Knicks Morning News (2015.06.02)

  • [New York Post] The longtime friendship that could’ve landed Blatt with Knicks (Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:30:41 -0400)

    CLEVELAND — Knicks general manager Steve Mills doesn't view Cavaliers rookie coach David Blatt as a European/Israeli instructor trying to make it in the NBA. "I think he's mischaracterized because…

  • [New York Times] AP Source: Bulls Plan to Introduce Hoiberg as Coach (Tue, 02 Jun 2015 03:04:39 GMT)

    The Mayor is moving to Chicago.

  • [New York Times] Isiah Thomas’s Bid for Liberty Is Scrutinized (Tue, 02 Jun 2015 01:57:46 GMT)

    A committee of W.N.B.A. owners is examining a petition for partial ownership of the Liberty by Thomas, who was the subject of a sexual-harassment lawsuit while with the Knicks.

  • [New York Times] Warriors’ Andrew Bogut Seems Content With Role Defined for Him (Tue, 02 Jun 2015 01:39:41 GMT)

    Bogut, Golden State’s center and a former No. 1 overall pick in the N.B.A. draft, has been a rim-protecting rebounder for a team not always recognized for its stingy defense.

  • Liked it? Take a second to support Mike Kurylo on Patreon!

    Mike Kurylo

    Mike Kurylo is the founder and editor of KnickerBlogger.net. His book on the 2012 Knicks, "We’ll Always Have Linsanity," is on sale now. Follow him on twitter (@KnickerBlogger).

    52 thoughts to “Knicks Morning News (2015.06.02)”

    1. What if…..? What if….PJax was never hired and Steve Mills was president and landed Blatt?

    2. What if we kept Mike D’Antoni? What if we hired Patrick Ewing? What if we drafted LeBron?…..

      I don’t like playing the what if game looking backwards. Let’s worry about going forward instead.

    3. Ok, let’s look forward.

      For me, a fan since the early hard-knock 90’s, my future fandom will really depend on the right answers to these questions:

      1. Will Phil and Fisher really be that adherent to the triangle, to our detriment, or will they stubbornly lumber on (losing)?
      2. Will Phil draft well (or trade for other picks and draft well) or trade for/draft a stupid, stupid player?
      3. Will we pick up quality free agents?
      4. Will we substantially improve our defense?

      If we somehow roll out a starting five of something like Calderon/Mudiay/Carroll/Melo/LopezOrWhoever, we really won’t care how much they lose as long as we changed our idiotic cuture, play smart basketball, and grind-it-out defense (except at the PG spot). There’s really not much to say about it until the Fall.

      And looking at WP/48 for rookies is way beyond idiotic, if you ask me.

    4. @3 – I’m with you on your points. I think we take things one at a time, in this sequence:

      1. Draft pick
      2. Free agents.
      3. Do Fisher and Jackson adapt to the players and modern basketball in any way?
      4. Do we change the culture?
      5. Do we play defense?

      It seems that Calderon, Melo + 1 draft pick + 2 free agents is the minimum we need for a starting 5.
      We have Hardaway and Early and will probably pick up Acy and Larkin’s options for the 2nd team.

    5. I think we are more likely to have Galloway than Larkin. As I recall we declined the option to extend his contract to the third year so Larkin is a free agent as of July 1st. In addition, we are likely to sign Antetokounpo. We need a center as a draft pick or free agent, but even if we get one, we will need a backup center or centers too. That might be Amundsen and/or Cole.

    6. I think it’s more like:

      1. Can we use the draft and FA to get some good basketball players?
      2. Given the below average defensive players on our roster, can we figure out a way to play league average defense next season?

      300. Do Fisher and Jackson adapt to ‘modern basketball’ in any way?

    7. I’ve heard that the celtics want to trade up in the draft, would it be good value to trade our 4th pick for their 16 and 28th pick this year + their nets pick next year?

    8. I’ve heard that the celtics want to trade up in the draft, would it be good value to trade our 4th pick for their 16 and 28th pick this year + their nets pick next year?

      It’s not a terrible offer, but I think it’s not quite enough. It’s a good offer that Boston really should shop around, though.

    9. I used to think maybe we should trade down, but I am not sure now. If we think we can get an impact player at #4, we should just take him. The Celtics have recent experience with middle first round draft choices and it seems to have convinced them they should trade up. I think we should probably stick with our pick for the same reason they want it.

      On the other hand, if we think that everyone in the draft from #4 down is not a sure thing to be a quality starter in a year or two, then we might as well take our chances with more picks than less. But from what I read here about the draft, this is likely not the case.

    10. If Russell is there, then yeah, you don’t trade down. And maybe even Mudiay you don’t trade down if you’re high on Mudiay. None of these other guys, many of whom I like, like Winslow, Turner and WCS, are guys who would normally go at #4, so if you’re looking at those guys, trading down is the best bet. It doesn’t even matter if you think they’re worthy of a #4 pick, anyone at #4 but Mudiay, Russell, Okafor and Towns is a waste, as those are the consensus top four, so if you’re taking anyone but those four guys, you gotta trade down.

    11. Ridiculous.

      If you think #4-#10 are really the same, as in the potential of:

      Russell/Mudiay = Kaminsky/Turner/Miles

      Then fine. But cornerstone GREAT players are what really matters in the NBA, and having all the great role players you want doesn’t equal having the LeBron/Dirk/Duncan of your team. Granted, you are probably not getting that at #4, but in this deep draft the #4 would have been a #2 in past years’ drafts. And if you ended up with a Bosh/Noah, that is still a great haul. You don’t get the same odds further down.

    12. disagree BC, if Winslow is there id take him. And by having the 4th pick one of these will have to be available right? Mudiay, Russell, Okafor and Towns

    13. With the #4 pick, Phil will have a lot of good choices. There are only 3 players we can’t get and the odds say that they are: Towns, Okafor and Russell. So Mudiay, Winslow and WCS will be there. Phil just better make the right choice.

    14. Phil just better make the right choice.

      I’m not gonna excoriate Phil on his pick if it’s in the consensus top 10 because the lottery is such a crap shoot. Heck most of the time the #2 pick is a bust. I will, however, excoriate Phil if he trades the pick for a 25yo+ or trades down into like 15-20 range. On the flip side, if Flip takes Okafor, I would be ecstatic if Phil offers Melo/4th pick to Lakers for Towns and then takes that Melo money and splashes it at Monroe/Joseph/Harris/Danny Green/Middleton. Great summer to have free cap because of depth of quality players and value contracts before cap jumps to 90m.

    15. Trading #4 for a #6 + picks/whatever, is one thing. Mudiay, WCS, and Winslow seem like great starting pieces.
      Trading #4 for anything after #9 is dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Because how the heck can you compare the odds on getting a good player on any of #10+20+30 to a #4?
      It’s an odds game. Sure, it’s not 100%, but your odds are higher with Mudiay/WCS/Winslow than anyone after that, even in combination.

    16. I’ve heard that the celtics want to trade up in the draft, would it be good value to trade our 4th pick for their 16 and 28th pick this year + their nets pick next year?

      It’s not a terrible offer, but I think it’s not quite enough. It’s a good offer that Boston really should shop around, though.

      It’s way below basic market value, trades involving lotto picks usually involve a swap of lottory picks and another 1st. Boston is not giving up a lotto and the 28th pick is almost 2nd rd value. They would have to include 2 more 1st, imo, because there not only getting a lottery pick, they’re moving up 12 spots into the top 5. As valuable as the bkl pick could be its not guaranteed that will be a lottery pick either so that’s where a 2017 or 2018 pick would be needed.

    17. Trading #4 for a #6 + picks/whatever, is one thing. Mudiay, WCS, and Winslow seem like great starting pieces.
      Trading #4 for anything after #9 is dumb.

      I agree with wetbandit and Zanzibar here. If Phil loves WCS and we can move back to #7 and get a decent asset along with him, that’s good business, although I have to imagine the fact that we can’t execute the trade if . But we better be getting a king’s ransom in extra picks if we’re moving way down, because the top of this draft is really strong. You can get a nice player in the middle of the first round, but it’s really hard to grab a franchise changer there.

    18. We are looking for a “potential difference maker”.

      Towns, Okafor, and Russell fall into that category. Mudiay might also fall into that category, but imo the risk of him being a major disappointment is higher than for the other 3.

      One tier below that is WCS and Winslow.

      Winslow showed flashes of becoming a difference maker in the tournament, but is less likely than top 3 to become that. However, he’s also less likely to be a major disappointment than Mudiay. I prefer less risk and would take Winslow over Mudiay.

      WCS is likely to be a difference maker on defense , but may be so limited on offense that he would create other problems. However, recent reports on his shooting and other offensive skills are encouraging. “If” he’s got more of a game on offense than we think, he’s the clear choice. If we could get him AND trade down, I would consider it a major coup.

    19. looking at WP/48 for rookies is way beyond idiotic, if you ask me.

      Ridiculous

      Trading #4 for anything after #9 is dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

      Feeling opinionated today, WB?

      It’s an odds game. Sure, it’s not 100%, but your odds are higher with Mudiay/WCS/Winslow than anyone after that, even in combination.

      It’s less of an odds game out of a vacuum. You get to scout these players, interview them, and work them out. If you see seething you like, and you have strong basketball values, and you trust your team of scouts, you can mitigate the odds. Jerry West didn’t trade into the top 3 to draft Kobe Bryant. He knew that he liked what he saw and he believed in his ability to be right. And he was. Is that lucky? Or did he do a good job with a mid-range pick?

    20. @19 – That’s the luck of the draw and there ain’t nothing we can do about the cards we’ve been dealt. Nobody is a “sure thing”. I’ll remind everyone that Bargnani, Kwami Brown and Michael Olowokandi were all #1 overall picks in the past 20 years and were absolute busts. I want is a player that will be an all-star and I think we can get one at 4.

      All the talk about trades just sounds like “the same old Knicks” to me.

    21. @20
      The mind of WetBandit:

      I DIDNT HAVE ANY COFFEE TODAY DO YOU HAVE COFFEE WHY WON’T THEY LET ME GO GET MYSELF COFFEE THIS IS INHUMAN DO YOU HAVE COFFEE DO YOU HAVE COFFEE DO YOU DO YOU

      beeeeeeeeeep

    22. Trading down to get a lottery pick and another good pick is not a Knicks-ian move at all. Trading the pick for a veteran, now that is a Knicks-ian move.

      So yes, if Phil’s target is anyone but one of the consensus top four, he should trade down, even if it is just a single spot (as I bet Winslow doesn’t go beyond #5).

    23. i like trading down but i happen that neither the price nor the potential targets we would have at 16 look appealing… i will not be ok with trey lyles on this team…

    24. Yeah today I’m probably mor apt to take Mudiay at 4. The guy is a stud.
      Who cares about fit with the system or Melo… Jax, Fish and Melo will all probably be gone in 3 years and Mudiay will just start beasting around then. Or Russell. I’m happy with either.
      Actually my biggest reservation is with Okafor who will be missing a ton of free throws if he even gets calls in the League.

    25. Trading down to get a lottery pick and another good pick is not a Knicks-ian move at all. Trading the pick for a veteran, now that is a Knicks-ian move.

      If they do that I’ll lose faith in Jackson.

      One of things we having going for us is that we have a good pick and cap space. That potentially translates into 3 very good players. If we trade the pick for a good player, that player will immediately take up space and reduce our haul to 2 players.

    26. One of things we having going for us is that we have a good pick and cap space. That potentially translates into 3 very good players. If we trade the pick for a good player, that player will immediately take up space and reduce our haul to 2 players.

      +10000

    27. One of things we having going for us is that we have a good pick and cap space. That potentially translates into 3 very good players. If we trade the pick for a good player, that player will immediately take up space and reduce our haul to 2 players.

      Yes, I mean how hard is it to understand that your best chance of getting surplus production is getting a really good player on a rookie contract? The Knicks absolutely need to get a valuable cost-controlled player here. If Phil drafts a guy he believes in and that player busts I can live with that, but if they trade this pick for some veteran “win-now” piece, well then Phil sucks balls as a GM, plain and simple.

    28. The one trade I liked was Ty Lawson and Kenneth Faried plus a pick for the #4 pick. That makes sense to me because it’s essentially a 3 for 1. But I can’t see Denver biting on that.

    29. @29
      Ty Lawson is making 12M, and Faried is making 2.25M, where a #4 pick would cost $3.6M. Ty Lawson is 27, Faried is 25, Mudiay/Winslow/WCS are 19/19/21. Both are decent players, but neither will be the type of player we need going forward, whereas Mudiay/Winslow/WCS can potentially be franchise players. Both are going to take chunks out of the cap in the next few years, wherre Mudiay/Winslow/WCS will be minimal. We NEED amazing drafted players. It’s a must, given where the NBA is right now.

      I don’t mind Faried (he’s regressed, and he is a 4, and I’d like Melo there), but I don’t really like Lawson.

    30. Why exactly would Denver do Lawson + Faried + the #7 pick for the #4 pick? Because they really just gotta have Mudiay or something? Faried and Lawson were their two most productive players last season.

      If that trade did happen, the Knicks could probably run out a starting five of Lawson, free agent shooting guard, Melo, Faried and Willie Cauley-Stein or something like that, which is kind of an interesting lineup depending on the shooting guard, but that is really not a triangle type lineup at all.

    31. Why exactly would Denver do Lawson + Faried + the #7 pick for the #4 pick? Because they really just gotta have Mudiay or something?

      Well, we could throw in Bargs as a sweetener, he was a #1 pick after all.

    32. Has anyone screened last few years dx videos for predictive accuracy? I like Schmitz’s work, but only by eye test.

    33. Why exactly would Denver do Lawson + Faried + the #7 pick for the #4 pick? Because they really just gotta have Mudiay or something? Faried and Lawson were their two most productive players last season.

      If that trade did happen, the Knicks could probably run out a starting five of Lawson, free agent shooting guard, Melo, Faried and Willie Cauley-Stein or something like that, which is kind of an interesting lineup depending on the shooting guard, but that is really not a triangle type lineup at all.

      Oh, I agree that it is an unlikely trade. Even GoNyGoNYGo noted that it was unlikely. I mention it only because wetbandit was responding to the trade as though it was just Lawson/Faried for the #4, so I figured it was worth clarifying that.

    34. I don’t want to talk about the triangle if it means we will pass on good players because they don’t fit the triangle. You don’t let the style of play dictate the players you sign. That is the most backwards way of thinking when it comes to building a team and if that is how PJ is thinking, then he should be terminated. In the NBA? Talent wins, and that’s proven by the two rookie head coaches in the NBA finals. Who cares about a system? Just get the best players in here and design a system that allows them to play their best.

    35. I don’t remember where I saw the “concept” but I remembering following up to see why it was even suggested and found this at Hoopshype.

      The proposal I read (and can’t find now) included the pick. As Brian said, I don’t think there’s a snowballs chance in Hell it will ever happen. Remember, this is Denver we’re talking about. Their GM was able to get two #1’s for Mozgov. He’s no fool.

    36. I follow Denver fairly closely. I keep hearing stories about Lawson having “off the court” issues. That’s code for drinking or worse. I want no part of him. There’s a reason Denver seems all too happy to oblige the stories about him wanting out.

      I like Faried’s energy, but he can’t defend or shoot a lick.

    37. Why exactly would Denver do Lawson + Faried + the #7 pick for the #4 pick? Because they really just gotta have Mudiay or something? Faried and Lawson were their two most productive players last season.

      If that trade did happen, the Knicks could probably run out a starting five of Lawson, free agent shooting guard, Melo, Faried and Willie Cauley-Stein or something like that, which is kind of an interesting lineup depending on the shooting guard, but that is really not a triangle type lineup at all.

      Oh, I agree that it is an unlikely trade. Even GoNyGoNYGo noted that it was unlikely. I mention it only because wetbandit was responding to the trade as though it was just Lawson/Faried for the #4, so I figured it was worth clarifying that

      Lawson and Faried plus the #7 pick does seem like a stretch but if “Ny/Den/Sac 3way trade idea”does seem plausible with a tweak since Faried was added. Instead of the #6 and #7 pick going to NY:

      Denver gets the #4 & keep #7, Calderon, and Stauskas

      Sac: Lawson, Hardaway, and filler maybe

      NY: Collinson, Faried, #6 pick, and future draft pick from Den.

    38. Wow Draft Express now has the Knicks taking Winslow at 4 and Mudiay dropping down to #6. Is this likely?

    39. Yes, I mean how hard is it to understand that your best chance of getting surplus production is getting a really good player on a rookie contract?

      JK47, as usual I agree with you. But there is relative value to be had. For example, if the Knicks draft Mudiay, his next four years look like this:

      19 year old = $3,992,040
      20 year old = $4,171,680
      21 year old = $4,351,320
      22 year old = $5,504,419
      23 year old = $7,260,329 (QO)

      That’s a reasonably priced contract and a great contract if he produces right away, but those first few years are investments, not years of expected production.

      Where as if you draft Kominsky at, say, #13 after trading swapping with the Suns, you’re looking at:

      22 year old = $2,055,840
      23 year old = $2,148,360
      24 year old = $2,240,880
      25 year old = $3,202,217
      26 year old = $4,428,666 (QO)

      Here you control a guy in his prime, and pay him half what the 19 year old project would be making.

      I’m not saying the Knicks shouldn’t draft a 19 year old. But if they like someone like Kominsky and are not in love with Moudiay, there is a lot of relative value to that trade. Especially if Moudiay has a rookie season similar to Dante Exum, who was the “NBA body” type PG prospect of last year’s draft, and ended up getting paid to make a lot of mistakes.

      (And especially if the Knicks also take Phoenix’s #44 pick this year and one of their 2 1st rounders in next year’s draft (theirs or Cleveland’s).

    40. Great points DW. That’s why WCS seems like a good choice, not to mention that he fills 2 needs with rebounding and defense/rim protection. He seems like a pretty safe pick. Ideally they trade down a spot or two in the process and grab another asset, but even at 4 I would be happy with WCS.

    41. @41 – Great post. I never did the math to extend out the rookie pay scale through the qualifying offer year. It’s like compound interest. Interesting. Thanks.

      You also have a good point about the growing pains we have to expect with Mudiay. It could take a few years for him to develop. Also, with his injury last year, I worry about his endurance and would expect him to run into an especially hard rookie wall.

    42. Mudiay’s upcoming workouts will have alot to do with what the Knicks do, obviously. I still hope that the buzz is so good about him that he goes #2 or 3, or that a team later on falls in love with him and gives the Knicks a mint for the #4. I’m not sure what team that would be, though. :-)

    43. Yeah, the current best case scenario for the Knicks is Mudiay wowing either Philly or L.A. and then the Knicks getting either Okafor or Russell as a result of that.

    44. maybe NY can convince Russell to talk about the value of the midrange game and that he doesn’t believe in analytics when he is interviewed by philly. lol.

    45. “My favorite move is to get by my man on the perimeter and then take that sweet 18 footer.

      Also, I have a real phobia about being in corners.”

    46. BIllups was on Highly Questionable a few weeks ago and they asked him about the Darko pick and he said he could understand it kind of because he was there at Darko’s workout. Then Le batard asked him how long did it take for you to know that it wasn’t going to work out with Darko Billups said the 1st practice he knew. lol.

    47. Yes, it’s true that it will take Mudiay or whatever 19-year old we might draft a little while to develop, and that is okay because we are not a championship team or even a playoff team right now. We’re one of the worst teams in the league, with a roster full of junk. We have the luxury of giving a developing player a lot of minutes, because we’re going to be bad.

      Going for Kaminsky instead because he’s closer to contributing right away is classic Knicks.

    Comments are closed.