Knicks Morning News (2022.05.22)

  • Johnny Davis: Interview with Tom Thibodeau, Knicks ‘went really well’ – New York Post
    [nypost.com] — Sunday, May 22, 2022 5:23:00 AM

    Johnny Davis: Interview with Tom Thibodeau, Knicks ‘went really well’  New York Post

  • Netflix & Kill: Kevin Durant, David Letterman Jab Knicks – Sports Illustrated
    [www.si.com] — Saturday, May 21, 2022 5:44:53 PM

    Netflix & Kill: Kevin Durant, David Letterman Jab Knicks  Sports Illustrated

  • Knicks could use Julius Randle to trade up to No. 4 in 2022 NBA Draft – Daily Knicks
    [dailyknicks.com] — Saturday, May 21, 2022 5:00:00 PM

    Knicks could use Julius Randle to trade up to No. 4 in 2022 NBA Draft  Daily Knicks

  • Spida Trade Rumors: Jazz’s Donovan Mitchell Eyeing New York… – Online Gambling
    [www.onlinegambling.com] — Saturday, May 21, 2022 4:41:06 PM

    Spida Trade Rumors: Jazz’s Donovan Mitchell Eyeing New York…  Online Gambling

  • Former Knicks Center Enes Freedom Parties With FBI – Sports Illustrated
    [www.si.com] — Saturday, May 21, 2022 3:37:22 PM

    Former Knicks Center Enes Freedom Parties With FBI  Sports Illustrated

  • Reggie Miller On Why NBA Superstars Don’t Want To Play For Knicks: “So If You Win In New York, You Get A Lot Of Pats On The Back. But If You’re Mediocre Or If You’re Losing, That’s A Lot Of Headache For A Superstar.” – Fadeaway World
    [fadeawayworld.net] — Saturday, May 21, 2022 2:30:12 PM

    Reggie Miller On Why NBA Superstars Don’t Want To Play For Knicks: “So If You Win In New York, You Get A Lot Of Pats On The Back. But If You’re Mediocre Or If You’re Losing, That’s A Lot Of Headache For A Superstar.”  Fadeaway World

  • New York Notes: Brunson, Stoudemire, Baldwin, Sotto – hoopsrumors.com
    [www.hoopsrumors.com] — Saturday, May 21, 2022 1:57:00 PM

    New York Notes: Brunson, Stoudemire, Baldwin, Sotto  hoopsrumors.com

  • Rockets Draft: Should Houston Trade No. 3 Pick to Knicks? – Sports Illustrated
    [www.si.com] — Saturday, May 21, 2022 11:31:09 AM

    Rockets Draft: Should Houston Trade No. 3 Pick to Knicks?  Sports Illustrated

  • Knicks forward Obi Toppin welcomes criticism from former players – Daily Knicks
    [dailyknicks.com] — Saturday, May 21, 2022 10:00:00 AM

    Knicks forward Obi Toppin welcomes criticism from former players  Daily Knicks

  • 3 under the radar free agent options Knicks can pursue – Daily Knicks
    [dailyknicks.com] — Saturday, May 21, 2022 8:00:00 AM

    3 under the radar free agent options Knicks can pursue  Daily Knicks

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

    72 thoughts to “Knicks Morning News (2022.05.22)”

    1. geo:
      my son says I am now full of bull

      that’s funny…

      endurance athletes seem to have as much a challenge with the mindfulness aspect of the sport than the strain/strengthening of the rest of their physique…

      i mean, we all have unique stories, i’ve come to understand that in the broader scope of “dealing with life”…

      no one gets off easy, the costs seem to increase over time too…thankfully enough, so does the value…

      weird question, sorry, but were there specific subjects you planned to cover/contemplate while training/racing?

      1. do you enter some type of meditative state?

      2. if you are able to achieve some kind of mind over body situation:
      – are you able to duplicate that “state” when not running?

      3. – is there a specific “gateway” process that you use?

      From a previous thread:

      Geo,

      1. Probably. My friend from Nova Scotia who is Buddhist says meditation starts with controlled breathing and that’s definitely running.
      2. No, but the benefits from a run seem to carry over to the rest of the day. My son, who is Aspergers and ADHD could get by on significantly less medication, the four years he was a runner.
      3. No, not that I am conscious of. Like the old Nike line, I just do it.

    2. I find it funny that the 2 sides here (at least the more vocal ones, because there’s a 3rd side that isn’t “married” to defend or trash everything the Knicks do) are already litigating Mitch on why it’s no big deal or why it’s another mistake on JK’s gentle cascade of mistakes, and there’s a decent chance we’re witnessing a negotiation that’s still under course. Maybe the Knicks want to pay 4/40M* and Mitch wants the max extension (4/54M), although in a single season that’s not a lot of money (3.5M), in the grand scheme of things it might bite you back (eg, if the FO spends 35% more in each contract, you can go from 120M to 162M just like that). Will a team offer Mitch over 10M AAV? If yes, will the Knicks be able to match it (or go over it a bit) and keep him, or will the Knicks be able to at least do a sign and trade? If not, maybe we’ll still reach an agreement and the FO played their cards right?
      We just have to wait and see what happens, but somehow you are already discussing Mitch going away for nothing as a given.
      * – i’m assuming the FO at least offered 10M AAV because Mitch is clearly better than Noel and they signed Noel to 9M AAV.

    3. Hubert: I think this is a very reasonable point. I doubt Mitch would ever outperform his contract and there is a real injury risk.

      But we already have all the market rate guys. I wouldn’t have signed them, but they’re here. So either stick with it or change course. It does not make sense to be capped out with Randle, Fournier, Rose, Burks, et al. and then to quibble about Mitch’s worth.

      This is now actually a hybrid method of the hybrid method!

      There is possibly some concerns about Mitch’s marching to his own drum. He might not fit the “mindset” model that they are trying to build, and may not be as coachable as they would like. It matters much more when investing long-term at market value . I mean we’re talking about a guy who bailed on his college and has gone through like six agents.

      Alternatively, maybe Mitch has soured on the team and/or on Thibs. Or maybe his new agent indicated early on that he was going to explore unrestricted free agency. Or maybe there is a Brock Aller “max number” that Mitch is worth in an actuarial sense that they will not go beyond. Who knows?

      As to the hybrid of the hybrid method, Leon could argue that all of those guys except Randle are placeholders that occupy roster spots until we know for sure that younger guys are rotation-level NBA players. The short term deals kind of scream “replace me!” don’t think anyone here at KB would be opposed to moving in a direction that didn’t include the likes of Randle, Fournier, Burks, Noel, or Rose (I draw the line at Taj, he’s stayin’!)

    4. This gets into the question of “What’s the best way to develop young players, via ample unearned playing time or by making them earn every minute they get?” The FO/Coaching staff seems to have a hybrid approach to that as well. Clearly RJ can do no wrong, while Obi gets yanked all the time.

      But now they are pretty close to having a full rotation worth of young rotation-level guys on rookie deals. RJ, Grimes, IQ, Obi, Deuce, Sims, and hopefully this year’s #11 would be a nice team to go into 2022-23 with. If your 3 rotation vets are some combo of Noel, Rose, Fournier, Randle, or Burks, that seems like a logical next step in the hybrid approach. Maybe this year’s failure to make the play-in was a wake-up call. There is no way they are making the play-in next year with this roster, and they must realize that, no?

      So barring a blockbuster consolodation deal, I’m expecting (hoping) that there will be a conscious shift towards playing the young guys next year. If Thibs isn’t good with that, my guess is that he won’t last the year and will be “reassigned” until he can find another gig with a more veteran team.

    5. cyber, while I am definitely engaging heavily on the matter, I don’t feel like I’m “defending” the FO as much as trying to offer a more rational perspective to the extreme “it’s a disaster” takes.

      I generally agree that it was a mistake to go with a novice as a POBO and a retread as a coach with known selfish/rebuild-phobic tendencies.

      But once it was done, I sort of accepted that there would be a learning curve, and so long as the long-term strategy was relatively coherent and sound, I could live with the blips in execution.

      The draft-day stuff is a mixed bag but mostly encouraging. For every “mistake in the gentle cascade” there have been inspired moves both in positioning and selection.

      Same for the veteran contracts. Only Fournier and Randle are on the books beyond this year. No one “loved” the Fournier signing, but he’s been generally worth the money (for me, the Celts-slaying performances alone made it worth it!) And only one poster was vehememtly against the Randle extension at the time.

      I think Leon has done an overall fine job for a novice. Howevr, now that he is 2 full seasons in, he is no longer a novice, so my standards for judging him will be less forgiving of the blips. He should have a much better handle on what the team and the organization really is and where it stacks up in a much improved and more competitive East without COVID mucking things up.

    6. The possibility exists that Mitch outperforms a 4/$54M contract. Robert Williams had his best season at age 24. That’s also when Gobert broke out. DeAndre Jordan broke out at 25.

      Putting that aside though, the obvious reason to sign Mitch is because he’s a near lock to not *underperform* that contract. All he has to do is play exactly as he already has and the contract will be fine. There’s no hoping a career season is real (e.g. Randle) or praying for a leap (e.g. Barrett) involved).

      It seems Z-Man’s main objection is that people are overstating how bad it would be to let him walk for nothing, though he concedes it would be some level of bad. I find this to be a largely semantic, uninteresting debate. As others have pointed out, very rarely is a single move so bad it alone wrecks a team’s trajectory. What’s far more common is a bad move is indicative of a larger bad process, and that bad process is what wrecks the team’s trajectory.

      For example, no one would say “the Kings aren’t contenders, because they let Bogdan Bogdanovi? walk for nothing.” However you could quite convincingly say “the Kings letting Bogdan Bogdanovi? walk for nothing shows that they are run by idiots, who will proceed to make moves like trading Tyrese Haliburton for Domantas Sabonis.”

      Letting Mitch walk for nothing wouldn’t be *the reason* we don’t contend, but it would show we are not very good at this whole NBA front officing thing.

    7. Also, this draft really does have a lot of interesting wing/guard prospects and it would be an enormous bummer to use the pick on someone we hope is as good as the guy we’re letting walk in order to save $8M AAV. Whether you think that’s “a disaster” or not is just semantics, it’s a completely indefensible series of moves.

    8. Even if we let Mitch go, I’d still pass on drafting a C in the 1st rd. Probably the 2nd too.

      If we do happen to pick a C, it should be Mark Williams. Jalen Duren looks like a dinosaur to me and I don’t see the upside other people do.

    9. Z-man: cyber, while I am definitely engaging heavily on the matter, I don’t feel like I’m “defending” the FO as much as trying to offer a more rational perspective to the extreme “it’s a disaster” takes.

      Yeah, I know. We need the 2 sides here, for the debates to be more active. ;)
      I was just saying that we don’t know if they don’t have a plan to keep Mitch. Just like saying to RJ “you want a max, well then prove it next season”, maybe they said something along those lines to Mitch and if he comes back with an offer they can say “alright, you proved your point, we’re going to pay you what you want”.

    10. Regardless of what happens with Mitch I agree using 11th on a Center would be foolish(Unless they think Duren is the next Dwight). You could always trade down outside the lottery and get someone like Mark Williams or Kessler.

      Pretty sure the FO knows this and if they choose to keep the pick will go with the best 1-4 they think is on the board.

    11. thenoblefacehumper: I find this to be a largely semantic, uninteresting debate.

      I have to wonder why you would engage so prolifically in a debate that you consider to be largely semantic and uninteresting.

      thenoblefacehumper: As others have pointed out, very rarely is a single move so bad it alone wrecks a team’s trajectory.

      This is simply not true. The Rockets trading the farm for Russell Westbrook, the Lakers following suit, wasting lottery picks on obvious stiffs, these are all franchise-altering mistakes that wreck a team’s trajectory. Those kinds of moves happen all the time, including numerous variations by previous Knicks FOs.

      OTOH, nearly every FO makes Mitch-level decisions that have zero bearing on their overall trajectory. We’ve gone over the potential effects of “letting Mitch walk for nothing” even though it really isn’t clear if we are “letting him walk” or if he just doesn’t care to be here anymore.

      Nor are you willing to speculate about what was offered for him at the trade deadline, although you keep bringing up how he should have been traded then rather than getting to this point.

      At the end of the day, your beef is so transparently not about “letting Mitch walk for nothing.” It’s about Mitch no longer being part of the team’s future. There is zero evidence that anything other than a miniscule return for Mitch was ever even possible at any given time. There is zero acknowledgement of the risk in offering a 4-year guaranteed deal before the season started when the player is coming off of a career-threatening foot injury, which appears to have been the only possible window to sign him. It largely boils down to whether a second rounder or two has any bearing on the future of this franchise.

    12. Early Bird: Even if we let Mitch go, I’d still pass on drafting a C in the 1st rd. Probably the 2nd too.

      I agree. If somehow Mitch signs with other team, we should go get Isaiah Hartenstein. He’s the same age as Mitch, and has a little more range, FGA .369 from 3-10 for a total of .544 outside of 0-3, while Mitch only shoots .082 outside of 0-3. There’s also Bamba, just don’t waste a first round pick on this.

    13. On my way home from the hospital! Everything seemed to go really well. Thanks again, Frank! Maybe we should start calling you Frankie smokes?

    14. That’s great news, Alan, i’m happy everything went well. :) Frankie Smokes is a great moniker. :D

    15. KevinR:
      Regardless of what happens with Mitch I agree using 11th on a Center would be foolish(Unless they think Duren is the next Dwight). You could always trade down outside the lottery and get someone like Mark Williams or Kessler.

      Pretty sure the FO knows this and if they choose to keep the pick will go with the best 1-4 they think is on the board.

      I am a bit concerned about the mindset that we shouldn’t take a big at #11 no matter what. Wouldn’t it have neen nice to select Giannis, Bam or Allen at #11?

      Duren is super young and super raw, and he had better stats than Bam or Allen did as freshmen. If the FO does its homework and sees that kind of potential, they should roll the dice on him, Mitch or no Mitch.

    16. Glad to hear, Alan! Good to know that we can find expert medical advice and support here at KB.

    17. “Leon could argue that all of those guys except Randle are placeholders that occupy roster spots until we know for sure that younger guys are rotation-level NBA players”

      I thought it was obvious that’s what most of them are.

      They had a lot of cap space. They had to put something into it. They still weren’t good enough to attract a star or didn’t like who was available enough at the price. So they gave out mostly relatively short contracts to retain flexibility and retain a competitive team.

      The Knicks are trying to accumulate young talent, but they also want to win enough to potentially attract better quality players in free agency and via trade and accelerate the development of the younger players they already have by playing in important games. Part of what they are doing is trying to change the perception of the organization.

    18. It’s very difficult to debate what should have happened with Mitch in the past and what should happen going forward when you have no idea what the medical reports said in the past, what offers were on the table in a trade, what we are offering him to stay, what he wants to stay, or whether he even wants to stay.

      I think strategically, they are not sold on Mitch because he’s very limited on offense. I think that’s why Myles Turner’s name keeps coming up. They want someone that can protect the pain but that also shoots a little and opens up the paint more for RJ and Randle (if he stays).

      If they were sold on him, I think they wouldn’t mind paying a small premium to lock him up. But they probably don’t want to give a long contract to someone that has been a injury prone, a little flakey at times, and that is not even their ideal C. You don’t want to get stuck long term with someone you aren’t even sure is the answer at that position.

    19. What are the odds that this is Westbrook’s final season in the NBA? It’s impossible to imagine him coming off the bench and impossible to imagine a team desperate enough for his playmaking to put up with his shooting.

    20. Hartenstein would be an interesting Mitch replacement. Turner is a good player but he’s making 18 million next year and then presumably he’s going to want a raise.

    21. Zman I agree Duren would be the exception if they really like him I just think they could trade down for the other two(Williams, kessler) since teams dont usually take bigs like that in the lottery.

      Also like Hartenstein as a Mitch replacement his numbers are better and would offer some more to us on offense. Would probably come cheaper as well.

    22. “The draft-day stuff is a mixed bag but mostly encouraging. For every “mistake in the gentle cascade” there have been inspired moves both in positioning and selection.”

      IMO, some people here still do not understand their thinking on the so called “incinerated” pick.

      Imagine a world in which you put a monetary value on every player in the draft. Then it’s your turn to pick and every single player available is worth LESS than you will have to pay him on his rookie contract according to your valuation.

      Should you want to make a selection in that draft anyway?

      Now let’s say that in your opinion the best available player is worth only 85 cents on the dollar and someone is offering you a pick for next year worth 90 cents on the dollar.

      Should you accept 90 cents on the dollar (plus the extra roster spot that you might be able to fill with a good value) and make that trade?

      That’s the kind of thinking that was involved.

      They weren’t just thinking “we have a pick and there are some decent players”. They were thinking in terms of the value available and whether they liked someone enough to select him and pay him that much. They concluded they’d prefer 90 cents on the “theoretical” dollar and a roster spot more than the 85 cents on the dollar available.

      The debate is really about their evaluation of the talent and value available at the time.

      Was there someone there they obviously SHOULD HAVE liked and taken at that price?

      I’m not smart enough at these draft values to even venture a guess, but I understand what they were thinking.

    23. The debate is really about their evaluation of the talent and value available at the time.

      Right, that was the issue right there, since there were plainly plenty of good young players available and the Knicks needed good young players. That they said, “Nah, these guys all suck, let’s punt for a pick that, at its best chance of success, will be worth as much as this pick,” was a bad decision.

    24. Good News Alan! Frank should have the statement under his avatar: Official Physician for KBers.
      What would be the lowest salary Westbrook would accept to chase a CHP and would any CHP contender take him at any salary?

    25. I’d say really low. Westbrook as a back up PG surrounded by shooters off the bench at a I’d level or mini mid level price is probably a good value. He’s a competitor and he’s not injured to the point of needing to retire. Players like that don’t just retire bc they can no longer start. Look at Melo.

    26. Deeefense!!: Imagine a world in which you put a monetary value on every player in the draft. Then it’s your turn to pick and every single player available is worth LESS than you will have to pay him on his rookie contract according to your valuation.

      And now imagine the real world, wherein this logic seemed incredibly stupid at the time and has since literally been confirmed to be incredibly stupid. There were multiple players available well-worth the rookie-scale deal for the 19th pick. We just didn’t identify any of them. That’s bad!

    27. Or put it another way. His ego might take a hit but if you could a few million or more a year for another three or four years before you really had to retire, wouldn’t your keep playing? It’s still a lot of money and these guys have no guarantee they can make anything close to even a vet minimum after they retire. If they’re healthy and enjoy playing at all, they usually keep playing

    28. My Mitch position is pretty straightforward and it is so consistent that I really don’t like repeating it too much (since it’s pretty much the same thing I’ve been saying all year), so I figured I could lay it out here so you can just rest assured that this is what I think on the topic without me saying it anymore. ;)

      1. The Knicks should have tried to lock Mitch down for the extension before the season, since they were capped out already and Mitch’s injury wasn’t a chronic one (like a bad back or tear in his knee), so getting him locked in for $13.5 million would have been a good idea, even if other teams got even better value from similar signings of other players (other players being better and getting stuck by the second round max extension doesn’t really mean anything, it’s like saying Player X isn’t worth a veteran max because they’re not as good as Giannis, who makes the veteran max)

      2. Mitch at the second-rounder max extension would unlikely be a problem for the cap going forward, and very likely could get them excess value for locking up Mitch’s Age 24-27 seasons, where he could still improve and there’s no legitimate reason to believe he’ll get worse. Locking in good young players for $13 million or so is a good thing for a team.

      3. That the Knicks apparently weren’t even offering him the MLE is a sign that they are undervaluing Mitch.

      4. If having tradeable assets is a useful thing (which is one of the arguments for signing the Burks and Noels of the world), then Mitch making $13 million would be a good tradeable asset at the very least.

      5. If Mitch doesn’t want to be here, then fair enough (although even there, I’d question the organization a bit as to what responsibility they bear in Mitch theoretically not wanting to be here), they should have traded him in the season instead of holding on to him for a fool’s errand of making the play-in game.

      6. They should still try to re-sign him if they can. Heck, maybe they’re right and they can get him cheap! I’d be fine with that, as well!

      7. If they can’t, hopefully they can work out a sign and trade for someone worthwhile (but since Mitch is a base-year player, it seems hard to believe it’ll work out). But hey, maybe it’ll work out!

    29. Z-man: This is simply not true. The Rockets trading the farm for Russell Westbrook, the Lakers following suit, wasting lottery picks on obvious stiffs

      Okay maybe I should have said “rarely” and not “very rarely.” These moves are still a tiny percentage of all NBA transactions. The more common suboptimal moves are the ones that give you a hint that a particular front office just doesn’t have the edge they need to build a contender.

      Z-man: OTOH, nearly every FO makes Mitch-level decisions that have zero bearing on their overall trajectory. We’ve gone over the potential effects of “letting Mitch walk for nothing” even though it really isn’t clear if we are “letting him walk” or if he just doesn’t care to be here anymore.

      Nor are you willing to speculate about what was offered for him at the trade deadline, although you keep bringing up how he should have been traded then rather than getting to this point.

      Gonna need a citation on letting Mitch walk for nothing having “zero bearing” on our trajectory. Did you make that up or is it based on something?

      Personally, I think if you hemorrhage a good young player that has some kind of bearing on your trajectory. No one has ever said it will be the single move that dooms us, though that seems to be the straw man you want to argue against.

      I’m not going to speculate on what was offered because I don’t have the same level of confidence on the matter that you have, as you are positive four teams called Leon Rose and said “we will absorb Mitchell Robinson into cap space, if you are looking to dump his prorated $1.8M salary.”

      I personally find that unlikely and think we were offered something!

    30. Brian Cronin: Right, that was the issue right there, since there were plainly plenty of good young players available and the Knicks needed good young players. That they said, “Nah, these guys all suck, let’s punt for a pick that, at its best chance of success, will be worth as much as this pick,” was a bad decision.

      I feel pretty strongly that if one were not privy to the actual draft-day trades made or the spots where the players were picked, and one considered that we went in with the #19, 21, 32 and 58 picks and came out with Grimes, McBride, Rokas, Sims, a future lottery-protected first and a future second, one would conclude that we had one of the best draft day outcomes taken as a whole we could possibly have had given what we went in with.

      It just doesn’t seem fair to tease out the #19 pick decision from all the other decisions that were made that day and use it to trash the valuation process that concurrently led to all the good outcomes.

    31. The Hawks drafted an All-Star point guard in Trae Young and got a future top ten lottery pick, but I still think it’s fair to criticize them for choosing to not take Luka.

      So I think it’s fair to say the Knicks should have done all that other stuff, which I liked, as well as use the #19 pick on one of the many good young players available at #19, which I did not like them not using it and then trading it for a pick that, at best, won’t be better than the pick they traded.

    32. thenoblefacehumper: I’m not going to speculate on what was offered because I don’t have the same level of confidence on the matter that you have, as you are positive four teams called Leon Rose and said “we will absorb Mitchell Robinson into cap space, if you are looking to dump his prorated $1.8M salary.”

      I personally find that unlikely and think we were offered something!

      But it is a cheap shot to assume that the “something” is actually a significant enough return to matter. Your twisting of this point is mind-boggling. Can you even say what would have been a return large enough to accept, given the circumstances at the time?

      Again, the “for nothing” part is petty when you can’t even come up with an alternative “for something” scenario. Why not just say “not offering the “max” money/years we could to Mitch and leave it at that?

    33. Brian Cronin: Brian Cronin
      May 22, 2022 at 1:32 pm
      The Hawks drafted an All-Star point guard in Trae Young and got a future top ten lottery pick, but I still think it’s fair to criticize them for choosing to not take Luka.

      Sure, it’s fair to offer guarded criticism, but that’s a far cry from what has happened here. No one is saying that the Hawks are doomed because that move was so dumb that it indicates a fatally flawed thinking process. If anything, the original hot takes have been largely muted by Trae’s incredible play.

    34. Brian Cronin: trading it for a pick that, at best, won’t be better than the pick they traded.

      This is not accurate either. At best, the pick would be #15 in 2023-24 or 2024-25. That is quite possibly better than the pick they traded, and in 2024-25 it could be much more situationally valuable given where the team is at that time.

    35. Z-man: I am a bit concerned about the mindset that we shouldn’t take a big at #11 no matter what. Wouldn’t it have neen nice to select Giannis, Bam or Allen at #11?

      Most of us have Chet Holmgren, C, as the #1 overall pick. Because he looks like a dominant player with every tool you want. The rest of the C field is rimrunner/defenders.

      And can you definitively say Duren is a lock to be better than Williams, Kessler, or even Koloko who is going in the 2nd rd?

      Zach Collins (who actually showed some stuff as a backup for SA) was drafted ahead of Bam. In the same draft, Justin Patton (now out of the league) was drafted ahead of Allen.

      Giannis isn’t a center. But Cody Zeller, Alex Len, Nerlens, Steven Adam’s, & Kelly Olynyk were all Cs drafted ahead of him.

    36. This is not accurate either. At best, the pick would be #15 in 2023-24 or 2024-25. That is quite possibly better than the pick they traded, and in 2024-25 it could be much more situationally valuable given where the team is at that time.

      You’re right and wrong. The best it could be would be #17 in 2023-24 and #15 in 2024-25 and then second round picks after that. But that is slightly better than what I thought, so that’s fair, my bad! Doesn’t change it being a bad trade, but it is less of a bad trade because of that (while still being a very bad trade)!

    37. Brian Cronin: You’re right and wrong. The best it could be would be #17 in 2023-24 and #15 in 2024-25 and then second round picks after that. But that is slightly better than what I thought, so that’s fair, my bad! Doesn’t change it being a bad trade, but it is less of a bad trade because of that (while still being a very bad trade)!

      It has one chance of conveying at #17 or 18 next year and two chances at conveying at #15-18, once in 2024 and once in 2025…that’s quite a ways from “it would at best be an equal pick.” And as strat pointed out, there is the situational value of the pick in the future as an unspent pick. I’m not sure why strat’s logic is dismissed so easily, as it is a basic economic principle employed by regularly investors.

    38. I just do it.

      awwww, thank you so much for you patience and continued kindness doc bob…it means a lot to me…i think i understand that in your case the activity itself – has helped to lead you along…

      i guess i’m searching for a path forward…i have a strong feeling you’ve figured some things out reference moving forward…as always, i really appreciate your words…

    39. If we can’t get Brunson or Tyus, i’d be up to get Micic. He’s not short, like Larkin, he’s a big PG at 6’5 with a 6’7 wingspan. Thibs would love him. And he’d probably come a lot cheaper than Brunson and still cheaper than Tyus.

      @SynergySST: Vasilije Micic has shot an eFG% of 63% creating his own shot out of the pick and roll in the @EuroLeague this season.
      https://twitter.com/SynergySST/status/1527346406364631047

      @ZakkasGeorge: Vasilije Micic at the buzzer. What a game… Efes beats Olympiacos (77-74) at the semi-final
      https://twitter.com/ZakkasGeorge/status/1527345523203530752 (w/ video)

      @BrandonRahbar: Future Thunder player/trade asset Vasilije Micic is now a back to back EuroLeague champion, back to back Finals MVP and a EuroLeague MVP.
      Word is he finally wants to make the jump to the NBA.
      Good timing for OKC with the NBA Draft in one month if the Thunder want to trade up.
      https://twitter.com/BrandonRahbar/status/1528089388835557377

      @BrandonRahbar: Or OKC could keep him. He’s a great win-now player. But if the Thunder want to trade, coming off back to back Finals MVPs leading into the draft in which OKC may want to jump from #12 into the top 10 gives him some extra heat.
      https://twitter.com/BrandonRahbar/status/1528091186136764416

    40. Maybe OKC falls in love with a player and trade #12 and the rights to Micic (who they don’t seem to be planning on bringing to the NBA) for pick #11 (basically not risking the Knicks picking their guy).

    41. And as strat pointed out, there is the situational value of the pick in the future as an unspent pick. I’m not sure why strat’s logic is dismissed so easily, as it is a basic economic principle employed by regularly investors.

      As Strat himself said, “Was there someone there they obviously SHOULD HAVE liked and taken at that price?”

      The answer is yes. There were many players they should have liked and taken, which is why it was a bad idea to trade the pick.

    42. Z-man: But it is a cheap shot to assume that the “something” is actually a significant enough return to matter.

      Well the alternative is “nothing,” so the bar here is…low. Again, I am befuddled that this is controversial.

      As I’ve said one million times, it’s quite possible we didn’t pass on a great asset for Mitch, and more broadly it’s even more possible this series of transactions/non-transactions will not be the *sole* reason Rose and co. fail.

      But in the NBA stupidity tends to beget more stupidity. It’s just not a very promising sign that Rose’s defenders have to constantly say “incinerating the 19th pick was bad, but not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things,” “spending significant money on Alec Burks and Nerlens Noel was bad, but not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things,” “letting Mitch walk for nothing was bad, but not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things,” etc.

      Eventually one arrives at the conclusion that these guys just ain’t very sharp. For a while you could say “at least they haven’t made an utterly moronic, devastating move,” but now there is an emerging consensus that we roster the worst contract in the NBA, so that’s going by the wayside too.

    43. Noble,

      You’re only focusing on the bad though. Alec Burks is not a bad contract anyways. We’ve drafted well and our young players for the most part have gotten better. IQ was a fantastic pick that most in this blog hated at the time. Grimes is a solid pick. Sims is a great pick for his draft position. So yeah some of the other stuff ain’t great but it’s not that bad either. It’s easy to focus on the negative bc the season was a step back. But in the two seasons since rose has taken over we’ve basically been a 500 team with a lot of young players and we’ve added picks to our cupboard. Until they totally screw up I’m not gonna sweat it.

      This off season is huge though. If Mitch walks for nothing and they trade the farm for Mitchell to pair with Randle then I’m going to be a lot more despondent.

    44. It would be interesting to poll everyone and see how many people simultaneously believe it’s not a big deal to let Mitch go and also not a big deal to give RJ a max or near max.

      Obviously, I am all in on the “accretion of small decisions” idea. To me it’s much like a long backgammon tournament where the final result is the product of hundreds of small decisions. I do think a lot of people subscribe to something more like the idea that what matters is how well you play a few big hands, to borrow from poker (although poker is just as much a game of many small decisions)

      Mitch’s numbers are remarkable. He literally holds the record for FG%. He has all the tools to be on All Defensive team. There are very low odds he doesn’t earn his contract.. And I really doubt anyone in this team will have a better career than he will by any reasonable statistical measures.. Certainly not RJ.

      I strongly suspect we will find out that he didn’t want to be here and, also, the Knicks didn’t want him back for reasons related to his makeup.

    45. What are the odds that this is Westbrook’s final season in the NBA? It’s impossible to… … imagine a team desperate enough for his playmaking to put up with his shooting.

      You mean a team other than the one we root for, right?

    46. I generally agree that it was a mistake to go with a novice as a POBO and a retread as a coach with known selfish/rebuild-phobic tendencies.

      But once it was done, I sort of accepted that there would be a learning curve, and so long as the long-term strategy was relatively coherent and sound, I could live with the blips in execution.

      Your take is absolutely correct. But I think where you diverge with others is that we don’t see a relatively coherent and sound strategy.

      The strategy, as best I can gather, is to turn a lottery team into an annual play-in contender through the use of market-rate, place-holder veterans while we bring along young players until…. what? They become the players who can turn us into annual play-in contenders?

      And the idea is that if we do that a superstar is allegedly going to want to come here and team up with our incumbent “star”, Julius Randle. That’s supposed to be the pay off for all this? I don’t consider this to be a good strategy at all.

    47. thenoblefacehumper: Well the alternative is “nothing,” so the bar here is…low. Again, I am befuddled that this is controversial.

      You’re right, it isn’t controversial at all. One would have to be a total moron to trade their only starting-caliber C for something like a single second rounder at the trade deadline. Like, incomprehensively stupid.

    48. And the idea is that if we do that a superstar is allegedly going to want to come here and team up with our incumbent “star”, Julius Randle. That’s supposed to be the pay off for all this? I don’t consider this to be a good strategy at all.

      I’ve long felt that the strategy is just hold off on terrible moves and then hope something fluky happens. Which happens a lot in the NBA. Look at Steve Mills. He was terrible, and yet he almost had Kevin Durant and probably Kyrie Irving on the team fall into his laps just because something fluky happened! And then something flukier (Durant injuring himself) happened and then, well, shit didn’t fall into his laps and he was a terrible executive so he had no backup move, but still, the point remains that a fluky thing almost happened there! A KD/Irving/RJ/Mitch/…someone (Knox?) team would have been good and Mills, of all people, would have been responsible for it!

      And a strategy like that allows you to avoid making any bold moves and bold moves are the ones that you often get blamed for if things don’t work out (which is why so many people in sports make the same basic moves, because no one wants to stand out as the standouts are the ones who get fired if their gambits fail).

      I think that this offseason will be the rub, though, as to whether that actually is his strategy or not. If he makes a bunch of moves, we’ll know it’s not. I’m not as down on the guy as I think some others are, if only because I think it’s still just early enough that he could still prove himself. But yeah, this offseason really is the time for us to learn one way or other what his deal is.

    49. thenoblefacehumper:
      But in the NBA stupidity tends to beget more stupidity. It’s just not a very promising sign that Rose’s defenders have to constantly say “incinerating the 19th pick was bad, but not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things,” “spending significant money on Alec Burks and Nerlens Noel was bad,but not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things,” “letting Mitch walk for nothing was bad, but not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things,” etc.

      Well that presupposes that certain KBers are the sole arbiters of what is “bad” or “stupid” and how bad or stupid it is. Some of the same folks who think these moves are “bad” thought it was “bad” to offer the max to Devin Booker, or to trade an unprotected #1 and Zhaire Smith for a role player, or draft DeAndre Ayton over Doncic, or sign CP3 to a 4-year extension. Yet somehow the Suns made the finals last year and had the most wins in the NBA this year. I guess definitions and degrees of “badness” and “stupidness” do actually matter.

      And once again, the continuing use of the term “incinerating” sort of makes the point better than I could ever make it. The hyperbole train keeps on running!

    50. I’m not sure why strat’s logic is dismissed so easily, as it is a basic economic principle employed by regularly investors.

      It’s being dismissed so easily because it is preposterous. And the only thing Leon Rose did that investors do regularly is he panicked and sold low.

      It’s fair to deride the hyperbole people have used to describe what happened with the 19th pick. But I’m sorry, you cannot compare what Leon Rose did to Warren Buffett keeping his powder dry.

      Maybe we can come up with some arrangement where one side promises to stop using hyperbole and the other side stops trying to convince us that dumb things were smart.

      Leon made a mistake and it’s not the end of the world.

    51. Hubert: The strategy, as best I can gather, is to turn a lottery team into an annual play-in contender through the use of market-rate, place-holder veterans while we bring along young players until…. what? They become the players who can turn us into annual play-in contenders?

      My sense is to build enough young roster capital that you can package some of them and some market value vets along with surplus picks to land a star or two, while hoping that one or two of the young players develop into stars. That strategy seems pretty coherent. Not necessarily optimal, but coherent and sound.

      Now I agree that if the strategy is marginally suboptimal, there is less room for error (or just bad luck.) But the most important thing is how things turn out. As I said, if we had just drafted Grimes and McBride at #19 and #21, there would be no controversy here.

      It really comes down to whether they are good picks or not, and whether Reddish was utimately a good use of that #19 pick. But it’s far better than whiffing on any or all of those picks, or packaging them in a deal for a faux-star, etc.

      The heavy lifting is still ahead, starting with what to do about Thibs, Randle and RJ, and how to consolodate all the young players and picks. Those are far more consequential decisions than any of the preliminary stuff thus far.

    52. Hubert:

      Hubert: It’s being dismissed so easily because it is preposterous. And the only thing Leon Rose did that investors do regularly is he panicked and sold low.

      Actually, it is usually what happens to whatever was sold after whatever was sold was sold that determines whether one panicked and sold low or not. Warren Buffett and all successful investors sells “too soon” on positions all the time. Buffett et. al. make money because they make a) more smart decisions than dumb ones, b) always have additional capital on hand to invest for whenever opportunities come along and c) while they all make mistakes, they avoid potentially catastrophic “all in” mistakes.

    53. Brian Cronin: I think that this offseason will be the rub, though, as to whether that actually is his strategy or not. If he makes a bunch of moves, we’ll know it’s not. I’m not as down on the guy as I think some others are, if only because I think it’s still just early enough that he could still prove himself. But yeah, this offseason really is the time for us to learn one way or other what his deal is.

      I agree with this, Brian, but would take it a step further. We have so much capital in the 2023 draft that I think the moment of truth will be the free agency period after that draft. Of course, there are lots of consequential decisions before then, like whether to keep Julius, or max RJ, or keep Thibs, or make a consolidation trade involving guys like Obi, IQ, and Grimes.

    54. Hubert: Maybe we can come up with some arrangement where one side promises to stop using hyperbole and the other side stops trying to convince us that dumb things were smart.

      Most of us are on the same side. Sort of like Progressives and moderate Democrats are on the same side.

      The quibbling is not about “dumb vs. smart.” It’s about degree and impact in the grand scheme of things.

    55. There’s just no reason not to keep Mitch unless the offer is insane.

      From a roster standpoint, I would be fine with a healthy Nerlens & Jericho. But with Nerlens injury history & Taj looking washed at times I’m worried. Taj Novak may need to become more of a thing this year.

      I do wonder how much Mitch’s inability to screen hurts the offense. I doubt it outweighs his offensive rebounding. Any on/off based stats are likely too biased by the twin efficiency atrocities of Randle & RJ. But as a young enough player why not keep him.

      Hoping the Berman report is disinformation. Maybe a negotiating tactic or setting of expectations if Mitch chooses another team.

    56. Early Bird: There’s just no reason not to keep Mitch unless the offer is insane.

      Honestly, at this point I think it’s out of Leon’s hands. Mitch and his agent seem pretty clearly to prefer going the UFA route, and once that happens he’s going to the highest bidder, which will not be us. I’m not sure when the window for getting Mitch to bite on the 4year/$52 mill closed, but I suspect it was prior to the trade deadline. So the most likely hope of getting anything of value is via a sign-and-trade. I’d put the chances of him re-signing before the June deadline at less than 10%.

    57. Z-man: I agree with this, Brian, but would take it a step further. We have so much capital in the 2023 draft that I think the moment of truth will be the free agency period after that draft. Of course, there are lots of consequential decisions before then, like whether to keep Julius, or max RJ, or keep Thibs, or make a consolidation trade involving guys like Obi, IQ, and Grimes.

      I agree. This is more reasonable than saying that this off season is make or break for Rose and company. I think people are impatient for success and think this is long enough for the management team to get success. But actually it’s when you feel you have to make a move that big mistakes are often made. I’d rather see patience if a good big move isn’t available. In the summer of 2023 however, they will have expiring contracts and the youth they have accumulated will be old enough some of it should be good. Then they will have to make moves. If they don’t end up with a good team then, it’s fair to say their strategy was a failure.

    58. The Warriors defense is so damn good, they’re frustrating the shit out of Luka.

    59. I was just perusing one of Jalen Duren’s highlight reels again. He’s probably gone by #11, but if he isn’t and we wind up with him, I’d be pretty excited. Even though he’s raw, he’s got a bit of a midrange shot and decent footwork in the post, especially for an 18yo.

      Bam Adebayo would probably go #3 in a re-draft right after Tatum and Mitchell. I think there’s s similarly good chance that when all is said and done, Duren will be considered a top-5 player in this draft a few years down the road. I can’t imagine his floor is much lower than Mitch or even RWIII, and if his ceiling is a slightly less skilled but more physical Bam, that’s not something to pass up lightly.

      PS Kevin O’Conor has us taking him at #11, with Dyson Daniels as the main guy we pass over. He has Davis, Mathurin and Sochan going 8, 9 and 10, which sort of makes sense, but I’m not sure if any of those guys are better prospects than Duren.

    60. Z-man: Even though he’s raw, he’s got a bit of a midrange shot and decent footwork in the post, especially for an 18yo.

      Duren was terrible from outside the paint and barely took any shots from there. If a highlight reel made him look decent from the midrange, it’s because they showed every single one of his makes.

      Every report I’ve seen is that Duren has a very rudimentary post-game that is not close to ready for the NBA. He’s athletic and strong enough to punish some small 5s once or college kids a couple times a game, but he’s not a go to option there.

      Duren is athletic enough to become a great defender, but there’s plenty of athletic players who don’t live up to their potential. Some scouts, like Sam Vecenie, don’t buy his switchability. It’s not clear how he’ll deal with NBA guards.

      Duren could be a defensive phenom, or he could turn into playoff Gobert getting burnt on the perimeter and unable to help others at the rim.

      In no way would it surprise me to find out that in 5 years Duren is among the best players in this draft. But he could just as easily be the same rim running uber athletic C every team has.

      Unless Duren becomes a go-to post player or adds a 3pt shot, he’s no different than Mark Williams, Koloko, etc.

    61. I agree. This is more reasonable than saying that this off season is make or break for Rose and company. I think people are impatient for success and think this is long enough for the management team to get success. But actually it’s when you feel you have to make a move that big mistakes are often made. I’d rather see patience if a good big move isn’t available. In the summer of 2023 however, they will have expiring contracts and the youth they have accumulated will be old enough some of it should be good. Then they will have to make moves. If they don’t end up with a good team then, it’s fair to say their strategy was a failure.

      I want them to fire Thibs specifically because he pushes them too much for “win now,” so I’m not looking for “success” in year three, as obviously, that’d be foolish, since it almost certainly ain’t gonna happen. I just need to see Rose do something this offseason that makes it clear that he gets that this team is not a contender and is not close to being a contender, so something that looks like he has a plan outside of “run the same disappointing team back, just with a #11 pick and without one of its best players, then hope for something fluky.” I’m not asking for much. The bar is very low. Just seem like he has a real understanding of what’s going on that he didn’t seem to have last offseason when he looked at the team and said, “Let’s just run it back.”

      Last year, I said I understood how he would think to do that, as that’s what most typical NBA GMs would do in his shoes (who messes with a team that just got the #4 seed?), but the typical NBA GM isn’t that good, and I want to see more from him than, “That’s probably the same move Gar Forman would make.”

    62. Brian, I know what you mean and agree that we are not a contender now and management should not act as if we are. But I’m not sure what sort of sign would make you happy that our front office understands that. If they actually just added two draft picks and somehow muddled through the question of Mitch, that could mean they are committed to build with youth and are waiting for the youth to improve. That’s what you say you want, but from your post it sounds like that wouldn’t be enough for you.

    63. Well said, Brian. Clearly the unexpected success of 2020-21 went to Leon’s and Thibs’ heads. That’s kind of what I mean by giving Leon a bit more rope due to a typical learning curve involved in a hard job. He has made some rookie mistakes. Not huge, franchise-crippling ones, but mistakes just the same.

      And I agree, the biggest mistake so far is in hiring Thibs. The success of 2020-21 sort of glossed over that one. Yet there have been some clear benefits to that. I mean, knocking the Nets down a few pegs in the Battle for New York has been totally awesome, and Thins has been a big part of that. I also like that recent article about how Thibs meets with young players for special practices every morning and how that seems to have translated into development. And he’s a great defensive coach. And the team is now top-10 in 3pt shots attempted. And the ISM BS was largely debunked, as we were still 6th in 3pt% against. But being 29th in pace after being 30th the year before worries me. The young guys need to play faster.

      So yeah, I’d like to see at least some kind of transition towards playing the kids more and and playing faster. I’d like Randle gone too, but not in the “panic-sell” fashion advocated by some here. He seems to be the biggest reason for the slow pace. When he’s not in, the ball moves and the team gets out in transition. But even if he’s here, it’s on the coach to rein him in.

    64. Early Bird: Duren was terrible from outside the paint and barely took any shots from there. If a highlight reel made him look decent from the midrange, it’s because they showed every single one of his makes.

      Every report I’ve seen is that Duren has a very rudimentary post-game that is not close to ready for the NBA. He’s athletic and strong enough to punish some small 5s once or college kids a couple times a game, but he’s not a go to option there.

      Duren is athletic enough to become a great defender, but there’s plenty of athletic players who don’t live up to their potential. Some scouts, like Sam Vecenie, don’t buy his switchability. It’s not clear how he’ll deal with NBA guards.

      Duren could be a defensive phenom, or he could turn into playoff Gobert getting burnt on the perimeter and unable to help others at the rim.

      In no way would it surprise me to find out that in 5 years Duren is among the best players in this draft. But he could just as easily be the same rim running uber athletic C every team has.

      Unless Duren becomes a go-to post player or adds a 3pt shot, he’s no different than Mark Williams, Koloko, etc.

      I agree with all this, but that’s why guys like Bam and Giannis are available at #11 rather than in the mix for the top 3-4 spots. You would have to buy the potential rather than the current reality. For me, it’s about him being one of the youngest players in the draft and already having a high floor. If you look at Bam’s college film, or Giannis’ film from Greece, you’d see the same inconsistency, but the rudiments of a more advanced game. I don’t see that with Williams, etc.

    65. First – glad Alan is out of the hospital and on the mend! Happy to help – all I did was play matchmaker between a long-time KBer and a great surgeon.

      Second – hate to praise Pat Riley but you have to give credit to him for that Bam pick. Seems most consensus mocks at that time had him in low 20s-ish or at best high teens. He averaged like 1 assist per 36, had a 1:2 A:TO ratio, shot 65% from the line — fast forward 5 years and he’s one of the best passing big men in the league, dangerous mid-range shooter, and maybe the best defender at the center position in the playoffs. If anyone thinks Jalen Duren can be a switchable defender that can survive in the playoffs, then he’d be worth the #11 pick- but that’s not the sense I get. And certainly Mark Williams could never survive past the first round.

      Third – call me unconvinced that Mitch is worth Robert Williams money ie. max extension. Noel was a bad contract the second it was signed, so it is not useful to compare any potential Mitch contract to that one other than as confirmation of FO incompetence. The major worry is that DET will try and sign him outright (and so we’d likely be stuck just getting a trade exception — only valuable if we stay over the cap, but still something worthwhile) , but overall it is quite possible we will get something acceptable in S&T. I like Mitch but it is notable that other than not jumping out of his skin to block every shot, he’s not really better (at all) than he was 2 or 3 years ago. He absolutely cannot pass the ball. His FT shooting is abysmal even after FOUR seasons in the NBA – actually has gotten worse every season (60->56.8->49.1->48.6%, and yet he spends his free time shooting 3’s). He is injury prone, and while supremely bouncy, is one of the most awkward landers I’ve ever seen. I just do not think he’s the guy to pay starter C $ to. I mean, Javale McGee is honestly better and is available every offseason at 1yr/4-5MM.

    66. I think this last point — lack of improvement – is really important. We are wiling to pay RJ more than his past performance may dictate because we believe in his trajectory (not to mention positional value) – ie. he really is just better than he was in his 1st or 2nd year, even if the efficiency stats don’t necessarily show it. But Mitch is literally the same player as he was his rookie year, just slightly more disciplined. he IS a great offensive rebounder, which is most useful when your offense sucks and you miss a lot of shots. Although he resembles what Gobert does, he doesn’t remotely compare with Gobert in terms of impact. The Knicks were a better team defensively with him off the floor (109.5 DRtg) than on the floor (112). Even if you add Randle into the Mitch on/off as a surrogate of being in a bad starting lineup, the Knicks were much better defensively in the Sims Randle minutes (107.3 DRtg) than the Mitch Randle minutes (113.4).

      And let me not forget to say again that paying RJ the max would be total lunacy – the definition of bidding against ourselves before there are even any other suitors. As much as I like RJ personally and respect his work ethic and the way he handles himself, I think there’s at least a 50/50 chance that this is the peak of his value, and that we should trade him before that value drops (whether as a result of plateauing of his game, a bad contract, or both).

    67. Yeah, my caveat with Duren is that the FO would have to do their HW and conclude that he’s very likely to improve dramatically from where he is right now at age 18. Riley saw that in Bam, Toronto saw that in OG, etc. That’s what the great FOs do….

    68. Things are almost never black and white. It’s not “win now” vs. “76er style” tank.

      There are things in between.

      Do you think Thibs and Rose are total idiots. lmao

      They unquestionably knew the team was not a contender going into last season. Last year they were looking to make a big move if possible, but when it wasn’t available they were looking to make small incremental improvements in areas of need, retain some long term flexibility, and add youth as part of a multi year rebuild that includes the draft, free agency’, and trades.

      You can argue with moves they made like replacing Bullock with Fournier and gambling on Kemba (especially both in combination), but they understood approximately where the team was after Thib’s first year and what it needed. They made the wrong moves, had key injuries, Randle melted down, and the East predictably got better. So they got a bad outcome.

      So what they are supposed to do now is try to correct the directional error, find a starting PG, upgrade where possible, and continue developing and adding to the stable of young players with upside. No matter what, this was ALWAYS going to to be a multi year process. They absolutely knew that all along. It’s one step at a time.

    Comments are closed.