

**********************************

“He is not a great defensive player, but that is true about many of the max players in #1 roles.”

I thought we were talking about a future hypothetical state where he wasn’t in a 1 role. Or are you actually defending him as a 1 guy? Hard to tell.

I mean obviously I think he’s antithetical to winning basketball, which I’ve said explicitly, so I’m not entirely sure an accusation of hiding the ball or rhetorical trickery works, but fair I guess.

I think pointing to the numbers could prove a case that “this shit isn’t his fault,” which I guess I’d agree with — but that’s different than what I’m saying. I don’t really have an opinion one way or another because I don’t really care. Fault for the temporary state is basically meaningless in how we get to the future state.

There have been plenty of all-stars who have been antithetical to winning basketball. I don’t think that shows anything.

I’ve said since the empty building year I don’t think you can win with him in a 1 role and I don’t see anything that would lead me to change that conclusion; in fact, I’ve seen two more years of things that support it.

I agree that he’s playing up to his contract, or even better. But my conclusion from that is that it should be reflected in the trade marketplace and if it is, it’s a perfect time to trade him. If I’ve already concluded I can’t win with him and/or I don’t want to take the risk of trying to pigeonhole him into a role I *might* be able to win with him in, what other conclusion would you expect me to come to?

None of us have any vested interest in selling tickets or the business side of MSG — I can see them wanting to keep him around — so if you’ve concluded that he doesn’t work on the basketball side, why wait? Especially when he’s playing decent basketball.

If you haven’t concluded that, then that’s just a difference of opinion and isn’t really going to be swayed by his BB-ref page. His problem is his niche game, willingness to fit, ability to fit, misunderstanding about his actual place in the association cosmos, bizarre propensity for wrong thing at wrong time, low BB IQ, etc. (Oh, and completely choking in the playoffs.) Just can’t get my head around any scenario where he’s a prominent feature of a real contender playing critical games in May/June. Could be wrong, but don’t think I am. In any event, there’s no real basketball risk in being wrong too early. Question is still — what am I risking missing out on if I’m wrong? A good 3 option? Ok, stipulated. I’ll take that risk.

“Sure, we still need a true star to contend, and Julius isn’t that star,”

Then you in fact agree.

“but that’s not the point”

Then you in fact agree, but think other considerations predominate. To me, it’s the point. To you, it isn’t. Vive la différence.

“But this again misrepresents the issue. There’s actually ZERO evidence for “that” because “that” has never happened.”

Yes, there is. The Lakers didn’t want him in that role and neither did the Pelicans.

If you had a teacher in for an interview and he’d worked for two other schools in five years and wasn’t re-signed, wouldn’t it be a red flag for you? It obviously would.

Or if you had a person who’d been a supervisor of teachers and then applied for a line teaching role, wouldn’t you ask “You know this role isn’t supervisory, right? You’re going to have to answer to people, are you going to be happy doing that?” You would ask that, right? I’ve asked that question in interviews for line attorneys dozens of times. Why? Because it’s an obvious question and you obviously want to hear them out on it. Some people have good answers, others not so much. I put Julius in the “not so much” category.

“If the Knicks changed absolutely nothing but replaced RJ with a high-level star, the Knicks would be near favorites.”

If Randle (a) accepted the de facto demotion and all it means; and (b) successfully integrated his skill set to the new role.

In terms of usage, true contender level alphas are quite a bit higher than 27. Embiid/Giannis/Luka are over 37, Ja 34, etc. Tatum/Dame in the 31-32 range. Truly bring one of those guys in and make Julius the 3 behind another guy and Julius is seeing scraps and leftovers compared to what he’s used to. Other than on some freak outlier matchup, he’s never seeing another 4Q iso. He’s never initiating a set in any serious way. He sure as shit isn’t directing traffic and waving guys off and doing his “thing.” He’s occasionally free to probe an open lane if he can do it quickly and move the ball virtually immediately if he can’t. He ain’t gonna have Thibs to enable his bullshit. He’ll be answerable to the true star — another place he might bristle.

And since other guys are doing the real heavy lifting on offense, he’s going to have to play real contender defense. He’s not going to be able to pull the “I’m exhausted from having to carry you MFers” routine.

It’s a demotion. He’ll see it as a demotion. Star athletes in their prime tend not to like demotions. Theoretically manageable, too much risk for my blood.

Anyone here think Carmelo Anthony would have been ok becoming a 3 option at age 28?

“we’ll never win as long as Randle is the alpha”

(Virtually or literally) everyone agrees with this one.

“he will never ever relinquish his position as the alpha”

The thesis is a little more subtle than that. It’s that he quite probably won’t and the reward for being wrong about that isn’t close to worth the risk that you aren’t wrong.

And yes, how “good” he is or how “good” he is compared with other Knickerbockers is completely irrelevant to the thesis.

yes, so subtle and insubstantial that it barely registers on any measured spectrum at all…

*******************

Nice. I did in fact laugh. Not quite soda spit levels, but then again I’m not drinking soda.

“Crazy that Bill went in before Walt.”

Bill wasn’t half the player Clyde was, clearly. And while what I’m going to say is true, there won’t be enough “evidence” here to convince anyone who stubbornly resists it. And it’s possible you have to be at least 40 to really get this. And it is a bit of a stuffy, fussy thing and it can be resisted on that basis. And this idea won’t have anything to do with Clyde in particular.

However ….

The idea of training the body as well as the mind as the basis of a proper education has deep roots, going all the way back to Ancient Greece. It still had a lot of sway in America in the early 1900s — it was from that idea that in fact the concept of the “student-athlete” arose. It still had that sway, though not as much, when Bill came along. With his Princeton background and obvious real intellect and obvious high-end, though not elite, basketball talent, he really personified the classical ideal of mind and body. That buttressed his reputation by *a lot* and spilled over into misinterpeting how good a basketball player he was. But he wasn’t being viewed as solely a basketball player.

What’s happened since then culturally? Well, first, it’s now possible and has been for decades, but not really as much so in Bill/Clyde’s era to make a massively great living focusing solely on sports. And so what happens then? People focus on sports and blow off the mind part. Perfectly understandable. Second, the culture is more obsessed about sports and more forgiving of obsessive, non-well-rounded types. Third, we had the somewhat phony denigration of the model by education professionals and anti-NCAA types. Fourth, we had companies like ESPN and the shoe companies and all the rest who took over college sports and remade them in their quasi-professional TV star image. None of those places gives a fig about the classical model, as their mass audience doesn’t give a fig either. (Which was the chicken and which the egg is up for debate.)

So I’m not sure I really have a problem with rewarding and honoring a Bill Bradley for these non-basketball things — in fact, I might even think it’s a good thing — but, yeah, obviously in pure basketball terms he’s overrated.