07/18/2025 11:00:01
07/18/2025 11:00:00
07/18/2025 08:15:53
07/18/2025 05:09:58
07/18/2025 03:20:00
07/18/2025 03:06:00
07/18/2025 02:34:00
07/18/2025 01:25:08
07/18/2025 01:32:00
07/18/2025 00:02:00
07/17/2025 23:58:25
07/18/2025 00:00:16
07/18/2025 00:30:00
07/17/2025 22:55:51
07/17/2025 23:13:30
07/17/2025 22:50:36
07/17/2025 23:09:53
07/17/2025 22:57:38
53 replies on “Knicks Morning News (2025.07.18)”
donnie walsh its ok if you want to include lillard in the package that the blazers got for lillard but if you do so then you have to take ayton out since he is not on the team anymore you cant have it both ways
mccullar impressed me i would trust him with the ball in his hands at the end of the game or even to take game-winning free throws of course it is unlikely that he will be in either of those scenarios anytime soon for 3 pointers as odd as it sounds to say i like dink pates form the most and he hit 5 of 11 of them (he also hit all six of his free throws and those two things are somehow supposed to correlate)
Does anyone of note (other than maybe Beauchamp as a high-usage guy) play in our last summer league game? Could this be The Luka Scuka Game?
Dink is a nice kid t try to develop in the G-League…young, some skills, good measurables. No chance at all he plays a minute for us this year, he’s too physically immature to handle the physicality in the NBA.
McCullar’s issue is that he already played in the NBA so he’s a RFA. The only way we can keep him is if 1) no one makes him an offer above the vet’s minimum, and Leon uses that slot to sign him (not gonna happen) or 2) he agrees to another 2-way (reasonably likely). Either way, I don’t think he’s worth thinking about very much.
I’ve weirdly been enjoying the Luka Scuka Experience, admittedly supported by the delight surrounding his name. Even though he is not good at basketball (even discounting his horrible Celtics game [!] he’s still only shooting 36%), he seems like he’s in every scrum for the ball. Here’s hoping he has a long and fruitful career overseas and that our Euro contingent reports on him regularly…
Alan, maybe at most Kolek plays again because he needs the reps, but I think the FO has seen enough of the roster guys and Diawara.
Guessing (hoping?) that with Huk, Kolek, and Dadiet as roster givens, the rookie roster spot goes to Diawara and the 2-ways get offered to three of McCullar, Pate, Nnaji, and Beauchamp. But who knows? Maybe some Exhibit 10 player moves ahead in the 2-way pecking order…
Felt very bad for Biwali Bayles, probably gonna lose a season just for coming over to this shitshow for the exposure and experience. He played his ass off yesterday and I found myself rooting for him.
I think you have to play Kolek again, but maybe it’s considered disrespectful. As a second year guy and older prospect, he needs to show more.
Pate and Nnaji probably play. Though Nnaji barely plays even when he does.
Anton Watson, our other other 2-way to close out last season likely plays again. Not sure he’s all that noteworthy as his 3pt shot still looks off.
And yeah, I think Beauchamp should play, partially to advertise himself and partially to let the role players play as role players.
But peak basketball would of course be Luka Scuka and Yudai Baba dominating the game.
i hope diawara plays
Pate’s SL per 36 line is 17/13/6 with only 1.7 TOs. His fg% is awful, but give him 2-3 year of weight training and I’d bet that goes up.
My only worry about putting him on a 2-way is that he jumps ship when he’s actually good enough to play in the NBA.
Give me Pate and McCullar on a 2-way. I’d probably leave one spot open till after training camp, or nominally fill it to give someone a payday.
I am confused too. But I did note that Lillard is getting an extra year in his new contract with Portland, so whatever he gets for that year isn’t covered by Milwaukee and he definitely has incentive to get more than the minimum for that season.
I don’t know the details but I believe Clarkson was bought out and Lillard was stretched. I’m assuming it’s a difference between those two mechanisms, but it’s not something I’m going to really dig into unless it affects the Knicks.
Cool article from Owen Phillips about which Summer League statistics tend to be “sticky” i.e. remain stable in a player’s rookie season, and which ones can be mostly ignored.
Most of the findings are fairly intuitive–stats that say more about play style than play quality like 3PAr, AST/36, and BLK/36 are much stickier. Still, it’s a good read. I’ve always found the kind of nihilistic “it’s summer league ignore it all” approach to be a bit wanting, since at least anecdotally we can all recall so many canaries in the coal mines, both positive and negative.
Unfortunately there’s not a whole lot of relevance to the current Knicks, as we don’t project to give any real time to rookies and the article doesn’t touch on the implications for non-rookie summer league players.
Diawara, Huk, and McCullar are all nursing minor injuries. So the organization might not want to risk any of them playing in a meaningless game.
the applied set-off is only ~half the new contract for every year it overlaps the original bought-out deal. specifically it’s half new salary less the applicable minimum. so lillard gets to keep roughly $15mm extra of the $27mm over the first two years of the new blazers deal. similarly, clarkson would have benefited from a bigger deal. the discount taken in the buyout doesn’t matter.
Apparently we play tomorrow at 3:30 against the Wizards, who somehow suck even in Summer League.
Maybe a couple of these kids will eventually grow into useful rotation players long term as the widow on the current group starts to close, but I don’t see anyone I think is very likely to have an impact on wins this season.
I’m a big Kolek fan because I think he has high level court vision and passing skills. I like players with at least one elite skill. Then I can picture a role for that player as he hopefully develops adequacy elsewhere.
I suspected he’d have fewer assists because his summer league teammates would brick more of his good passes. But I’m not sure I’ve seen much development elsewhere. Even defensively, I can’t tell if he’s gotten a little better or he just looks a little better because he’s not guarding NBA caliber players.
IMO backup PG is still an issue on this team. I’ll leave it to Brown to decide if he thinks Kolek is ready. If not, I’m not in favor of some kind of PG by committee situation with Deuce, Clarkson and Hart. I’d want to add someone that can run an offense. I’d be fine with Simmons. He’s not ideal or reliable, but he can defend and run a team.
As crazy as it sounds, I’d actually be interested in inking Ben Simmons- shooting be damned. Size, defensive versatility, and playmaking is what this team needs more of. Question is- would he accept the vet minimum? I think he’d be fine on this roster- we just can’t play him and Hart on the court with Brunson because he won’t have true catch and shoot threats with him. But- as a 2nd unit chess piece? He’d help the offense get organized without sacrificing size and defense at minimum.
tnfh: i know that in the past we have not been projected to give any real pt to rookies but a lot of that was thibs i truly hope that in the new regime mike brown et al. see fit to develop those guys and part of development in my opinion is giving them a little time on the floor in actual games even on top of blowout situations as most if not all other teams do
alan: did not know (or remember) about those injuries to diawara huk mccullar so thanks
strat: i would love if delon wright was our backup pg and kolek was third string who still got 5-8 minutes per game
I’m spookily with Doogie on Please no to Ben Simmons and let’s just have Delon as back-up PG as he shouldn’t embarrass us, can play decent D and make layups, and would let some of our wings cook while Jalen sits. Kolek in garbage time until/unless he starts showing out, then he can take Delon’s minutes.
If we did keep Delon I’d expect him to be third-string behind Deuce, who would vacillate between point and two-guard depending on matchups. But I don’t want it to be just Deuce and Kolek when Jalen has to sit for a game or two because he rolled his ankle. And I REALLY don’t want it to be Simmons. We don’t need a giant version of Frank.
I’d have no issue with Wright. I like him. But he doesn’t seem to be getting any mention as someone they are still interested in.
thanks pt, so is it fair to say that my point that Clarkson could have theoretically waited for better offers and made more money actually stands? Not suggesting that he actually would have received substantially better offers, just that he could have tested the market and potentially benefitted financially, which was refuted when I pointed it out.
“just that he could have tested the market and potentially benefitted financially,..”
Yeah Z-man, you were correct (which I didn’t believe at the time). Though I think in practice there are good faith negotiations between the player’s agent and the team to gauge the market before the actual buyout, so the economics of doing it are in front of them. Suspect the role Portland played was already known when Lillard was waived and Clarkson and Utah knew that he was in vets minimum territory.
“And I REALLY don’t want it to be Simmons. We don’t need a giant version of Frank.”
No offense, but I don’t understand why anyone would rather use our remaining vet’s minimum spot on Delon Wright over Ben Simmons, unless there is evidence that he injured and will be unable to play.
I also don’t get the comparison to Frank at all. Even at this stage in his career (and he turns 29 on Sunday) Simmons has been a 3X all-star, a 2X DPOY candidate, and even a long shot MVP candidate. He still has multiple plus skills. Frank sucked, period.
thanks pt, so is it fair to say that my point that Clarkson could have theoretically waited for better offers and made more money actually stands? Not suggesting that he actually would have received substantially better offers, just that he could have tested the market and potentially benefitted financially, which was refuted when I pointed it out.
yes, although i have no idea what refutation you’re referencing; presumably someone here and not just like guy at pilates. in practice when a player takes a discount on a buyout like clarkson did the agent has typically already called around and tried to figure out demand well in advance so he may have had a decent idea that a better offer was unlikely.
That’s just it. His injury is both mental and pernament. It’s been 4yrs. If his mental condition was reversible, the league and Ben would have figured it out by now. Doc ruined him. It’s game over for Ben. Best wishes in retirement and act two of his life.
starters: brunson (33) bridges (30) anunoby (30) towns (34) robinson (24)
dynamic bench: hart (22) yabusele (18) deuce (17) clarkson (12) wright (10) hukporti (10)
the rest: kolek mccullar diawara
pg: brunson 33, wright 10, mcbride 5
sg: bridges 24, mcbride 12, clarkson 12
sf: anunoby 30, hart 12, bridges 6
pf: towns 20, yabusele 18, hart 10
c: robinson 24, towns 14, hukporti 10
a happy problem: i am having lots of trouble finding minutes for everyone we have a lot of talent on this team
“in practice when a player takes a discount on a buyout like clarkson did the agent has typically already called around and tried to figure out demand well in advance so he may have had a decent idea that a better offer was unlikely.”
Or alternatively, he may have felt that at this stage in his career, his best path to a more lucrative (or a the very least, more fulfilling) future was to play a pivotal role for a contender in the biggest market in the league. You would think that a player with Clarkson’s resume and age would have no truble landing a vet’s minimum deal at any point between now and the start of the season, so why not wait until it was clear that no one was going to offer you something like the TPMLE or that a rebuilding team like last year’s Pistons with cap space might bring you on in an OG in the locker room role?
I think it reasonable to believe that Clarkson’s decision was made so quickly at least in part because he/his agent thinks he can make noise at MSG that will lead to an opportunity to make more than the minimum in 2026-27.
“That’s just it. His injury is both mental and pernament. It’s been 4yrs. If his mental condition was reversible, the league and Ben would have figured it out by now. Doc ruined him. It’s game over for Ben. Best wishes in retirement and act two of his life.”
Is that you or your wife talking? 😉
As of right now, Clarkson is our backup PG. That’s a fairly appetizing place to be at.
Things I like about Simmons:
(1) He has the size to masquerade as a PF, which is our other shallowest position.
(2) He scored as many pts/36 as Delon while doubling his assist total
(3) We struggled on the defensive boards last year (19th) and Simmons grabbed 7.7 rebs/36
There’s some scenario where we run a lineup of Simmons/Deuce/Mikal/OG/Yabu that desperately needs his rebounding, even with KAT instead of Yabu we could use more rebounding.
I think it reasonable to believe that Clarkson’s decision was made so quickly at least in part because he/his agent thinks he can make noise at MSG that will lead to an opportunity to make more than the minimum in 2026-27.
sure ok but i don’t understand why we care about this. are we worried jordan only loves us for our (minimum) money?
one of god’s many gifts to us all: country fried steak smothered in gravy…life tastes good…
Z-Man, to answer your question I’ll need to get all philosophicalistic.
I’m first a fan. I appreciate GM’ing, and I enjoy the convoluted conversations around the subtleties therein, but I cede most of that to Dred. As Clint said, a man’s gotta know his limitations.
I like to root for guys who are fun, and talented. Arguably in that order (but not always). Not excited about guys who are head cases, nor excited about narcissists. My concern with Clarkson is he might be the latter (he has skills, why does has he so consistently burned them with bad chucking?), while Ben is globally known for the former.
Clarkson might make me angry, while Ben is probably going to make me sad. Neither emotion is why I tune in to watch the Knicks.
Delon can’t rebound like Ben, and probably can’t pass like him, and can only guard 1-3, rather than 1-5. (Of course, he has hit almost 35% of his threes in his career, vs. nearly 14%…) He’s also perfectly cromulent, which seems right for a third-string, break glass for emergency, pg option.
Simmons only being 29 is nuts. This is a guy people compared to LeBron James as a rookie, and it wasn’t completely insane!
I guess he’s now settling into being something like a jumbo Elfrid Payton, which, despite our understandable misgivings about Payton himself, is not a bad backup point guard. So I’d be okay with him as our last minimum signing, but would prefer someone who stands a chance of being useful in the playoffs.
how about *actual* elfrid payton hed be cheap im pretty sure im kidding
Simmons still looks pretty good on paper, but his one glaring flaw— a complete inability to put the ball in the basket from more than a foot or two away from the hoop— is SO glaring that it renders him completely unplayable in the playoffs, and makes it hard to fit him into lineups even in the regular season. He’s a one man space destroyer.
Delon at least has a prayer of sticking a J every now and then. I’d be intrigued with what Simmons has to offer, but having no ability to shoot is like the equivalent of having a 30 hit tool in baseball. It’s kind of unplayable even if you’re a gold glove CF.
“sure ok but i don’t understand why we care about this. are we worried jordan only loves us for our (minimum) money?”
I wouldn’t care except that folks made it out to sound like a) he is a vet’s minimum quality player, which I disagree with, and b) better options for his potential role were available at that price. I feel that he could have earned more somewhere else, and that was disputed.
The larger point is that not all vet’s minimum guys are actually making what they are getting paid. Some are worth more, some less. Some are redundant, some fill immediate rotational needs. Some you can afford to wait on, some should be snapped up at the first opportunity. Some teams can offer more because of their cap situation and don’t, some can’t
I think Clarkson represents a tremendous use of that slot, because we don’t have a guy on the bench who can be a consistent microwave scorer, and were unlikely to find a better option for that role at that price, nor could we spend more to find one. I also believe that had he waited, it’s quite possible that a team with the cap-related option to do so could have outbid us for his services before the regular season started.
OTOH, I’m not exactly enthusiastic about the possibility of acquiring Simmons. I am only saying that if Leon does acquire him, it would be a very interesting development and I would be intrigued to see whether he actually can continue to re-establish a positive niche as an NBA player, given his pre-meltdown resume.
@Fullcourtpass
Cam Thomas believes that he should be paid on par with the likes of Immanuel Quickley, Tyler Herro, and RJ Barrett, per @NYPost_Lewis
Thomas is seeking a deal in the neighborhood of $30 million annually
(https://nypost.com/2025/07/18/sports/nets-playing-waiting-game-with-cam-thomas-amid-soft-marke/)
“Clarkson might make me angry, while Ben is probably going to make me sad. Neither emotion is why I tune in to watch the Knicks.”
I guess we’re very different, because there isn’t a player on the team who doesn’t make me both angry and sad. It’s just a question of how often.
yeah i hated the clarkson move at first but have grown to at least like it if not more than that
but how many minutes per game i dont see that we can afford to have him on the floor for more than about 12 unless he is on a heater (let the game tell you what to do)
I wouldn’t have Clarkson on my team if he paid me. He’s a negative defender and he’s a high usage low IQ, low efficiency scorer.
There’s no lineup where this guy is going to add wins unless it’s such a terrible team or poorly constructed lineup that he SUBTRACTS LESS than the available alternatives.
That’s the only good argument for him. Our bench sucks so bad he’ll make it less terrible.
At least when you have a guy like Simmons, Wright or anyone else that defends at a plus level their damage on offense is limited as long as you structure the lineup correctly and they stay low usage and can pass. you get the plus on D and a small to medium minus on offense. Guys like Clarkson are practically bread and butter bet against players for gamblers and guys like Wright who has been underrated his entire career are adding wins that no one appreciates.
https://x.com/KnicksFanTv/status/1946231133114384761 Mark Jones talks Mike Brown
to be clear i dont want clarkson instead of wright i want both of them wright is a good pg whereas having clarkson at pg is only a very slightly better idea than having asimov burnwall at that position
Strat, there is certainly a possibility that Clarkson will disappoint and will be detrimental to winning, and if he plays that way, it’s on Brown to address it. But you sound pretty jaded and biased against him when you say that “so long as you structure your lineup correctly” to defend the likes of Delon Wright, and don’t give Clarkson the same grace. I’d also be careful with the “low-IQ” conclusion, since he was very effective in his 6th man role the last couple of times he was in the playoffs on a good team.
Well isn’t Clarkson Clutch. There’s plenty of love handle to dig into there.
for sure
“wright is a good pg”
If “good” is equivalent to “replacement-level,” sure.
I don’t know why we brought Brown in if it isn’t to figure out how to optimally utilize a guy like Clarkson.
I think the way to optimally utilize a guy like Clarkson is to get him to make baskets, not just take shots. It’s the critical difference between ‘microwave scorer’ and ‘itinerant chucker.’ Here’s hoping Brown can help him there…
“I don’t know why we brought Brown in if…”
Exactly. Got to assume every player signed is a “Brown signing” versus the passive-aggressive stuff the FO started doing mid-Thibs regime. Am looking at roster filling as doubling down on Brown, which in the context of our short window for a championship makes sense.
yes replacement level is good enough for the 10-13 minutes per game that brunson won’t be playing same as wed be getting from kolek this year im all for having clarkson on our squad just not as a point guard
You should look at his numbers, not because they are bad (they are!), but because it is kind of weird how nobody knew it. He was not only a two time finals starter but a two time All Star as well, once with a -3.3 BPM and once with a -3.5. He was also voted MIP once, the year he got it up to a -2.8. His career VORP is -7.6 in 17,462 minutes.
Normally I’d write this off as a per-game era mis-value; however he only averaged 15 points and 6 rebounds to be an all star. Or because the Blazers were great, but, nope, for his first all star appearance they were 39-43. Or because there were no other even remotely decent players to choose over him, but, once again nope: the ‘89 western roster carried 5 centers (Kareem, Hakeem, Eaton, Chambers, and Duckworth) while 18pts and 12 assist pg Kevin Johnson was snubbed. Or because he had “high draft pick bias”, but, nope, he was a 2nd round pick. Or because he was a defensive force, but, no way, he averaged .5 blocks/36 and .5 steals, and had a 109 Drating (for context Olajuwon had a 93, Eaton had a 98).
So there you go, the mystery of Kevin Duckworth remains unsolved. For anybody who ever wondered: can a team win 63 games while playing the worst player in the league 2500 minutes? The answer is YES, but only if you have an transcendent all-time great like Terry Porter carrying his weight.
“Exactly. Got to assume every player signed is a “Brown signing” versus the passive-aggressive stuff the FO started doing mid-Thibs regime. Am looking at roster filling as doubling down on Brown, which in the context of our short window for a championship makes sense.”
Any player on a vet’s minimum FA deal has to know that they can be benched, waived, or “salary dumped” at any time without the FO caring about how the player feels about it.
Thibs permabenched Fournier, who took up a significant salary spot and represented an opportunity cost, in addition to a pouting presence on the bench.
Thibs permabenched Cam Reddish, who Leon just traded a protected first for.
Thibs permabenched (and then purposely disabled) Kemba, who cost both the pick used to salary dump him and the opportunity cost of signing him.
Thibs even permabenched his beloved Derrick Rose once the fake new car smell wore off and he was signed to a bloated extension (that THCJ mockingly predicted!)
All of those particular decisions turned out to be correct, even in a context where there was significant opportunity cost. In this regard, I hope that Mike Brown is just like Thibs. If he thinks a player is not helping the team win, he shouldn’t have that player in the rotation.
OTOH, I hope that he’s not so much like Thibs that he refuses to change his mindset about schemes and strategies and defaults to a short rotation with heavy starter minutes.
In Clarkson’s case, the minimum use he should have is as a minutes-eater for the starting lineup. He should be given every opportunity to excel in that role. If he can’t and it starts costing wins, and adjustments are tried but don’t work, he should be permabenched. The good news is that unlike the above situations, the opportunity cost is minimal.
This site uses User Verification plugin to reduce spam. See how your comment data is processed.