A Few Thoughts on Knicks Vegas Summer League Game 1

As I probably won’t get to see any more Summer League games because of travel, I’ll take this opportunity to read way too much into New York’s first game.

My proviso about pre-season in any sport is that it’s data, and all data tells you something. The trick is to figure what it tells you and what it doesn’t. Summer league can tell you if a player has NBA athleticism (or compensatory skills). It can tell you about a player’s current skill set, which can also indicate where that player needs improvement.

That said, here’s what I think I learned yesterday about a few actual and would-be Knicks.

1. Cole Aldrich can provide legit rim protection. That’s obviously not based solely on this particular game, but this game did show off his well-developed sense of timing even if it was against fringy competition. Aldrich is not an elite leaper by any stretch of the imagination, but 28″ vertical from a 6’11 guy (at the 2010 NBA combine) is plenty from a reserve big. Just as importantly, he gets off his feet quickly. He does a nice job of anticipating the shot release and clearing his body so as not to give the ball handler anything to feel. So basically he’s the anti-Ian Mahinmi. Solid signing by the Knicks. (I’m going to try to avoid spending this season gritting my teeth about Woodson’s long list of mind-boggling decisions, but his unwillingness to find minutes for Aldrich until way late is at or near the top of said list.)

2. Shane Larkin lacks functional NBA strength. I never saw Larkin play at the University of Miami but heard plenty about his quickness and pick-and-roll prowess. So his horrendous shooting numbers last season in Dallas, and inability to get to the line (really since his first year at Miami) puzzled me. His reputed quickness was apparent yesterday, yet he still looked almost physically overwhelmed at times by Vegas summer league competition. That’s often a very good indicator that a player has so little functional strength that it effectively cancels out other elite or near-elite traits. That is, he’s so weak his quickness doesn’t matter. It reminds me a bit of Mustafa Shakur, former University of Arizona and fringe NBA PG. Super-quick. High-quality handle and vision. I just knew he’d be a solid NBA guard, even if he had to go overseas and work on his shot. But Shakur was so wispy thin he simply was not strong enough to consistently get the corner against NBA athletes. Let me be clear that I’m certainly NOT pronouncing any sort of sentence on Larkin. I’m saying that his seeming inability to turn the corner on fringy NBA talent troubles me for a supposed pick-and-roll guard. Larkin, who looked a little doughy, seems to lack the upper body strength of other near-six footers of recent memory. (I’m thinking Damon Stoudamire and JJ Barea more than the freakishly athletic Nate Robinson.) Yet I didn’t see obvious evidence of an elite compensatory skill and nothing in his profile indicates that there is one. Fortunately for Larkin, getting stronger is the easiest deficiency to address. That’s mostly about dedication and hard work. JJ Reddick turned himself into a pretty good NBA player basically by getting stronger and working on his ball-handling. Like Redick, Larkin may get some time to develop from this staff since it invested in him. I certainly hope he turns into something, but I’d be very pleasantly surprised if that happens this season. Right now I’d honestly prefer Toure Murry’s length and defensive upside, but I’m willing to have Larkin win me over.

3. Cleanthony Early will bring athleticism and length. Seems like it’s been a while since the Knicks had a true small forward prospect (Rooster and Ill Will, really. Shump’s a guard who can play some small forward.) All I was really hoping for from Early, another guy I didn’t see play college, was that he’d show as one of the most athletic guys on the court. I’d already seen the excellent shooting numbers. Check. The athletic talent is there to match the shooting. I’m officially excited. I’m looking forward to seeing how the staff develops him. I didn’t even remember how that felt since Shump got drafted. It’s kinda tingly.


A Few Thoughts on The Donald

I want to offer a few thoughts on the L’Affair de Donald. I only just this morning got a chance to listen to the recorded conversation that apparently took place between L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling and his girlfriend V. Stiviano, as reported by TMZ. In the absence of any denials from Sterling’s representatives the veracity question seems to be resolved. The only remaining open question is whether Sterling could reasonably expect privacy over an argument with his girlfriend, which hinges on his complicity in the conversation’s recording. (TMZ is reporting that Sterling was fully complicit.) I cannot imagine that if one is aware of being recorded that even so-called “pillow talk” would come with an expectation of privacy. His expectations don’t and probably shouldn’t matter at a whit to the public, but likely matter a great deal to how the NBA and NBAPA will proceed.

If you’ve not had a chance to listen to the conversation I would suggest you do so. If you begin with the premise that all lives feature contested social positions and contradictions, and that what’s interesting is how we manage those contradictions, then this is a fascinating listen. There is some serious contradiction management going on in this thing. Wow. Someday, an intersectionality scholar will conduct a close reading on these tapes and will simultaneously drown, burst into flame, while his or her head implodes. Hell, I may be that scholar.


At the risk of burying the lede, allow me to start with my conclusion. The real crime here will be if the good people at Saturday Night Live and/or Drunk History simply sit back and allow this moment to go unparodied. If they fail to get the TMZ transcripts and give them the full-on Thomas Jefferson/Sallie Hemming treatment they so richly deserve then we the people will be impoverished for it.



On a mildly more serious note, I do want to respond to some of the issues that have emerged in media coverage and public discussion over the past weekend.

What Rights Do Owner Have to Say and Do As They Please? I have not heard anyone ask this question directly, but plenty have hinted at it. The question mostly comes up when powerful people are publicly shamed for a “let them eat cake” moment. A strict libertarian response to the question would be that as long as Sterling’s actions are lawful and ethical, his attitudes are a non-issue for the league. The league can and perhaps should do nothing, lest it institute an ideological litmus test that many other owners might also fail. In fact, Sterling’s rambling and barely coherent point is that his his desire for high social distance from Black masculinity–his desire for exotic Black femininity notwithstanding–represents the mainstream among those in his social milieu. (Hell, that’s why his friends told him about who was on Stiviano’s Instagram in the first place.) If the league throws Sterling out on those grounds, a whole lot of people might have to go with him if there is to be any consistency at all. Besides, the argument goes, people are free to choose. If they don’t care for Sterling’s attitudes they don’t have to go to the games–or they can go and boo to their throats are sore. Likewise, coaches and free agents can choose to sign with the Clippers of their own volition.

Although I am purposefully stripping the argument of nuance, there isn’t much nuance to strip from a strict libertarian reading. It pits property rights (and speech as an extension of those rights) against other kinds of concerns. The argument is not without its merits. Owners have and do engage in their own business, civic, and personal interests outside the scope of league business. However, a strict libertarian reading is a difficult one in a joint venture like the NBA, where franchise owners agree to a covenantal relationship governed by league bylaws and a commissioner with wide latitude to act in the league’s best interests. The league’s members rightly have an expectation that owners’ private activities do not unduly impact the logo, whose value is derived interdependently from among the franchises. So, that the league can respond seems like “settled law”. What actions trigger a response, and then what response, seem more like the pertinent issues. Doing nothing is probably not an option now. A franchise owner cannot just dis a segment of the paying public, not to mention an NBA icon, and expect that the league will do nothing.

To Protest or Not to Protest? Certainly, if the league proceeds (as it clearly intends to) it will treat this as a “best interests” matter. Many have also called for the players to take a public stand, regardless of what the league does. That includes players refusing to play. I am not here to say what any player should do, apart from what their respective consciences and politics dictate. I do however agree wholeheartedly with sentiment expressed by Jalen Rose (whose insights I have generally come to enjoy in the studio). This is a league-wide issue that calls for institutional rather than strictly personal responses from the league and from the Players Association. Clippers players should be free to do what conscience dictates, but It cannot only be about the Clippers.

For the Players Association this moment is broadly about the quality of their respective work environments rather than simply chastising a bigoted owner. I hope and expect the NBAPA to make more than the national media of Sterling’s remarks about how he “gives players food, clothing, and cars.” Those are in many critical respects far more disturbing than his wholly unremarkable race prejudice, and who he deems appropriate company at “his” games. The remarks are substantively similar to Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert’s post-Decision how-dare-he-quit-me rant about LeBron James. This NBA franchise-as-charity metaphor is not a good look. NBA franchises are not charities. They work in partnership with the players, whose compensation they collectively bargain. And regardless, even if NBA franchises were charities, who has bilked the NBA out of more than Donald Sterling? He bilked luxury tax paying teams out of several million per annum for years. His history is that of a net taker. Not a net giver.

What is to be Done? Jerry Colangelo said on Mike & Mike this morning that Sterling had a “rap sheet” that the owners find embarrassing. I think it is fairly safe to say that Colangelo is speaking on behalf of at least a significant subset of NBA owners, who presumably are expected to cede any public comments to the commissioner (and rightfully so). Colangelo’s appearance and candor suggest to me that important people have reached the, “Okay. You’re messing with my money now” breaking point with Donald Sterling.

When someone like Colangelo comes on to do damage control for the owners and then throws salt that’s a strong suggestion that something will get done. Were I commissioner Silver, here’s what I’d look into doing.

(1) Removal from any league committees indefinitely — Sterling should have no hand in setting policy or conducting the business of the league.

(2) Forfeiture of league TV revenues for at least one season — I do not believe Sterling could be forced to sell the team, short of actions directly detrimental to the business interests of the franchise and/or league. Sports franchise ownership is a difficult club to join. I cannot imagine that it’s easy to be thrown out once inside. That kind of structure encourages palace coups, and no one wants that. I would think you’d have to be caught red-handed doing damage to the group. However, it also seems to me that punishments for bad behavior are likely less bound by precedent. The most effective should combine revenue forfeiture with isolation. For that reason I would consider direct forfeiture (or fines equal to) Sterling’s share of the funds from the national TV contract.



An Early To-Do List for Phil Jackson

Since no one has said anything since the presser, I’ll take the first crack at the Jackson hire. I’m sitting at Panera allegedly working on a manuscript revision, but I need something to get my writing mojo going.

I suppose I should re-introduce myself. I go way back at Knickerblogger.net but haven’t posted in quite some time. Life thangs and such. I live in Columbia, South Carolina and work at (the first) USC. I grew up in East Orange rooting for the Mets of Mookie, Doc, and Straw, and the Nets of Otis (Birdsong) and Buck (Williams). When the Hoya Destroya, donned the orange and blue I became a Knicks fan. Then I moved to St. Louis during my first year of high school (during the ‘Mets are Pond Scum‘ era). I took chemistry with a chubby kid named Reggie Starks who would not shut up about his cousin, John. He swore that guy was the best thing since pockets. I finally saw cousin John play at Oklahoma State while I was an undergrad at Mizzou. He ultimately became my all-time favorite Knick.

So, like many of you I’ve been to it and through with this team. So I will keep my optimism about Phil Jackson guarded for now, thank you very much. At this point, I’m just looking for a couple things from him. Can he articulate a coherent, compelling vision? And, can he assemble a talented management team that works well together?

Only time will answer those questions fully. Meanwhile, Phil has a list of chores that require his more or less immediate attention.

Item #1: Requisition New Deadbolts For Dolan’s Office That Lock From The OUTSIDE

“Willingly and gratefully” notwithstanding, any time-hardened Knicks fan knows the deal with J.D. and his allegedly straight shot. The big little man just can’t help himself when an opportunity to “big time” presents itself. You just know that sliver of kryptonite will show up again in this movie, at the worst possible moment. Nevertheless, $12 million can buy a lot of lead lining. I’d still feel safer if someone locked Dolan in his office and put him on rations, at least through this first off-season.

Item #2: Build Out The Leadership Team

One thing that remains unclear is Steve Mills’ role going forward. It is difficult to believe that he is a trusted adviser to Jackson, given that he never spoke at the presser. Even if he keeps the GM tag, I wonder if his working role will be anything more than a buffer separating Dolan from Jackson . (In that sense, I’m not itching to see him go.) Regardless, I cannot imagine that Jackson and Mills will constitute the entire leadership team. This, to me is Jackson’s most significant early challenge. Although I think some of the “no experience” criticisms have been way overdone, Jackson’s only track record of putting together a leadership team is an unimpressive string of failed assistant coaches.

Item #3: Figure Out WWCAD

I am certain that Carmelo’s fate has been and will continue to be discussed and discussed some more. A friend opined a couple weeks ago that “Phil’s primary task is to get Carmelo back.” I feel less certain of that. In a broader sense, his primary task is to articulate a vision that entices Carmelo to want to stay in New York (at sub-max prices) for a rebuild into his late prime. I’m sort of agnostic about whether that is good for New York or Anthony.

Either way, Phil will need to quickly have a plan (or at least a sketch) that is clear about how he wants to build around Anthony and/or how Anthony must change to fill a different role. I would not expect Anthony to be that comfortable with the latter unless he was going to a James/Wade/Bosh situation, but you never know. Again, either way the Knicks need to know whether they are putting on the full-court press or politely stepping aside so Anthony can “explore his options”.

Item #4: Figure Out Which Kids Fit and Develop Them

For all the talk of how Anthony fits Phil (or doesn’t), I’m actually more intrigued about how he ultimately sees some of the young guys (especially Shump, Hardaway, Jr., Murry, and Tyler). My sincere hope is that Jackson ends the organization-wide disdain for drafting and developing talent that has plagued MSG since pretty much forever.

Item #5: Woody

As much vitriol as Woody induces in me, his fate is way down the list of priorities. Coaches come and go. Organizational philosophy can act to blunt a coaches’ worst excesses, in effect protecting them from themselves. (I thought Joe Dumars was particularly good at that during the Larry Brown era, for example.) I’m no fan, but whether Woody starts next season on the bench will likely have little to do with the team’s success IF it has a clear direction in terms of playing style and player development.

Seems like enough for now.


2013 Report Card: Tyson Chandler

Season Age Tm G MP PER TS% ORB% DRB% BLK%
2010-11 28 DAL 74 2059 18.4 0.697 12.2 26.6 3
2011-12 29 NYK 62 2061 18.7 0.708 11.8 22.7 3.4
2012-13 30 NYK 66 2164 18.9 0.671 14.1 24.3 3
Career 790 22508 16.1 0.615 12.8 24.1 3.7

(Table from basketball-reference.com)

Jonathan already said much of what needed to be said about Chandler’s importance to the Knicks earlier this week. Chandler’s 2013 was what we have come to think of as pretty darn Chandler-y. His past three regular seasons, one in Dallas and two in New York, all of which have seen him exceed 2000 minutes played, are nearly identical. Rock-solid-to-excellent production in practically every category. Always an excellent finisher, Chandler rarely misses inside his admittedly modest range. His tap outs on offensive rebounds are now officially “a thing” that others imitate. Say what you will about his playoff performance, the Knicks are not a 2 seed without Chandler on his A game.

I typically pay little attention to total minutes played, but in this case it’s worth looking at how his minutes were managed in Dallas versus in New York. He played fewer total minutes over 74 games in Dallas than in his two seasons in New York, where he’s never played even 70 games. (The young) Brendan Haywood and (somewhat in shape) DeSagana Diop certainly kept his minutes modest. Over his career it seems clear that all work and no rest makes Tyson a dull center come springtime. It wasn’t just 2013. His playoff numbers are generally uninspiring. And, it’s not all about health and conditioning either. As efficient as Chandler is, he is quite limited offensively, which hurts the Knicks against better defenses unless the floor is perfectly spaced around him.

In terms of assessing Chandler’s 2013, a lot of it comes down to how you weight the end of the regular season and the playoffs. Or put another way, given the broad sweep of his career, how much is on him for not being better in the playoffs versus New York for its inability to surround him with better backups? In fairness to the front office, I thought acquiring Camby was solid thinking that just didn’t work out. I also don’t see why Chandler can’t develop a 15-foot jumper (that he’s willing to use).

Grades (5 point scale):
Offense: 4
(uber-efficient; with a 15-foot jumper he’d be Garnett-like)
Defense: 5
(he’s still one of the 3-4 best defensive bigs in the game; he covers up a lot of poor perimeter defense)
Teamwork: 5
(he tries to hold people accountable on D, and was doing that by himself basically until KMart)
Rootability: 3.5 
(closest player to Starks in New York in a long time, but boy has he come up small in some big moments)
Performance/Expectations: 4
(we might want more but its hard to expect more)
Final Grade: B
(Fantastic work all semester, but then got sloppy after spring break and lost the A on the final exam)

Filling Out the Roster (cont’d): Point Guards and Small Forwards

ESPN New York beat writer Jared Zwerling is saying that the Knicks plan to fill out the roster with two bigs, two point guards, and a wing. Two PGs seems a bit excessive. I’d be a little surprised if that were the mix. I take a look at some available players who could fill the various roles. I’m not going to include much on the guys we already know (e.g., Kenyon Martin, Jerome Jordan, Chris Smith).



  • Nate Robinson – It’s unlikely he signs for what NY can offer, but it’s not unthinkable. The Negatives: We know a lot about what he doesn’t bring to the table.* The Positives: Nate’s reputation as a gunner is exaggerated if not undeserved. (His career 15 FGA/36 isn’t out of sorts for combo guards.). He’s also been mostly a league average or better shooter. He’s a decent (not great) passer and has generally kept TOs to 2.5/36 or fewer. Overall: You never know. The Knicks could absolutely stand to build more redundancy into the PG position. Nate has an ideal skill set because he creates a great deal of flexibility. Woody could also stand to bring Felton’s minutes down closer to 30 MPG. It’s interesting that Nate’s name hasn’t really been linked to any other team.

*Please note that I’ll defend to the death my belief that Robinson’s reputation for immaturity was slanderously exaggerated by Mike Breen. Nate can be a bit of a clown, but he’s not Javaris Crittendon. He’s not Stephen Jackson. Hell, he’s not even Gilbert Arenas.

  • Rodgrigue Beaubois – The Negatives: He declined almost across the board after a promising rookie season. The numbers suggest: stay away entirely or at best rent-don’t-buy. The Positives: His (high) assists have remained stable, despite declines almost everywhere else. That’s a pretty big deal for a PG. So, there’s that. Overall: The question is whether, after such a promising start, he can become anything more than an end of the bench player.
  • D.J. Augustin – He’s a solid backup PG. For the money that’s out there at this point, I don’t see why he would’t re-sign with Indiana. Also, I have some concerns about whether he can defend in Woody’s switch-happy scheme.
  • Chauncey Billups – Evidently, the Knicks are in pursuit (h/t P&T). We know what he brings to the table – high assists, low turnovers, still shoots the triple. Or, at least that’s what he brought to the table. Who knows what he has left?



Depending on how you feel about Carmelo Anthony, the Knicks either have one or no “true” small forwards. The Knicks can play any number of players at small forward for certain matchups, including Shumpert and Smith. Still, Woody could use a traditional small forward. To be honest, few of the options look all that appetizing.

  • Anthony Morrow – He began his career as a Novakian shooter but he’s come back to earth a bit the past few seasons.
  • Lamar Odom – On a minimum deal, I’d like Lamar. A lot of what I wrote about Elton Brand rings true for Odom. He can’t shoot at all anymore, but does most everything else. NY could mix and match Odom at both forwards. The Lakers appear to be ready the amnesty Metta World Peace and are in the hunt for Odom.
  • Luke Babbitt – He probably has the most upside on this list. Heading into only his age 24 season he’s already an accomplished 3pt. shooter and a presence on the defensive glass. He could fill the Novak role.
  • Wesley Johnson – He could be a worthwhile change-of-scenery gamble, but it looks increasingly like he parlayed one fantastic season at Syracuse into a top 5 selection. I never saw much of him in college, so I don’t have a feel for whether he can play.
  • Mickael Pietrus & Dahntay Jones – Both aging defensive specialists shoot juuuust enough to retain some value.
  • Sam Young – Eww. Still, compared to Johnson at least Young can defend a bit.
  • Raja Bell – The Knicks have worked him out. (See the Billups link.) No thanks. At this point, he’d just be stealing minutes from Shumpert.
  • Metta World Peace – I initially didn’t include Metta because the Lakers had not officially amnestied him, but mostly because I just didn’t want to contemplate it. Well…  The Negatives: What role does he play for the Knicks? Is he a starter at SF? Is he a reserve at both forwards? Is he insane? He’s also a worse rebounder than Bargnani. (I bet a lot of you didn’t know that.) The Positives: He’s still got some game left in the tank. I thought his 3pt. shooting had fallen off a cliff, but it looks more like he had an outlier crappy season in 2012. He’s mostly been a good perimeter shooter. His defense may not be what it once was, but his fouls/36 have remained pretty consistent. Overall: I thought I’d be much more firmly opposed to Metta, but the more I ponder this the more it seems like signing Shane Battier just with a bit more crazy.

(UPDATE: Anthony Morrow signed a two-year deal with the New Orleans Pelicans. Yeah, that still sounds odd.)

Filling Out the Roster: Options at Backup Center

ESPN New York beat writer Jared Zwerling is saying that the Knicks plan to fill out the roster with two bigs, two point guards, and a wing. Two PGs seems a bit excessive. I’d be a little surprised if that were the mix. I take a look at some available players who could fill the various roles. I’m not going to include much on the guys we already know (e.g., Kenyon Martin, Jerome Jordan, Chris Smith).

Players are listed in no particular order, with links to each player page at basketball-reference.com. I also think NBA.com has a pretty good free agent tracker.


  • Samuel Dalembert – If you’re looking for a “poor man’s” Tyson Chandler then Dalembert should probably be your top target for the rest of the mini-MLE. The Negatives: He’s 31 and he’s been out of shape. Not “Big Snacks” out-of-shape, but he only played 47 games for Milwaukee last season. He got into Scott Skiles notoriously roomy dog house and got benched. The Positives: Despite that, Dalembert had a fairly typical season in 2012–a season the Knicks could sorely use. He shot well (TS: .563), rebounded nicely (O%-14.2, D%-22.9), and wasn’t far off his career avg. for blocks (5.1 vs. 5.6%). Overall: This guy is about as good as there is in traditional centers if you’re not looking for upside. There may eventually be some comp from other playoff teams but it hasn’t emerged yet.
  • Cole Aldrich – I admit to liking Aldrich when he came out of Kansas. I thought he’d become a Collison-quality big man. The Negatives: Hard to say since he hasn’t gotten much run in the league. I suppose that’s a negative. Statistically he’s been a bit of a turnover machine, but so are a lot of bigs who don’t get consistent minutes. He’s hardly old at 25 this season, but you can’t really play the upside card anymore. The Positives: His excellent college rebounding and shot-blocking have translated to limited minutes in the NBA. This guy just needs a little run. Overall: Aldrich could be a Jeremy Lin-style find. I’m NOT talking Lin-level talent, but just a useful guy that probably fell between the cracks. It’d be hard to argue with Aldrich on a minimum contract.
  • Elton Brand – I have to say, Brand may be getting a little too much love from the Knick faithful. The Negatives: His rising fouls per 36 (4.5/36 last season) are a major red flag. As is his declining efficiency. He’s been a below average to awful shooter for most of the past five seasons. He was nuclear winter cold in Dallas in just 21 MPG. The Positives: On defense he still rebounds and blocks shots. I love that. He’s still a useful passer, even though his assist rate has declined. Overall: For the kind of money we’re talking he’d be an okay signing. I just think we can do about as well or better for probably the same money. We signed four old guys last off-season and got, oh, about a quarter-season’s worth of actual backup for Chandler.
  • Brandan Wright – The Negatives: He is an undersized center (not power forward) in the extreme. He is listed at 6’9″ and #205 on BB-reference. He played a career high 64 games last season, his fifth. The Positives: There is a lot to like if you understand what you’re getting. Wright is a consistently good shooter (career .594 TS) and rebounder at both ends (O%-9.1; D%-16.4). He even blocks a couple shots (2.3/36). Overall: A portion of the mini-MLE seems to be precisely what he’s worth, but the market for him seems deeper. He’s on everybody’s list as a guy they’d like to get cheap. Someone seems destined to overpay.
  • Timofey Mozgov – The rumor mill has it that Mozgov has interest from Russia on a four year deal, which means he’s not likely on NY’s radar.
  • Greg StiemsmaThe Negatives: He was just turrbull on offense for Minnesota, who waived him, after good rookie season with Boston. He does not appear to have an NBA-quality offensive skill. The Positives: I see a Jared Jeffries-type, who rebounds, plays good position defense, and can even block a shots (3.2/36). He could be a decent end-of-bench vet if, for instance, paired with another big man that can score. Someone like…
  • Josh Harrellson – Yeah, we all know what Jorts brings to the table. But you may not know he went for 30 and 23 for Chongqing FD (China) earlier this month.
  • Byron MullensThe Negatives: He seems like a crappier version of what Bargnani is now. He took over five triples/36, hitting only 31.7%. He didn’t do much else and Charlotte gave up on him. The Positives: He’s an okay defensive rebounder and can pass a bit. Overall: The Lakers are sniffing around. I have little interest in bidding for this guy.
  • Chris WilcoxThe Positives & Negatives: He shot the bejeezus out of the ball for Boston last year, but did so on basically career-low minutes and usage in only 61 games. I have always liked Wilcox, but I think you’re a fool if you pay him above the minimum.