Knicks Morning News (2023.10.03)

I truly don’t get why we are discussing the merits of trading for Lillard.
1) He only left Portland because he is ringchasing and we were not on his list.
2) Leon would never have included Brunson in a trade for Lillard, which is the only way that it could possibly have worked well for both teams.

There is clearly merit to the notion that trading for Lillard might have improved the team’s chances of fielding a contender in the next few years. For example, if Dame approved, even an extreme package like a Lillard for Brunson, IQ, Mitch, and and the same draft pick package that was offered to the Blazers would have left enough pieces to acquire a third star…all but one of our future firsts and 3 additional protected firsts, plus Randle, Grimes, Hart, iHart, DDV, RJ, Fournier, and Deuce. Then you could have thrown a combo of Grimes, RJ, JHart, and all the rest of the picks to land Embiid.

But the chances of that scenario unfolding happening were always zero. Trading Brunson, the most beloved Knicks of the last two decades on the heels of his destruction of Donovan Mitchell and then carrying the team on his back vs. the Heat, and his part in the Nova connection, etc., was a complete non-starter, period. As such, there is no way to prove whether it would have worked out better or not, no matter what Lillard does in MIL or what the Knicks do in the future.

For the record, I agree that the durability concerns are significantly greater with Embiid than with Lillard in the next 5 years. The thought of making an all-in deal for Embiid is terrifying to me.

But at least that scenario merits discussion because there is a realistic chance of it happening. It is actually the most likely of the all-in scenarios that Leon might pursue in the next year or two.

My hope is that we somehow become a preferred landing spot for Luca. Dallas did some good things this offseason, but I still don’t see them getting past the second round of the playoffs this year, and it will only get worse for them as teams like MEM, OKC, SAC, POR, start to gel. Unfotunately, Cuban probably holds a grudge vs. the Knicks and won’t deal Luca here no matter what.

As to our window for building a perennial contender, I’m not buying that once Brunson is maxed, the window is shut. That’s as silly as saying that Milwaukee’s window was shut prior to the Dame deal. Or that Boston’s window was shut prior to the Jrue deal. So long as we have draft picks and good players, deals can be made.

The goal for this year should be to determine once and for all the actual value of each of our players, while monitoring situations around the league. We know who Brunson, Randle, Mitch, JHart, and DDV are, I doubt that their value fluctuates much from where it is right now.

But we don’t know where IQ, Grimes, RJ, or iHart top out. I think it is absolutely essential to find that out, so we can determine who should be included, and who should be kept out of subsequent deals. There is a non-zero chance that a player or two becomes so much more valuable than they are right now that a) they make a trade at their position unnecessary or b) they account for more outgoing value in a trade for a better player.

Since the team as currently constructed is both eminently rootable and has considerable upside, this is my preferred approach. Let’s see how much noise this bunch can make once it gels. We should have an answer well before the trade deadline.

I also agree fully with TNFH’s assertion that no team would offer the equivalent of RWIII, Brogdan and two firsts for Brunson, so the outgoing assets would have been Brunson plus at least two very good young players…which is why I proposed Mitch and IQ.

I have very little faith that Mitch will ever add anything that fundamentally changes who he is as a player. And that’s fine! He’s plenty valuable as is!

And no, I don’t think Mitch ever gets good enough to change the calculus of going after Embiid. He might make the deal more likely/less expensive, but even that is a stretch.

I will say, though, that if Mitch improves and all the other young players improve, we are going to be a force to be reckoned with. In other words, if we become a team where the whole is greater than sum of the parts, then it might be the case that a trade for a declining star like Kawhi or PG13 or AD at a lower cost makes the most sense.

“…and in the ones before those two, he posted BPMs of 5.1, 6.2, and 7.5. So he’s not allergic to the playoffs or whatever, he just hasn’t been healthy in the last two.”

So we should make a decision on Embiid’s health/availability in his projected age 31-35 seasons based on his age 24-26 yo seasons? Or should we worry that the decline in his playoff BPM is not due to being allergic, but to being chronically unhealthy come playoff time?

My bet is on door #2….that you will never, ever see a healthy Joel Embiid in the NBA finals. I’m totally fine with letting some other team pay for the privilege.

“This is…decidedly not the attitude the entire NBA is taking.

I mean, *gestures at everything that happened this offseason.*”

This seems like a willful misrepresentation of what I just posted. I specifically said that I’m not worried about it because someone much smarter than both of us on these matters is doing the worrying for us. Was that not clear?

“If you are so averse to Embiid you want to trade away good, young players and/or not make draft picks in order to duck the second apron and kick the can down the road, say so. Because that’s the other option here.”

And once again, you are ignoring other options like trading for a lesser star like Kawhi at a lesser cost, or making incremental moves prior to the time when Brunson needs to be extended. Of course, we can go into panic mode like some folks did all season about Mitch before he was extended….or we can have at least some faith that the FO (that some folks were shitting all over at this time last year while referring to the team as a rudderless mess) can figure out an alternative to the predictable dead end that is an all-in Joel Embiid trade.

1) Kawhi will be available between now and the summer of 2025

Yes, I think if the Clips exit in the first round, Kawhi might be available. In case you didn’t notice, he has a player option after this year. So does Paul George. Both of them fit seamlessly with our need for taller wings.

2) Trading for Kawhi is a better idea than trading for Joel Embiid, because he comes with fewer injury concerns (hmmm)

The assumption is that the cost for Kawhi would be substantially less than it is for Embiid, both in terms of the assets needed to get him and the cap figure of his next contract. Same for Paul George. So their injury concerns are already factored in to the equation.

Maybe Minny is itching to get out from under some guy they call KAT…didn’t he used to be the apple of your eye? I’m not a KAT guy but I’d rather bet on his calfs than Embiid’s knees.

“If Embiid becomes available before Kawhi, should we pass on him because Kawhi might become available in the future, though not so distant future that we’d be in the second-apron already?””

Let me fix that for you:

“If Embiid becomes available, should we pass on him?”

The answer to this question is YES, no matter what the circumstances*. Is that clear enough?

*just in case, I mean realistic circumstances, not something like he’s available for Fournier, Mitch and a second rounder.

“You are making this bizarrely personal when there is really only one important question, and it can’t be answered with references to my past skepticism of Leon Rose anymore than it can be answered with references to your past approval of the Bargnani trade.”

First, nothing personal intended, and frankly, I don’t think pointing out your past positions that you yourself have admitted were wrong and have since revised are personal, so long as I am characterizing them correctly and not using insults.

Second, references to your prior opinions on what THIS REGIME should do relative to their plan and position, both now and then, has a nexus. It’s the same, general position for the same general reasons. Whereas references to a position I had 10 years ago (and “approval” is not accurate) has absolutely no nexus to this situation.

Third, I don’t think it’s necessary to go beyond the alternative to trading for Embiid is simply to NOT trade for him. It’s a bad deal on its face, period. Standing pat is a far preferable alternative to me. If that’s the worst case scenario because a better option (like Kawhi on a significantly cheaper deal) doesn’t come along, I’d prefer the status quo and trust that Leon & Co. will engineer something better down the road.

“One-way Superstars who play the same position as your best player who is on the best contract in the NBA cost too much to trade for and will gut your team…”

here’s another corrected version…

RIP McCarthy

It’s kind of amusing that none of the superstars mentioned as trade targets…not Spida, not Lillard, not Embiid…have been superstarry enough to help their teams win a single game past the second round for their combined 24 years, no matter what their FOs and coaches did…yet there’s considerable faith that Leon and Thibs might figure it out, especially among some of their most ardent detractors….

“What superstar players would you find acceptable as the acquired player in a consolidation trade? Assume that you would be paying market value for said player.”

It’s a tough question to answer because “market price” is a vague term and could depend upon conditions. For example, what is Julius Randle’s market price? How does that compare to his value in terms of his contract and production? How will prices be affected by the upcoming CBA constraints?

Ignoring rookies, I don’t think there are a lot of “at any price” players in the NBA. Jokic, Giannis, Luka…that’s about it for me.

Then there are players that are pretty close…Tatum, Shai, maybe Ja, maybe Edwards…but I can’t even fathom what it would cost for any of them at their ages.

Then there are “final piece” type guys….meaning that I would only pay market price if I felt that they put us into bonafide championship contender status, because once the deal was made, there are no further major deals possible. Embiid is in this group. So is LeBron, Durant, Lillard, Butler, Steph, AD, and some others…maybe Mikal. Unfortunately, I don’ think any of these players puts us over the top or eve draws us even with Boston and Milwaukee for the next 2 years, but at anything below market price I’d probably risk it. If I had a pecking order, it would probably be the PF/tall wing types first (e.g. Durant and Butler, maybe AD if he looked more healthy this year), then the Cs, then the PGs. LeBron is probably too old, but at the right price I’d prefer to bring him in over any of the C’s or PGs other than Steph, who would be a very tough call.

Then there are guys I just don’t like because they will be overly costly and overpaid no matter what the team situation is. Donovan Mitchell, Jaylen Brown, Siakam, LaVine, Haliburton, DeAaron, KAT, Zion, Sabonis, JJJ, Bam, Booker…you would need one of the above players to make any one of these guys make sense, yet it’s impossible to get both.

Then there are players that are great fits IF they could be had at a depressed market price…Kawhi, PG, OG…

Then there are guys I wouldn’t want on my roster no matter what the price…except to turn them into other assets…Harden, Trae, Kyrie…

In summary, to really answer the question correctly, it would have to go player by player with a proposed trade. For example, if we could get Embiid for something like Mitch, IQ, RJ, two unprotected firsts and 3 protected firsts, I would be fine with making that trade. If you add Grimes, another first, and two swaps, I would not. The assumption is that his market value is closer to the latter than the former.

“Yeah, if we actually can’t trade for an aging superstar with bad knees without gutting the team, then Leon’s plan has sucked from the jump.”

fify

“In the summer of 2025 we will lose the ability to aggregate salaries in trades (barring a series of drastic moves that would make us worse, at least in the short term, that no one has proposed).”

Please explain why this is a certainty. Make sure that when you do so, you don’t assume that we will max both Brunson and Randle, or that we will extend IQ, or not make any non-superstar consolidation trades that keep us under the apron. Especially considering that we currently employ arguably the best capologist in the business.

Oh, sorry.

“Yeah this makes the statement even more true. If we can’t make a sensible trade for an apparently irreparably diminished superstar who no team should want to trade for, the plan sucked from the jump.”

See, my thinking is that any great plan can be derailed at any point by one terrible decision. See: Donovan Mitchell. Still think trading the farm for him while salary dumping Julius was the way to go?

The Melo trade is still pretty fresh in my memory. Pretty similar situations…take a young, exciting team, feel desperation to keep up with the Jones’s, panic about missing the only ship that will ever come in, go all in on a second-rate big 3, suffer the consequences for years.

Whatever, I’m not going to worry about it any more unless and until something happens. For now, can’t wait to see our rudderless mess of a team stumble its way into another playoff exit for the third time in four years due to the FO’s sucky plan.

The point about Melo leading his team to the WCFs is as factual as Embiid being the MVP. (Does anyone here really believe he deserved it over Jokic?)

I haven’t checked, but I wonder how many MVPs never played in the conference finals…

“This current team is so much better and has much more valuable, long term pieces than that team had.”

True. But isn’t that just as good of a reason for NOT making an Embiid trade?

I admit that the PTSD is pretty strong. Three years of albatross Amar’e killed me. And after that it just got worse.

I don’t know how to explain it better than I already have, but I feel pretty strongly that an all-in deal for Embiid will ultimately set us back in a similar way. Maybe the highs will be a bit higher, but there will be no championship and probably not even a finals appearance to show for it. I can’t be 100% sure, but if I had to, that’s the way I would bet.

I definitely would have preferred a Dame deal, but not by much. Also not the right guy.