NY Post: Mitchell Robinson injury overshadows Knicks’ win over Bucks

Reposted on new thread

From a Chinese basketball discussion group “ If Shaq and D-Rose had a baby, it would be Zion”

At some point we are going to have to start building a fragility factor into our thinking about Mitch and the team. For me, that means we should sign Nerlens back next year even if it’s a bit expensive. This situation reminds me a little of KP’s early injuries. A couple looked like freak accidents and were dismissed, but basketball involves a lot of contact, hard falls, etc.. and some people handle that better than others. It may be a matter of time before a more serious injury occurs. Naturally I hope not, but we need a good backup C and Nerlens is exactly that.

– RJ, IQ and Randle, his 37 points explosion aside, are in a shooting slump (they’ll get better) and Bullock has been out so having Burks has been huge in the last stretch of games.

– Despite the shooting, I like the way RJ’s playing. He’s defending well, with a lot of rebounds and assists, now it will be nice if he could cut the turnovers but part of it come with the territory. He almost never let his shooting woes impact his overall game.

– IQ is not shooting well but he’s forcing less and 8 assists in the last two games are good, he’s showing progress and less selfishness.

– Mitch injury is bad, hope he’ll get well as soon as possible. Noel and Taj are as good as backup bigs go but in the meantime I’m in for Dieng. I think they’ll wait Mitch’s diagnosys to sign him.

– Knox did a little something, Obi did a little something but his confidence must be really really down otherwise his layup would have been a thunderous dunk, he was scared to do it.

– Zion is a beast, he comes at you like a cannonball and he’s absurdly quick for his size. Sure it’s not a good rebouder and he’s a lousy defender but with a little bit of improvment on FT shooting he’ll easily guarantee you 30 at night.

– Very Important Game against Miami, I hope Randle and Bullock will be back.

At some point we are going to have to start building a fragility factor into our thinking about Mitch and the team

I wonder how this is going to alter what the front office chooses to do with his contract this summer. Maybe they just keep him on the rookie deal to see if he can get through next season unscathed? We’d have his bird rights, even though he’d be unrestricted next summer.

Meanwhile I continue to be astounded by how well Alec Burks is playing. He has been an absolute stud on offense and plays smart, tough D. If what he has done in the last few games is for real, I’d love to re-sign him to a value contract….something like 3 years @ $8 mill. He seems like a brilliant jack of all trades rotation player. Or am I just being fooled by this latest streak?

How much does Burks get offered? What’s the max we can offer him without any rights?

In a not so good free agents class it will be interesting to see if and who of our “mercenaries” we would be able to re-sign.

Frank and Ferguson (!!) combine for a huge 25.2M cap hold,
Rose (that I think will be re-signed), Burks, Noel and Bullock for 28.7M
(I assume we’ll renounce Payton’s 5.7M right? right?….)

Burks had made around 60M in his career, maybe we could sign him for 3/30 and give him some medium term security? (Noel and Bullock have way lowest career earnings).

Question to our Capologists:
I know that If we go over the cap adding some FA/RFA, signing for instance Lonzo and another player,
then we could re-sign our FA even if we’re over-capped,
but is there a limit in the years/money structure we could give them then?

then we could re-sign our FA even if we’re over-capped,
but is there a limit in the years/money structure we could give them then?

Luckily, non-Bird free agents like Burks can be given four-year deals at that 120% figure (with 5% yearly raises factored in).

But yeah, Burks is a fascinating player, because he’s been so valuable to the Knicks this season, but yeah, if they want to keep him, they’ll likely have to give him a bit more of a commitment, which is fine, but that gets back to the idea of what is this team, going forward? I mean, do they really just want to run this same team back next year and hope that RJ and Quickley improve even more and that the mid-teen draft picks help? Or do you want to dramatically change the roster?

I like Burks, Bullock, Noel, & Mitch but none of those guys are irreplaceable.

We also have 4 draft picks this year. We can probably find a longterm replacement for 1 of Mitch or Noel and a wing replacement for either Bullock or Burks.

MLE is around $9.7M for teams over the cap. We could use that to sign Burks, if we can stay over the cap. Might work if we sign Ball plus Fournier.

By the way, I don’t get the knock on the Nikola Vucevic trade. I don’t even like Vucevic that much and I thought that that deal was fine, even if the Bulls don’t make the playoffs this year. The 2021 pick they owe is top four protected, which means that it only transfers if the pick remains in its current place (which is around #13-14). The 13th pick in the draft for Nikola Vucevic (who makes less money than Otto Porter Jr.), plus a 2023 pick with the same protections. The Bulls now have two All-Stars from this year’s All Star team on their squad. That seemed like a fair price, especially if they use their cap space to add someone like Lonzo Ball this offseason.

Obi showed a little, very little, against a scrubby third string opponent. Beyond a dunk, midrange jumper and lay-up, his stat line was a long string of zeros. I wasn’t impressed but it’s better than nothing.

Knox, on the other hand, looked as good as I’ve ever seen him look. Good footwork on D, rebounds in traffic, quick outlet, nice drives and kicks…hardly enough for optimism but fair is fair…he looked better than ever.

that gets back to the idea of what is this team, going forward? I mean, do they really just want to run this same team back next year and hope that RJ and Quickley improve even more and that the mid-teen draft picks help? Or do you want to dramatically change the roster?

I think they’ll count on improvement from most of the young players and should sign the highest quality free agents they can that are available on fair contracts (mid to upper 20s the oldest). If that means bringing back guys like Burks, Bullock, and Nerlens they should do it, but if they can upgrade a position or two they should do that instead. Personally, I think we’ll be fine as far as role players go. So I would try to move up in the draft or use the excess picks to try to bring an all star quality player. The goal next year should be to be a clear playoff team and not fighting for a playoff spot.

Brian Cronin:
But yeah, Burks is a fascinating player, because he’s been so valuable to the Knicks this season, but yeah, if they want to keep him, they’ll likely have to give him a bit more of a commitment, which is fine, but that gets back to the idea of what is this team, going forward? I mean, do they really just want to run this same team back next year and hope that RJ and Quickley improve even more and that the mid-teen draft picks help? Or do you want to dramatically change the roster?

I think we have 4 players: RJ (wing), Randle (PF), IQ (6th-7th man), Rose (not that I like him, but Thibs’ version of Linus’ blanket).

Plus we have Mitch and all the insecurity around his next contract (I don’t think he’s untouchable if a good opportunity arise).

In trades/FA we desperately need a big upgrade at starting PG and to add a starting SG/SF (with RJ playing the other spot).

Then we could decide to keep one or two of our other veterans (Burks and one of Bullock/Noel? Could depend on who we draft) at moveable salaries to form a strong bench with IQ, Rose and a mix of Toppin, Knox and the draftees (I’m projecting us out of the lottery or in the low 9-14 spot, that could change).

It seems hard to imagine the Mavericks missing out on the play-in games, so while they’ll probably get two shots at making the playoffs (as they’ll likely finish either #7 or #8), there’s still a chance they’ll miss the playoffs and the Knicks will get their lottery pick. That’d be swell.

cybersoze: Otto Porter is expiring and Vuc is under contract until 2023, with 24M and 22M on the books for the next 2 years (at least is a declining contract, but still).

Vucevic is a 20-10 machine, for that number and not as the number one option he’s a steal (and moveable in future trades).
I’m more surprised that they give up on Carter, Hutchinson and Gafford so quick…
They’re running the risk of losing Markannen for nothing, maybe they’re sure there’s no market for him? (I doubt that’s true)

Max: Vucevic is a 20-10 machine, for that number and not as the number one option he’s a steal (and moveable in future trades).
I’m more surprised that they give up on Carter, Hutchinson and Gafford so quick…

The so-called 20-10 machines are often the most overpaid guys in the game. Enes Kanter and Knicks-version Zach Randolph are prime examples. Vuc can’t guard the perimeter or the rim, so he’s a huge liability on D. And not drawing fouls suggests that he is not really a go-to guy down the stretch.

Porter wouldn’t be a terrible flyer for the Knicks. With his health issues I doubt he goes for much

Z-man: To me, Vuc is a trap kind of player.

Exactly this. I wouldn’t want him on the Knicks.

Max: Still I can’t find the trade absurd

I agree that on paper it is not a bad value trade, certainly not absurd. More misguided than anything else.

And the fact that we did not make a “misguided” trade is another sign that this FO is on the right track…for now.

Deeefense:
At some point we are going to have to start building a fragility factor into our thinking about Mitch and the team.For me, that means we should sign Nerlens back next year even if it’s a bit expensive. This situation reminds me a little of KP’s early injuries.A couple looked like freak accidents and were dismissed, but basketball involves a lot of contact, hard falls, etc.. and some people handle that better than others.It may be a matter of time before a more serious injury occurs.Naturally I hope not, but we need a good backup C and Nerlens is exactly that.

This post reads like you’re trying to unjustly shade someone the blog favors with the same shade the blog justly casts on someone you favor.

Mitch broke a bone on hard contact twice in a season. Unless you are suggesting he has osteoporosis, that’s just bad luck and there’s nothing to suggest he will suffer from chronic injuries.

Porzingis’ injuries were more worrisome bc they were non contact and involved muscles and ligaments. Rather than being unlucky, they were signs of a troubled body.

Fuck! Dieng to the Spurs…

Is that John Henson’s music I hear?

Max: Fuck! Dieng to the Spurs…

GivEn that hE’s ExpEriEnced with Thibs I’m ExpEcting somEonE hErE to spin this accordingly.

It seems hard to imagine the Mavericks missing out on the play-in games, so while they’ll probably get two shots at making the playoffs (as they’ll likely finish either #7 or #8), there’s still a chance they’ll miss the playoffs and the Knicks will get their lottery pick. That’d be swell.

It is not so improbable that the Mavs are the 7 or 8 seed in the West, in the play-in, and have to play… the Lakers. I think Lebron will be out at least until the end of April and the Lakers have 17(!) games from now until 4/30. They could easily go 5-12 or worse in those games if AD remains out.

Sucks that Dieng signed with the Spurs, but the Spurs had to release Marquesse Chriss in order to sign Dieng. Picking Chriss up on waivers would not be the worst thing. Definitely could do worse in terms of a backup PF/C. And not that it really matters, but we would get his EB rights.

Frank: It is not so improbable that the Mavs are the 7 or 8 seed in the West,in the play-in, and have to play… the Lakers.I think Lebron will be out at least until the end of April and the Lakers have 17(!) games from now until 4/30. They could easily go 5-12 or worse in those games if AD remains out.

Sucks that Dieng signed with the Spurs, but the Spurs had to release Marquesse Chriss in order to sign Dieng.Picking Chriss up on waivers would not be the worst thing. Definitely could do worse in terms of a backup PF/C. And not that it really matters, but we would get his EB rights.

Chriss would have been an interesting sign, alas he’s out for the year with a broken leg.

This post reads like you’re trying to unjustly shade someone the blog favors with the same shade the blog justly casts on someone you favor.

I’m being consistent.

When Porzingis sprained his ankle badly on a freak play I argued that he doesn’t take contact well because he’s so weak and even though it was freak play it was another sign that there may be more injuries to come given he was always coming up with minor issues with his hip, elbow etc… Everyone called me out and said I was making a big deal about a freak accident. But it happened because he couldn’t take contact and that caused his stuck foot to get twisted. Then came the ACL and the meniscus.

I’m saying the same thing now.

Mitch is constantly fighting sprained ankles when he lands poorly and now he’s broken a hand and foot on contact.

The NBA is a game of hard contact, awkward or hard landings, twists and turns of joints etc.. and some people have tendons, ligaments, and/or bones that handle that stuff better than others.

Eventually KP proved to be very injury prone (as also predicted by Phil by the way) partly due to his lack of strength and ability to handle those things. Let’s hope Mitch is not on the same path. We don’t want him spraining something or breaking a bone every time he lands hard, awkwardly, or takes a hard shot.

Yeah – Mitch is so athletic is so many ways, but for such an athletic guy, he lands awkwardly A LOT.

Kyle O’Quinn reunion time? What’s he up to these days?

Frank:
Yeah – Mitch is so athletic is so many ways, but for such an athletic guy, he lands awkwardly A LOT.

Both he and KP don’t seem to have that “cat like” balance that allows them to adjust their body in mid air quickly so they land squarely. It guess it can’t be easy when you are that tall. There’s probably a reason gymnasts tend to be short.

The Mitch news is brutal. This team is exponentially more fun to watch with him healthy. Get well soon big fella. I do wonder how it will affect his contract situation, do the Knicks offer him a low ball extension with the thought that he’ll place more emphasis on security? Just pick up the option to gather more info before making a decision?

Sucks that Dieng is going to the Spurs. I’m a little surprised given that they have Poeltl. Would’ve been cool to have a center who can shoot. Maybe we give Skal a look?

Is…is that Joakim Noah’s music?

Strat has been alternating between “the prescient genius Phil Jackson drafted NBA superstar Kristaps Porzingis” and “the prescient genius Phil Jackson knew Kristaps Porzingis was overrated and wanted to trade him” for years now so this thread is nothing new.

By the way, I don’t get the knock on the Nikola Vucevic trade.

I guess it depends a bit on your perspective but giving up two lightly protected picks for a 30 year old who isn’t going to get you remotely close to serious contention is pretty antithetical to how I’d want a team to be run.

It’d be one thing if Vucevic was younger and/or made them at least a ~50 win team (during a regular reason), but being out significant draft capital and financial flexibility while still hovering around .500 is a scary place to be. They can create cap room this offseason if they don’t want to bring back Markkanen, but it’s not clear to me there’s a better way to spend it than on Markkanen.

By the way I hate to be a downer but it’s a pretty bad sign that no one’s proposed solution to the Mitch problem is “play the guy you just drafted 8th overall more”

The Honorable Cock Jowles: I suspect he’s going to revert back to the Drummond we saw several years back, but only for the rest of the season. There’s no way in hell he’s taking 30% of his team’s possessions in scoring attempts, which he basically did as a Cav. If I’m LeCoach, I’m telling him that, when at least one of LeLeBron or LeAD is on the floor, he scores when he’s within spitting distance of LeRim or when he’s fed the ball in a PNR. If he does any ISO bullshit, he sits. Probably a .650 TS% for the rest of the year and a LeRing to go with it, unless LMA has anything to say about it in LeFinals. Drummond sucks at his AAV, but if you’re the LeLakers, all you need is a stopgap at the 5 so AD has to play zero minutes against the big boys until crunch time against Daddy Jokic.

He makes absolute sense for the Lakers, for the reasons that you described.
There’s no one on the Knicks (and many other teams) with enough gravitas to keep him in check,
LeBron has done that with many players over the year.

Kanter with a legit funny tweet about who the Nets will use their last roster spot on for in the buyout market, “Thanos ? or maybe Jesus.”

JK47: Phil both gets credit for selecting KP at 4, and then for realizing that it was a mistake. Such foresight!

I actually think this shouldn’t be overlooked. This is a great quality for an executive to have. Drafting Porzingis at 4 was the right call, and trying to sell high on him two years later when presented with new evidence was also the right call.

I think Phil got pretty much everything else wrong but I like an executive who can pivot like that.

re: the Center position…. there’s this new thing where teams have been “going small”.

Randle could crush it as a small ball 5. Obviously Noel should be be the guy but could we maybe just try it for 6 minutes in the first half or something? I’d rather see Randle at the 5 then five minutes to someone who’s available now just bc he’s tall.

Phil is smart for wanting to trade Porzingis but not actually trading Porzingis, but the guys who actually DID trade Porzingis are idiots because they couldn’t recognize how awesome he is.

Did I do that one right? Somehow no matter what Phil always comes out smelling like roses and everybody else is an idiot.

New York Knicks assistant Mike Woodson is expected to accept deal to become the next head coach of Indiana University

From Shams. So Payne and Bryant are staying and Woody is going. I’m fine with that.

Alan: From Shams. So Payne and Bryant are staying and Woody is going. I’m fine with that.

Me too.

Phoenix beat Charlotte in an ugly overtime game,
we’re fourth in the East waiting for Atlanta to play in Denver.
Tomorrow game with Miami is huge.

College basketball action – it’s not Fan-tastic.

I imagine they are cutting Ferguson mainly because they need the roster spot to sign another big man. If Mitch had injured himself, he might have gotten at least a little bit of time with the development staff first. Or have I lost track of how many guys we have under contract now that Iggy and Rivers are gone?

Porier & Ferguson were most likely always getting waived. We turned Rivers into a 2nd & Iggy just can’t hack it.

Teague has to be better than Elf & idk what Centers are left but we need a 3rd even if they backup Taj. Maybe we play Randle at C if Porter gets bought out

Bobby Marks:
Best way to look at NYK at the trade deadline is that they paid $700K for a 2021 2nd rd. pick (either PHI or HOU).

Ferguson and Poirier had $2.3M left on their contract compared to $1.6M of Rivers/Brazdeikis.

2 open roster spots (must fill one by 4/11)

$13.5M in cap space

Six steals for Mikal Bridges today

Well since we’re crying over spilt draft picks, how about the fact that Malik Monk and Miles Bridges are having really good seasons?

Ntilikina and Knox, the busts that keep on giving

But they hit 3s from everywhere!!!

BigBlueAL:
Raptors lose again, people still think they have a chance of passing the Knicks in the standings?

I think they will be in the top 10, no strong convictions but they are definitely better than they’ve played. As to today, now that Portland have McCollum and Nurkic back and have picked up Norman Powell, their starting 5 is as good as any in the league…a lot of teams are going to lose to them.

Only a fucking rube would think that college players are paid, and that’s fucking factorial

Brian Cronin:
As an aside, that four hour fantasy auction I did on Thursday? One of the guys I got was Luke Voit, so…yeah. I objected to doing a draft so early and that’s a perfect example of why not to draft so early.

I actually kept Voit. We had to do our draft then because ours took 8 hours and has a live auctioneer. Many couldn’t make it this week because of Passover.

I just got to this thread now, pretty late. It’s amazing how much has changed since the first post of the thread. Some points…
We were never signing Dieng. According to this Athletic article Gorgui had reason to dislike Thibs.
The Mitch injury has me down. Drummond didn’t excite me. Mitch did. Alas, I am beginning to think he’s not worth a long term deal. He’s a unique talent but he can’t stay on the court. There’s no replacing him. I’m wondering if there’s a chance he’s back for the playoffs.

The NCAA runs 90 championships in men’s and women’s sports, including all of them in men’s American football except the top division. Five of them make a profit — D-1 men’s basketball, lacrosse, ice hockey, wrestling, and baseball. Not exactly the height of sophistication to only know about and comment about things one sees on TV. There’s a whole big world out there beyond the idiot box and Instagram. There’s also Title IX, but I guess we should give the money that supports women’s sports to a handful of men’s football and basketball players instead.

The NCAA is probably the best thing that’s actually happened for women’s athletics in the United States in the country’s history. A bit surprising that that would apparently bring some to illness but hopefully we can chalk that one up to internet attention-grabbing.

Because they tried to cap coaching salaries and unfortunately the courts struck it down. I would definitely favor it, but that wouldn’t be enough to subsidize all the women’s and “unprofitable” men’s sports, anyway.

If the people “sickened” by the NCAA had their way and the NCAA was run as a business, it would run like six divisions — all men’s, all D-I, all with fewer “franchises.” Everything else would be shuttered. That doesn’t really seem like an improvement.

E, all merc’d out: Because they tried to cap coaching salaries and unfortunately the courts struck it down. I would definitely favor it, but that wouldn’t be enough to subsidize all the women’s and “unprofitable” men’s sports, anyway.

That has no correlation whatsoever. If they have to pay the players and have to do so within budget, they will have to pay less to the coaches. It is not about artificially capping the coaches salary (and of course, not about increasing their budget at expense of other sections)

They already do pay the players, and the vast majority of the teams and the vast majority of the sports in aggregate are unprofitable. They are subsidized. If they were to act under purely business principles, there would be about 5% of the teams there are now, maybe fewer — including no women’s teams. That’s massive regression and the polar opposite of progress.

Once we realize that it’s a bad idea for them to act as pure businesses, we realize that they aren’t pure businesses, and from there all the rest of the “sickening” things naturally follow. Which is why these activities have been essentially the same for over 100 years now. The vast, vast majority of them are worthy educational extracurricular activities, just like the “unprofitable” chess club or debate club or intramural sports.

Agree that it’s a good thing the spy is finally gone. His act wore entirely thin in l’affaire D’Antoni and its ancillary l’affaire Lin. Never trusted him a lick after that one and never liked him. His coaching in the Indiana playoff series was dreadful.

In short, players are “compensated” but not “paid.” They do not have the rights that “employees” have and while the dollar value of the “compensation” is more than most student-athletes can earn via athletic performance outside of the NCAA realm, it does not meet the basic standard of an employer-employee relationship. There is a substantial degree of exploitation going on.

Z-man:
In short, players are “compensated” but not “paid.” They do not have the rights that “employees” have and while the dollar value of the “compensation” is more than most student-athletes can earn via athletic performance outside of the NCAA realm, it does not meet the basic standard of an employer-employee relationship. There is a substantial degree of exploitation going on.

Wherein college athletes have been forced and brainwashed into neo-Marxian false consciousness. Pay no heed to the joy on their faces when they play or train, or when they or team accomplish something competitively, or on the dozens behind them frothing at the mouth to be similarly “exploited.”

Having to show up for practice when the coach says doesn’t make a college or high school soccer player an “employee” anymore than having to show up for Hamlet school play practice.

E, all merc’d out: Wherein college athletes have been forced and brainwashed into neo-Marxian false consciousness.Pay no heed to the joy on their faces when they play or train, or when they or team accomplish something competitively, or on the dozens behind them frothing at the mouth to be similarly “exploited.”

You didn’t actually read the article, did you?

iserp: Basically, you have lots of young people that working for free for a chance to be in the NBA and that couldnt care less about college education.

Not true, the vast majority of D-I college basketball players know that they have zero chance of playing in the NBA.

iserp:
Basically, you have lots of young people that working for free for a chance to be in the NBA and that couldnt care less about college education.

I am from Spain, and there should be something said about young people here abandoning their studies early for a dream to play in Real Madrid or Barça, but at least they do not make profit from them while they are amateurs, and they can jump to be professionals as soon as their play in the field is worth it.

Does Spain open up Real Madrid or Barca to American 16-18s?

The tie between American sport and schools is unique in the world; Europeans wouldn’t be expected to understand it fully.

Any NCAA basketball player that truly “couldn’t care less” about college education shouldn’t be playing NCAA basketball. The NCAA wouldn’t lose a dime if it didn’t have them playing. For about ten years or so, between the time all the best high schoolers jumped to the draft and the time that a year after high school was mandated, the NCAA didn’t miss a beat. The NCAA didn’t miss a beat without LeBron James and LeBron James wouldn’t have added a dime to the NCAA’s coffers. The NCAA didn’t miss Luka Doncic, either. The NCAA “economy” isn’t based on having all the world’s best U-20s playing in it.

If college basketball was abolished, the vast, vast majority of its players wouldn’t have “jobs.” There’s no market for them. Look at teams like the Westies. Way better basketball than the University of Michigan, interest in the team about 1/10,000th the interest in the University of Michigan.

If you made basketball all professional and took away all the publicly-subsidized arenas, there would probably be something like 25 teams that could make a profit of any serious kind. Look at English soccer. Clearly the number 1 sport, all sorts of international appeal, only about 90 pro teams, about 70 or more of which don’t make much and the players don’t make much. There is little market interest in the US in watching the likes of Jared Harper play basketball (at least without the college brands appended to him.)

LOL @ “neo-Marxian false consciousness.” Such drivel. Its always been a favorite line of apologists for capitalist exploitation of labor to blame “Marxists” or “socialists” when workers rise and demand fair compensation. The underlying logic implicit in their arguments, of course, is that laborers are too stupid to know when they are being exploited by themselves. It always has to be an outside agitator indoctrinating a gullible and simplistic workforce into an insidious worldview.

Z-man: There’s plenty of room for compromise towards allowing individual stars to capitalize on their talent without destroying NCAA sports.

You’re talking there about maybe 200 players, probably not even that. College fans root for laundry. There’s probably some room to liberalize things in the Instagram era, but that doesn’t really seem to be what the “Death to the NCAA, the NCAA makes me fucking sick, let’s abolish college sports” people are aiming for.

E, all merc’d out: Wherein disagreeing with the poorly-developed premises and prescriptions in a ten-year old article means one hasn’t read the article.

I totally get the anti-NCAA arguments.They’re almost entirely unpersuasive and don’t even apply to the vast majority of the NCAA’s activities.We’ve socialized the NCAA “economy” at the very highest athletic ends so as a bunch of very worthwhile sports can continue to be subsidized.(*)That does in fact deprive a very, very few athletes of their full “market value.”But even with that, it’s a perfectly fine model and in many ways laudable.All due respect to Boomer-screwed Woke Millennial, it has to be observed that it’s a little strange that he wants to bring hyper-capitalism to the one area of American life to which it’s most poorly adapted.

(*) And if you want to take it further, Nick Saban and the other vastly overpaid commissars do bear a decent resemblance to the head honchos of late Soviet communism, who all got the best Moscow apartments and vodka even in the midst of general worker squalor.

I am a boomer and not much of a fan of NCAA sports beyond a passing interest in March Madness. But I know right from wrong, and there’s a ton wrong with the NCAA’s underlying premises that deprive the college athlete of pay and protections while making millionaires out of coaches and athletic directors and billionaires out of advertisers and media giants.

The same arguments were made about olympic athletes. Now they are professionals and directly reaping the financial benefits of their likenesses and talents. Yet the Olympic torch blows on.

Your arguments are the same ones that allowed for the exploitation of professional athletes by NBA, MLB, NFL, and NHL until a few of decades ago, or the exploitation of workers in general before collective bargaining became a thing.

Z-man: I am a boomer and not much of a fan of NCAA sports beyond a passing interest in March Madness. But I know right from wrong, and there’s a ton wrong with the NCAA’s underlying premises that deprive the college athlete of pay and protections while making millionaires out of coaches and athletic directors and billionaires out of advertisers and media giants.

The same arguments were made about olympic athletes. Now they are professionals and directly reaping the financial benefits of their likenesses and talents. Yet the Olympic torch blows on.

Your arguments are the same ones that allowed for the exploitation of professional athletes by NBA, MLB, NFL, and NHL until a few of decades ago, or the exploitation of workers in general before collective bargaining became a thing.

They’re not the same arguments, because a women’s college gymnast or field hockey player isn’t a “worker.” That’s the continuing fallacy. The chess club participant isn’t a worker, the debate club participant isn’t a worker, the women’s field hockey player isn’t a worker, the men’s college basketball player isn’t a worker. The fact that they have a schedule dictated to them and a “boss” doesn’t make them “workers”; the fact that some of the activities charge admission to people who want to see them doesn’t make them “workers.”

Hit a nail with a rubber hose and this is what you get. It’s inevitable. The better plan is to swap out the rubber hose for a hammer. It works better.

There’s no market for for-profit minor league women’s sports in the United States. There’s barely a market for major league women’s sports.

And obviously it’s not fine — it’s illegal for a school to have ten men’s teams and zero women’s teams. Nor would it be fine to just wipe out hundreds of women’s college sports teams. How is that remotely “fine!”??

This is a larger social issue, and not one that the university has an obligation or is in a position to solve. What fixes the gender demand and pay gap in sports isn’t a fake market–it’s a complex problem that has to be tackled by a more centralized authority. Also, if you opened up college athletics to genuine market pressures, I think pretty much every department would end up withering and dying, because they are not profitable, and even places like UNC and UGA would not be profitable if there were leagues for football and basketball that operated as genuine competitors.

Title IX is a good law insofar as it helps secure equality in college athletics, but college athletics is a bad system for doing anything that is remotely fair. So we should get rid of it, or, if we can’t do that for some reason, at least reform it so athletes are given proper worker protections, since they’re obviously workers in the same way graduate students on fellowship are workers.

E, all merc’d out: You’re talking there about maybe 200 players, probably not even that.College fans root for laundry.There’s probably some room to liberalize things in the Instagram era, but that doesn’t really seem to be what the “Death to the NCAA, the NCAA makes me fucking sick, let’s abolish college sports” people are aiming for.

Every player in any of the major conferences contributes to the overall success of the conference. Just like every factory worker contributes to the car that rolls off the assembly line. No one goes into a car dealership to support the American auto worker. They are interested in the product. If they can buy a car put together by dollar-a-day workers in a developing country, most are happy to do so. Does that make the exploitation of the worker okay?

I agree that there’s tons of hypocrisy…the same folks who champion the cause of the exploited college athletes who are almost singularly thrilled at their lot in life are running around wearing Nike gear manufactured in some sweatshop overseas. Why not just say that there are some reforms that would not hurt the NCAA or women’s sports and would improve the lot of the typical college-athlete? What would be the tragedy of letting players profit on their own likeness, or market their services to colleges via an agent? You think that if LeBron was offered $1 million to play for Kentucky, that would be more corrupt than paying John Calipari five times that much to coach him?

Z-man: Every player in any of the major conferences contributes to the overall success of the conference. Just like every factory worker contributes to the car that rolls off the assembly line. No one goes into a car dealership to support the American auto worker. They are interested in the product. If they can buy a car put together by dollar-a-day workers in a developing country, most are happy to do so. Does that make the exploitation of the worker okay?

I agree that there’s tons of hypocrisy…the same folks who champion the cause of the exploited college athletes who are almost singularly thrilled at their lot in life are running around wearing Nike gear manufactured in some sweatshop overseas. Why not just say that there are some reforms that would not hurt the NCAA or women’s sports and would improve the lot of the typical college-athlete? What would be the tragedy of letting players profit on their own likeness, or market their services to colleges via an agent? You think that if LeBron was offered $1 million to play for Kentucky, that would be more corrupt than paying John Calipari five times that much to coach him?

Yes they all contribute, but only about 200 players (rough guess) have a likeness with any market value.

I’ve already said I’m fine with some reforms. I’d be fine slapping on a monthly cash add-on to the scholarship, for example. Have you read what the other side is saying though? “The NCAA makes me sick.” “Abolish college sports.” “The shame of college sports.” They aren’t looking for letting college athletes sell their Instagram brand.

Oh look, E has a position opposed by many in the board and is arguing with multiple people simultaneously, who could have predicted such a thing would occur

Wherein college athletes have been forced and brainwashed into neo-Marxian false consciousness.

Looks like somebody fell down the Jordan Peterson rabbit hole

E, all merc’d out: Yes they all contribute, but only about 200 players (rough guess) have a likeness with any market value.

This is simply not true. A college athlete is often a star in his/her home town and could make a few bucks e.g. showing up in a team jersey and signing autographs at a local venue to generate sales. We’re not only talking about making millions off of one’s likeness.

E, all merc’d out: I’ve already said I’m fine with some reforms. I’d be fine slapping on a monthly cash add-on to the scholarship, for example. Have you read what the other side is saying though? “The NCAA makes me sick.” “Abolish college sports.” “The shame of college sports.” They aren’t looking for letting college athletes sell their Instagram brand.

I agree that the “abolish the NCAA” positions are extreme and fly in the face of the feelings of most college athletes, who are thrilled to be part of a college team and shouldn’t be even remotely compared to exploited sweatshop workers. But there’s a vast middle ground, and you seem to be arguing that the “professionalization” of NCAA sports in a way that shifts profits from advertisers, athletic directors, coaches, and endowments (and that’s just the non-corrupt stuff) will doom small programs and women’s sports. Frankly, it’s a tired, ole argument that the article you criticize crushes. The face of both professional and college sports today is unrecognizable from what it was 60 years ago and largely to the benefit of the athlete. The move towards more “equitable” compensation for athletes is inexorable, and it’s only a matter of time. The NCAA would be wise to get ahead of the curve by meeting somewhere in the middle in a collective bargaining arrangement.

Z-man: But there’s a vast middle ground, and you seem to be arguing that the “professionalization” of NCAA sports in a way that shifts profits from advertisers, athletic directors, coaches, and endowments (and that’s just the non-corrupt stuff) will doom small programs and women’s sports. Frankly, it’s a tired, ole argument that the article you criticize crushes.

We don’t disagree that much, but it’s an unavoidable fact that the vast majority of the programs the NCAA oversees are unprofitable and would be gone if civilian world business principles were applied to them. So the choices are either (1) they go; or (2) they’re subsidized. So we can’t have civilian world business principles applied. They don’t fit anyway to a university, non-profit setting, but they also don’t fit even to the athletic part of the university, non-profit setting.

I liked your question about the LeBron James marketing himself to Kentucky through an agent and there probably are other examples of stars marketing themselves to fundraisers/charities, etc. — i.e. other non-profits who have to take in money to subsidize good things. Think of the Red Cross, St. Jude’s, the Leukemia/Lymphoma Society. And of course the stars who help with fundraisers, including political fundraisers, don’t do it for free. But then the analogy breaks down, because LeBron isn’t being paid $1M to raise extra money for the women’s sports teams at Kentucky or the NCAA; he’d be paid the $1M to help Kentucky win more basketball games. I suppose, playing it out, that if someone could show me that getting LeBron to the NCAA in the first place would help the NCAA “raise more money,” I might be able to get behind it — the same way I’d be fine paying the Stones to do a Red Cross fundraiser. But I see no evidence that that’s true.

E, it’s true that a lot of NCAA sports players want to do it, know they are never going to be pros, but get a benefit from the system. But there are some things that are so hypocritical about big time college sports that they make the whole enterprise look bad. If a student at the music is actually paid to perform outside the school the music is proud of that student. It helps the schools reputation. He or she doesn’t get kicked out of the school band or any other music school activity. And such a student is expected to have an agent, not denied it. But in Athletics it’s different. All the examples above show how different. It shouldn’t be that way.

Buckle up…

Sure sounds like it’ll be a case of which max offer he prefers, right? And whether New Orleans will want to keep him anyways.

He’s a unique talent but he can’t stay on the court.

Unless he literally has, like, brittle bone disease or something, I don’t think bone breaks are something specific to a player, so I wouldn’t read too much into it. If this was non-contact stuff or chronic injuries, then it’d be a much bigger deal.

He’s gonna sign a max offer sheet with the Knicks and LaVar and the agent are going to agitate against the Pellies matching it and then the Pellies are going to try to extract players and draft picks, while at the same time making it clear that they aren’t going to be browbeat into not matching. At that time, Rose and Aller and the rest will have to earn their money. I’d have preferred to have gotten him at the deadline.

This is my prediction.

This may come as a shock, but E is arguing against a straw man. He is pointing out the complications that could arise if every single D1 athlete was guaranteed a salary. While I think the ethical case for that is strong, and Silky makes a convincing argument that if the NCAA can’t provide it they shouldn’t be allowed to operate sports leagues that are professional in all but name, it raises enough issues that no one is calling for it to be implemented tomorrow.

He isn’t engaging with the fact that colleges are banned from compensating their athletes, despite the fact that 82 schools view it as within their interests to spend at least seven figures annually on their football programs when it comes to their head coaches. Schools know how to budget for that such that their women’s programs and less popular sports aren’t destroyed, and simply allowing them to direct those some funds towards athletes wouldn’t change that.

Nor is he engaging with the fact that D1 athletes who do develop viable markets for their likeness are banned from capitalizing on it (even with the new rules, there are so many exceptions and regulations no one can argue they can actually capitalize on the market), which actually disproportionately hurts the ones that won’t become professional (as Z-Man points out, there is absolutely a market for tons of D1 active athletes to capitalize on when it comes to their likeness).

Brian Cronin: Rarely has an MVP candidacy sprung out of nowhere like this, right? His MVP narrative is on fire right now.

Draftkings lists Harden as 7:1 to win the MVP. I’m not a betting man but those sure are tempting odds.

There are other solutions as well. The article points to the difference between football and basketball. I can see a future where the NCAA is watered down as a governing body and mega-conferences with their own rules emerge. The Big 10, ACC and Pac-12 could form a mega-league with their own playoff structure and player compensation rules and freeze out all the other colleges to fend for themselves and figure it out. Maybe the Knicks FO/CAA/Kentucky partnership becomes a thing and the G-League becomes college-based. Maybe women led by the Megan Rapinoes of the world start boycotting men’s sports altogether and funnel more revenue into women sports infrastructure. But without doubt, the signs are pointing in the direction of change.

If the Knicks retain cap space, is there any way to use it after the season concludes?

Yes, they can use it right up until free agency.

The 8 hours was our shortest run in decades!

Wow! Do you recall which player had the longest bidding for?

On the NCAA.

As with every political debate, I find myself in the middle. I believe in amateur sports but it’s not an absolute. There’s a limit. If my school sells shirts with my name on the back, I should get a cut. On the other hand, there’s a slippery slope that eventually leads to shady agents.

Alan Hahn brought up something about a month or so ago. There’s talk of forming an independent professional league for the elite pre-NBA talent. I believe it was for kids ages 16 .

Quick edit…
I haven’t read it, but here’s a link to that new league

Alan: And also how much either team is willing to give NOLA to prevent a match.

This appears to be shaping up as a huge game of chicken.

Brian Cronin: Unless he literally has, like, brittle bone disease or something, I don’t think bone breaks are something specific to a player, so I wouldn’t read too much into it. If this was non-contact stuff or chronic injuries, then it’d be a much bigger deal.

2018: Left Ankle sprain
2019: Right Ankle sprain
2019: Concussion
2020: Hamstring
2021: Fractured Hand
2021: Fractured Foot
Source

GoNYGoNYGo – Tired of Tanking:
On the NCAA.

As with every political debate, I find myself in the middle.I believe in amateur sports but it’s not an absolute. There’s a limit. If my school sells shirts with my name on the back, I should get a cut. On the other hand, there’s aslippery slope that eventually leads to shady agents.

Alan Hahn brought up something about a month or so ago. There’s talk of forming an independent professional league for the elite pre-NBA talent. I believe it was for kids ages 16 .

Quick edit…
I haven’t read it, but here’s a link to that new league

The middle doesn’t work on the internet real well. That’s where I am, too, on almost all this stuff. Center-left, even.

As to Hahn’s idea, everything goes haywire here as opposed to Europe because all our leagues have drafts. If it was just a free-for-all, as it essentially is in Euro soccer, the Knicks could sign LeBron at 12 or 13, pay him to develop, and reap the benefit when he turns 18. The real “cartels” are the leagues and that distorts everything. Of course, if it was a free-for-all, you wouldn’t have 30 profitable teams, you’d have like 10 or 15, so the league’s position serves its interests well — but it’s still pure cartel.

In the era of DNP-CDs, this dude is not only crushing the advanced and rate stats, but putting up NBA Live ’95 “we can’t program a fatigue stat” volume. He’s a hulking C who has played the 2nd-most minutes in the damn league! No question he’s my MVP over Harden.

Oh, I think Jokic is the clear call, but Harden’s narrative is on fire and I think there’s a decent chance he eventually passes Jokic among the voters. It doesn’t help that the Nuggets aren’t exactly lighting things up in the West.

Brian Cronin: Oh, I think Jokic is the clear call, but Harden’s narrative is on fire and I think there’s a decent chance he eventually passes Jokic among the voters. It doesn’t help that the Nuggets aren’t exactly lighting things up in the West.

Yeah, I hear you. The narrative is on fire, and Harden has (surprise!) played out of his mind.

E, all merc’d out: The tie between American sport and schools is unique in the world; Europeans wouldn’t be expected to understand it fully.

Wouldn’t it be so cool if posters only commented on matters they understand it fully?

the ncaa isn’t profitable because it’s a nonprofit organization.. but that doesn’t mean these colleges, conferences and its leadership don’t ‘profit’ immensely from this arrangement…

This team would be sort of spicy if we managed to nab Porter and a center or PF off of waivers. Hope we can nab him

DudesTown:
Are Jeff Teague and Otto Porter both available? Could they help in a limited capacity?

Last I saw the Magic intend to keep Porter. Teague is available.

swiftandabundant: The injuries this year are the more serious ones. The other ones are just what NBA players go through.
2018-2019 – he played in 66 games (out of 82)
2019-2020 – he played in 61 games (out of 66 games)

He was available for 68 games in his rookie season, but got 2 DNP’s in the first 4 games (what a brilliant coach we had at the time).

The Honorable Cock Jowles: He’s a hulking C who has played the 2nd-most minutes in the damn league! No question he’s my MVP over Harden.

With Thibs he’d be 1st playing the whole 48 mins. 😉 But yeah, that’s super impressive.

Just a thought.

Universities make huge investments building arenas and playing fields, hiring coaches, coaching staff, scouts, trainers, medical staffs, buying training equipment, giving out scholarships, etc… It seems obvious they are entitled to earn a profit on all those investments otherwise why not just screw sports and put all the money into passive stock and bond funds and take a nap.

The debate is really about whether they are making excess profits relative to their investments by taking advantage of the college athletes.

For example, if some university invests a ton of money in those things and gets a 10% return on all that capital IMO that’s a reasonable return given there are risks the program could fail, the coach suck, the team suck, ratings be very low etc.. If it’s making 20% or 30% there’s a very good case to be made they are using their position to make excess profits and something should be done to address that,

But without exact numbers (and I certainly don’t know them), most of these opinions are more political than business/economic.

Beyond that there are other issues like endorsements or the age requirement for the NBA that need to be debated further, but universities are entitled to a good return.

I think Lonzo would come to NY because even if he’s not motivated by exactly the same things as his father, his father still has some influence. LaVar is motivated to a great degree by money. Chicago is a great city, but it’s not NY. So if the basketball part of it is even close, I think he’ll come to NY.

Since college sports is such a non-issue to me, I’m not going to comment further beyond saying that the momentum is in favor of more player compensation, either in the form of money, rights, or perqs. The horse is out of the barn. I am pretty confident that compromises will be made to make the system better for all involved. May take a few years, even decades, but things are headed that way.

Since college sports is such a non-issue to me, I’m not going to comment further beyond saying that the momentum is in favor of more player compensation, either in the form of money, rights, or perqs.

I have no opinion one way or the other on what will happen or should happen because I don’t know the subject well enough, but I guarantee one thing. There is no free lunch. If they start paying some or all athletes, the money is going to come from someone else either directly or via cuts to something else and that someone is going to be whining about how the new system sucks. 🙂

Deeefense: I don’t know the answer to that, but I also know that what I personally think is fair is not always equal to what is fair or what the market dictates.

Free market is probably a mischaracterization if we get technical, but the slightly freer version of the market where the NCAA doesn’t hold a monopoly over college athletes, imposes a restriction against getting paid, and whatever other necessary caveats that would apply in an antitrust suit.

It seems obvious they are entitled to earn a profit on all those investments

TIL public universities are for-profit enterprises

Why are we discussing a max contract for this guy and his perfectly average advanced stats? What am I missing?

Ingmarrrr:
Why are we discussing a max contract for this guy and his perfectly average advanced stats? What am I missing?

Maybe his best years are ahead of him? He does seem to keep getting better, at least his shooting % keeps going up.

E, all merc’d out: If the NCAA faded away, another association of “Schools whose athletes are amateurs and want to compete against each other under common rules” would rise up in its place, and a bunch of schools and teams would willingly and voluntarily join.

That’s essentially what D3, and in a way, certain D1 conferences (e.g. Patriot League, Ivy League) are. They espouse that they only give scholarships based on financial need and applicants still need to meet their academic standards. Of course, these rules are bent to a degree, but the end result is far closer to the idea of an “amateur” league than, say, the Big 10.

The nice thing is that students have much greater access to games and players are more a part of the school fabric than at other schools. While there is media coverage, it tends to be muted and largely for alumni and such.

There’s no way the Big 10 ever devolves to that, no matter what happens. It’s just an impossibility.

The far more likely outcome is that either top athletes will be siphoned off to professional developmental leagues (in baseball players don’t come from NCAA programs) or the NCAA will avoid that outcome by offering more to star athletes to lessen that temptation.

So teams like Duke and Kentucky will continue to attract some stars who want the college vibe, but many 1-and-done types will go straight to the NBA or paid developmental leagues where they don’t have to pretend to be students or that they have met some sort of entrance criteria. That might knock 30-40 b-ball players out of the college ranks. Bottom line is, most of us will still find March Madness better to watch than any developmental league basketball. I doubt that the incoming revenue stream changes much.

cybersoze: Didn’t knew that i have one of the “nuestros hermanos” (that’s how we call spanish people here in Portugal) here on the forum. Nice. 🙂

Thank you, Portugal is an awesome country and I cant wait for the pandemic to stop and make a trip, 🙂

Its his age and the trajectory of improvement he’s shown so far. How often does a 22 year old starting caliber PG who plays good defense and has shown improvement on his shooting become available on the open market. That is why Lonzo could get a max. If he was 28 or even 25 and was putting up the same numbers this year, he wouldn’t be a max possibility. You’re paying for his potential.

I agree, perfectly average 22 year old PGs usually make for really good players. Besides, max contracts after the rookie years are not that big, and there is a scarcity of PGs available in FA (possibly driven by the fact that it is the position where they decline earlier, Chris Paul notwithstanding)

Z-man: The nice thing is that students have much greater access to games and players are more a part of the school fabric than at other schools. While there is media coverage, it tends to be muted and largely for alumni and such.

There’s no way the Big 10 ever devolves to that, no matter what happens. It’s just an impossibility.

That’s 90%+ of NCAA athletics.

I never say never to anything. If SEC football says tomorrow that they’re dropping out of the NCAA and paying players whatever it takes to get them there, I don’t know that the whole Big 10 decides to join that arms race. Ohio State would, for sure, but only a few of the schools could afford it and at places like Michigan, there would be a lot of sentiment to just throw in the towel and go independent D-3-ish. Schools like Rutgers are losing a bunch of money already and could never hope to compete in that kind of world. Even the whole SEC wouldn’t go along; you’d never see a Vanderbilt football going along with it. Money has already changed the conferences massively in just the past 10-15 years; add even more money and start competing for players monetarily and it would change the conferences to something unrecognizable.

Our roster is paper thin. Beyond the top 7 or 8 we have big question marks. We should add a Henson or a Rondae Hollis Jefferson for added depth in case of any further injuries.

Why are we discussing a max contract for this guy and his perfectly average advanced stats? What am I missing?

I’m not enamored with the idea, but like BC said that’s what it will take. The fact of the matter is we have to use our cap space at some point, otherwise it will just go away by virtue of having to pay Mitch, RJ, IQ, future draft picks, etc.

Will there be better ways to use it before that point than on a 23 year old point guard who fills multiple areas of need (3PT shooting, playmaking, transition points) for us? Possibly, but when you look at the list of upcoming free agents I’d say that’s far from a sure thing.’

It’s worth noting that even with Lonzo on a full max, we could still theoretically create around $30M in cap space for the summer of 2022 factoring in Randle and Mitch’s cap holds. The exact number would depend on exactly where all of our picks land, but we’d still have one last shot to do something fairly big before having to pay RJ.

It takes a long time to draft and develop a PG. Getting one who is pretty good, and who is young and on the upswing, seems like a fine idea to me.

Max Lonzo, keep both of the 2021 first rounders, and bring back some of the more productive veterans, and you’d have a pretty good core with room to grow. Maybe as TNFH mentioned above you can make one more big move to add to that core.

I think we’re at the point in the win curve where it doesn’t make sense to keep moving forward with a black hole at PG.

I hate paying for potential, RFA deals are usually the worst ones on the market, and I really don’t think Lonzo is the worth a max.

That being said, it’s not the worst thing to overpay one guy when 4/5 of your starting lineup is vastly underpaid.

The important thing is that even if we overpay Lonzo, we still have the flexibility to make one more move. Like, I dunno… trade for Bradley Beal 🙂

Ball, Beal, Barrett, Randle, Mitch with IQ off the bench? I’m into it. Very, very into it.

I’m so sorry

Jeff Teague signing with Milwaukee. So they’ll get to use both of the point guards that some people were arguing the Knicks should have signed instead of bringing back Elf. Speaking of which…

I think we’re at the point in the win curve where it doesn’t make sense to keep moving forward with a black hole at PG.

We have to stop dicking around at point guard next season. In an ideal world, Quickley would be that guy, and there are occasional nights where he looks like it, but far more where he seems like Lou Williams 2.0. Barring a miracle, we’re not going to be picking high enough to take Cade or Suggs, and none of the late lottery/teens PG prospects seem like they’d be ready to start and run an offense immediately. CP3 is probably not leaving Phoenix, for reasons we’ve discussed ad nauseum. We could balloon pay Lowry or Conley, but they may both be happy where they are, and are also at an age where non-superhumans at the position (aka, people who are not CP3) can fall off a cliff. So then our free agent options become guys like Dennis Schroder, Patty Mills, Dinwiddie coming off an injury, or Lonzo. We could try trading for someone, but that could cost a lot in assets, assuming there’s even someone as good as Lonzo available.

At a certain point, we need to see what this team looks like with even competent point guard play. Lonzo’s imperfect, but he brings enough other things to the table on defense and from distance that he may well be our best option. Even at a post-rookie max.

Well, at least Olynyk can’t hurt us anymore.

I hate that guy!

Well, not really, but you know what I mean. 🙂

Maybe my google skills need work but I couldn’t actually find what the max contract we can offer Lonzo as an RFA is. All I found was a bunch of outdated articles speculating his next contract at an $18-20mm AAV.

Anyone know his max? I’m assuming it’s like $28mm. That’s about $10mm higher than I would pay, but this is the benefit of the rookie contracts. You can afford one overpay.

Since I’m all woke up about the NCAA from today’s thread, here’s something I did not know about the NCAA and WNBA, from a Ringer story:

But the WNBA maintains a strange set of eligibility rules that specifically disadvantages those who play at the college level. While international players are eligible to enter the WNBA at age 20, women who play college basketball can’t join the WNBA until they’re 22 or have completed their undergraduate degree. Although both Bueckers and Clark are clearly capable of outplaying their college competition, they can’t move on to the pros for three more years, unless they take extra classes and graduate early. (Since the NCAA also prevents athletes from profiting off their names, images, and likenesses, Bueckers and Clark also can’t make money off their huge social media followings.)

I hate paying for potential,

It sucks because there’s risk in it, but it’s part both the draft and other salary negotiations. It’s the flip side of not wanting to pay some 35 year old the max for 3 more years even if had great year last year. You know there’s a risk he could decline rapidly.

I think the trick would be to have some “special” insights that other teams don’t have into which types of players are more likely to improve than others. That way you are reducing the risk relative to average and may still be getting a good value deal.

@NY_KnicksPR
Reggie Bullock and Julius Randle are available for tonight’s game against Miami.

All hands on deck, more or less…

I would be OK with Cousins as long as he realizes he’s 2nd option behind Nerlens and maybe even 3rd option behind Gibson if he’s getting killed in the P&R. Somehow I don’t think he’s going to accept that easily even at this stage.

KFINJ re our discussion about LeBron’s high ankle sprain, you let on that you were a podiatrist and should therefore be an expert in Mitch-type injuries. Question: Is the fact that it hasn’t been referred to as a Jones fracture suggestive that it’s one of the more common types of 5th metacarpal fractures?

The WNBA’s a tough one because without the NBA’s subsidy, they’d go out of business. Not sure it’s good social policy to steer college students away from education to a business that really isn’t any good. (And frankly, there are better things to do with one’s life than playing basketball. Get your few years of fun in college and then move on. With very, very few exceptions. If the basketball side is asking too much of these people in terms of time and commitment when they’re in college, then regulate that.)

Knick fan not in NJ: Sorry, I think that was KnickfaninCelticLand.I am a scientist, not a podiatrist and don’t know anything about foot fractures

Haha, u guys aren’t related?

Paying a not star/superstar-youngster top$ while the rest of your team is underpaid don’t seem to me like a great idea lockerroomwise

Knick fan not in NJ: I am a scientist

Now i’m imagining you with scientist glasses performing experiences such as… explosions? 😀

Knick fan not in NJ:
We both like the Knicks, so we must have some DNA in common.

Well, we both grew up in New Jersey.

Being worried about the younger Knicks being jealous of lonzo’s new contract seems like a really far fetched he’s thing to be worried about. Are IQ and RJ supposed to be mad at Lonzo for getting paid because they’re still in rookie contracts? That’s how it works in the NBA. If your concern was an issue than every NBA locker room would have this problem.