Knicks Morning News (2022.07.25)

  • Atlantic notes: Carey, Simmons, Nash, Mitchell, Knicks, Celtics – Balkan Travellers
    [www.balkantravellers.com] — Sunday, July 24, 2022 9:57:44 PM

    Atlantic notes: Carey, Simmons, Nash, Mitchell, Knicks, Celtics  Balkan Travellers

  • Wilt Chamberlain, worth $10 million took the NBA to court for botching his move to New York Knicks – The Sportsrush
    [thesportsrush.com] — Sunday, July 24, 2022 9:30:50 PM

    Wilt Chamberlain, worth $10 million took the NBA to court for botching his move to New York Knicks  The Sportsrush

  • Atlantic Notes: Curry, Simmons, Nash, Mitchell, Knicks, Celtics – hoopsrumors.com
    [www.hoopsrumors.com] — Sunday, July 24, 2022 8:35:00 PM

    Atlantic Notes: Curry, Simmons, Nash, Mitchell, Knicks, Celtics  hoopsrumors.com

  • Steady Jalen Brunson will bring ‘everyday’ type energy to Knicks – New York Post
    [nypost.com] — Sunday, July 24, 2022 6:11:00 PM

    Steady Jalen Brunson will bring ‘everyday’ type energy to Knicks  New York Post Where Do The New York Knicks Go From Here?  ForbesKnicks’ Jalen Brunson Discusses Handling Pressure of Playing in New York  Bleacher ReportKnicks Notes: Tampering, Brunson, Wright, Fournier, Rose, Mitchell  hoopsrumors.comThe Issue With the Knicks’ Introduction of Jalen Brunson  Sports IllustratedView Full Coverage on Google News

  • NBA Rumors: 3 New Cam Reddish Trades For Knicks To Consider – NBA Analysis Network
    [nbaanalysis.net] — Sunday, July 24, 2022 5:39:55 PM

    NBA Rumors: 3 New Cam Reddish Trades For Knicks To Consider  NBA Analysis Network

  • Collin Sexton: 3 teams that must still take a run at Cavs RFA in 2022 NBA free agency – ClutchPoints
    [clutchpoints.com] — Sunday, July 24, 2022 12:39:40 PM

    Collin Sexton: 3 teams that must still take a run at Cavs RFA in 2022 NBA free agency  ClutchPoints

  • Kobe Bryant’s Ex-teammate, Who Admitted to Being a “Michael Jordan Guy”, Once Wore a Knicks Jersey While Being Drafted by the Bulls – EssentiallySports
    [www.essentiallysports.com] — Sunday, July 24, 2022 11:30:00 AM

    Kobe Bryant’s Ex-teammate, Who Admitted to Being a “Michael Jordan Guy”, Once Wore a Knicks Jersey While Being Drafted by the Bulls  EssentiallySports

  • Pros and cons of three possible Knicks starting lineups for 2022-23 – Daily Knicks
    [dailyknicks.com] — Sunday, July 24, 2022 8:00:00 AM

    Pros and cons of three possible Knicks starting lineups for 2022-23  Daily Knicks

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

    91 thoughts to “Knicks Morning News (2022.07.25)”

    1. Reposting from end of last thread…
      ————-
      Shams:

      Utah, New York and Indiana are among the teams who have discussed deals with the Lakers involving Russell Westbrook and draft capital, sources said. There appears no deal imminent in those conversations — as the overall trade market plays out over the next two months of the offseason.

      Also, a whole bunch on Boston offering Jaylen Brown in a package for Durant.

      https://theathletic.com/3446562/2022/07/25/celtics-offer-jaylen-brown-package-for-kevin-durant-the-latest-on-donovan-mitchell-and-more-inside-pass/

    2. Heh, I guess I’ll re-add my thoughts, as well. :)

      Brown is such a smart guy to try to trade for Durant. I just don’t know what else Boston has to deal. EDITED TO ADD: Reading the piece, it sounds like Brooklyn would want Smart, picks, Brown and one other rotation guy (I bet Grant Williams, as he has the least purpose on the team with Durant there). That’s a good deal for both teams.

      As for the Utah rumors, Shams specifically notes that team keeping an eye on Westbrook are doing so contingent on other deals. In other words, Utah would be willing to trade for Russ (in exchange for the first round pick the Lakers would attach with him) if they trade Mitchell first, ya know? Shams also notes in the same piece that Utah is in no rush to trade Mitchell.

    3. This is a minor side note to BKs asking for Marcus Smart as part of any deal for KD, but I would love to see Smart as a teammate of Kyrie. There’s be a great deal of frisson there. Don’t think Kyrie’s schtick would sit well with Smart.

    4. My Celtics fan friend loves to crow about how his team is homegrown and built the right way, and how he hates assholes like Durant, Harden and Kyrie.

      I guess if they do get Durant it’ll be time to root for the laundry lol.

    5. This sounds like bs:

      It’s probably more an issue of framing than anything. I’m sure six teams have looked into Mitchell, especially since we know some teams were looking into Durant, and if you’re willing to make a mega offer for Durant, you’re probably also willing to make a big offer for Mitchell once Durant goes elsewhere. That said, I doubt six teams are actually serious about Mitchell.

    6. Reading that Brunson article made me jealous. Don’t get me wrong- I love what Johnnie Bryant is doing. But I’d also love to have a God Shammgod working with our PG’s as well. Specifically Quickley because of his handle. I will say this though- Bryant makes our guards better overall players than having Shammgod to focus on our PG’s would- so I’m grateful. But man! To have Shammgod tutor your PG’s?? Yeesh!

    7. Charania has shown that he’s a mouthpiece for organizations and agents, and that’s how he gets his sources. I’m sure a lot of teams have called about Mitchell but leaking this now is also obviously a strategy to try to get the Knicks to just pay up.

      On the Durant trade, as soon as Ayton got offered the max by the Pacers the Celtics immediately went to the front spot, so I’ll be very surprised if that doesn’t end up happening. I don’t think anyone has an asset like Jaylen Brown that makes as much sense for the Nets. For all the caveats about Durant, his age, injuries, fit with Tatum, etc, at the end of the day I still think he’s their best chance to get over the hump and I kinda hate it.

    8. I may be on an island here, but I would rather lose Grimes than IQ and it’s not particularly close. I think Grimes’ D is overrated and he is far from the “knockdown” 3 pt shooter as Fred Katz described. Sure, he could help any team, but what’s his ceiling? To me it’s a generic undersized 3&D wing who struggles to stay in front of quicker guards and to defend bigger, longer, more versatile wings who can back down and pull up off the dribble. Quickley is quicker (npi) and craftier, is longer and stronger than he looks, and showed signs of being able to do more than just pull up for floaters when he gets into the paint. I see 6MoY potential in Quick and a guy who can fill in adequately wheneve either Brunson or Mitchell needs a break. He can get his own shot, run the break, defend the point of attack, and has leadership qualities. I think he has a MUCH higher ceiling than Grimes.

      I’d hate to lose either guy, but think that Grimes is being vastly overrated in this discussion.

    9. So after that Boston trade, does Brogdon become the starting PG? That team would still have some holes to fill.

      As for Mitchell, I’m still sort of don’t care if we get him, but I’m surprised so many people see RJ as a top asset. The guy has put up some terrible numbers. I keep thinking it’s a clever Leon bait-and-switch that he will unleash soon, but it probably isn’t.

    10. I’d hate to lose either guy, but think that Grimes is being vastly overrated in this discussion.

      I was joking the other day that I feel like Ainge has pulled off a Tom Sawyer fence whitewashing scenario with the way he’s treated Grimes as the real prize.

    11. Maybe I’m a bit of a purist but the Durant trade seems like a terrible move for the Celts. It may result in a title, but I don’t think it raises their chances as much as folks think it does given how massively improved the east is, and if they have to give up Marcus Smart and Jaylen Brown, it totally disrupts their defensive identity. In other words, I’d love to see it happen!

    12. Z-man, I know what you mean about quickly doing more stuff but I’m not sure why you think Grimes is small. He’s almost the same size as Klay Thompson and nobody says Klay is small

    13. Maybe I’m a bit of a purist but the Durant trade seems like a terrible move for the Celts. It may result in a title, but I don’t think it raises their chances as much as folks think it does given how massively improved the east is, and if they have to give up Marcus Smart and Jaylen Brown, it totally disrupts their defensive identity. In other words, I’d love to see it happen!

      The more I think about it, the less I see it for the same Smart reasons. They’d only have Brogdon, White and Pritchard in the backcourt. Meanwhile, don’t Tatum and Durant occupy the same exact space on the court?

    14. As for Mitchell, I’m still sort of don’t care if we get him, but I’m surprised so many people see RJ as a top asset. 

      I think it’s just logistical. If you’re acquiring Mitchell to win now, why would you trade your number two guy in minutes in the deal who is 22?

    15. The best strategy for Leon would be to wait until the season starts before pulling the trigger on a big move. I am guessing that Ainge is fixated on the Knicks’ first rounders and he’s not going to just make a deal to get it over with. Delaying would give Leon/Brock/Thibs a chance to a) define what 6 months of intensive workouts coming off of a nice run at the end of the season has meant in terms of Obi’s, IQ’s, and Cam’s development, b) gauge the impact that Brunson has on the team dynamic, c) see where RJ and Randle are at. I mean, maybe I’m wrong and Ainge goes for a lesser deal that he thinks he can squeeze out of Aller/Leon, but I also think that Leon’s schmoozing skills combined with Danny’s stubbornness might buy time. Ultimately it’s a risk that we lose out on Donovan, but it’s certainly a risk worth taking given all of the unknowns, many of which work against us.

    16. I’m with Z-Man on Grimes/IQ.

      We all have a tendency to overrate our own young players. I may be especially guilty of that. But even though I like both Grimes and IQ and would hate to lose either one, to me, IQ’s role on a serious contender is already defined., He’s can be a high level 6th man that could wind up being a lot better than that. Grimes feels more like a lesser role player. I guess we haven’t seen of him enough yet, but I’d rather keep what I think I know.

    17. I think Quickley has a higher ceiling than Grimes and probably prefer to keep him on those grounds alone, but Grimes is a mortal lock to be able to play for a team of any quality while Quickley’s fit at the highest levels of play is still a bit up in the air. Since Ainge can shoot for upside with the embarrassment of riches he’s going to have in terms of picks I can understand why he might prefer Grimes.

      Reading between the lines of the Shams report, it sounds like a three team trade between us, Utah, and the Lakers has at least been bandied about. The problem is the Lakers are going to make sure both Kyrie and a Pacers trade are completely off the table before they even consider rolling the dice on Randle.

      On the off chance both of those options are ruled out for the Lakers, they’re one of maybe two teams who might be willing to take on Randle. We can hope!

    18. ‘I may be on an island here…’

      Break out the toy shovels and yellow bucket and let’s build some castles in the sand, Z-Man.

      (And Knicks Fan, Grimes is either two or three inches shorter than Klay, depending on who you believe about Klay’s size. Not a huge difference, but also not insignificant. FYI, Quick is only one inch shorter than Grimes, for what that’s worth…)

    19. Much as I want him gone, I’m not even sure Randle would be necessary to the hypothetical NYK/LAL/UTA three-teamer. The Lakers could, for instance, take Fournier and Rose from us and, say, Jordan Clarkson and Rudy Gay from Utah, with Russ being the only player going to Utah and Mitchell being the only player coming here. And there are lots of other combinations that would give LA the depth and mix of shooting and playmaking the team currently lacks thanks to the initial Russ trade. Obviously, some huge combo of picks and prospects would have to be changing hands for this to happen, but that kind of package seems to make more sense for the Lakers than a Randle/Towns frontcourt and LeBron as a fulltime point guard.

    20. “Z-man, I know what you mean about quickly doing more stuff but I’m not sure why you think Grimes is small. He’s almost the same size as Klay Thompson and nobody says Klay is small.”

      Grimes is an inch shorter with an inch shorter wingspan. It’s not a lot but it makes a difference, especially given Klay’s lightning-quick release. As to defense, I dunno, I’m just going by what I see when I watch them, especially Grimes. I don’t know where the raves about Grimes’ D come from, I personally didn’t see anything that suggested he was potentially some sort of knockdown defender. I saw a guy who was pretty physical, pretty intense, with pretty good footwork, but also that got burned by quicker guards and shot over by longer, more skilled wings. As to potential, I was much more impressed by Cam. Frankly, I’d want to take a good look at Cam vs. Grimes in training camp…and if Cam measured up, I’d let Grimes go in a heartbeat (while convincing Ainge that Grimes was indeed the next Klay).

    21. “I was joking the other day that I feel like Ainge has pulled off a Tom Sawyer fence whitewashing scenario with the way he’s treated Grimes as the real prize.”

      I was literally just saying the same thing about Leon and RJ lol. Personally, I like Quickley and Grimes pretty equally and would like to keep them both.

    22. I guess if you want to knock Grimes — and Obi in this sense — he is pretty much a one-position player (SG) in a “positionless” NBA but one who fights hard on switches etc. whereas Quickley can credibly play both guard positions. I’m just not sure exactly how important that is.

    23. Again, I’ll risk being on an island and say that the best version of any Knicks team in the next 2-3 years, Donovan or no Donovan, has Randle playing somewhere between his two pre-Knicks years and his “most improved” year. Obi has potential but there are some pretty significant leaps of faith involved in envisioning him as a starting-caliber PF. It’s another reason why I’d like to wait until the season starts before passing judgment. I don’t think it serves the team well to dump Randle in a panic move on the questionable assumption that Obi can handle a starting role on a good team.

      I guess it comes down to patience. I think it’s important to know within a narrow range who your assets really are before deciding who to keep and who to trade. This is a time of great uncertainty in that regard…about Randle, RJ, IQ, Obi, Grimes, and Cam. The guys who we know what to expect from are Fournier, Rose, Mitch, and I think Brunson (although there’s some uncertainty there too) and to a lesser degree Hart, Sims, and Deuce.

    24. Grimes has definitely become quite overrated due, in my opinion, to the conflation between the idea that it’s easy to visualize what the fully actualized version of him looks like on a good team (true) with the idea that he’s certain to reach that level (false). We’re talking about a relatively low draft pick who as an older rookie both A. didn’t play a lot, and was B. unproductive overall when he did play. I think he has a chance to become a nice player but people tend to overrate the “floor” of guys they think are future role players. A lot of those guys just end up not being any good. I’d rather have Quickley.

    25. Basketball reference says Grimes is 6’5” and 205 pounds and that Thompson is 6’6” and 215 pounds. That’s where I got my numbers from

    26. I don’t see the comparison of Grimes to Klay. I think this is an example of where we overrate our own young players. Klay is one of the greatest shooters in NBA history, already proven to be able to execute on the biggest stage, and at least before he for hurt a very high level defender. I’m not even sure Grimes is a very good shooter yet let alone a great one, he hasn’t done anything under extreme pressure, and he’s an energetic defender, but not peak Klay.

    27. I concede there’s a case for Quickley being better than Grimes, but I don’t see how you can call Grimes unproductive. His true shooting was 0.565 and his eFG was 0.557. His warts are actually low usage and low assist percentages and perhaps his free throw shooting. Quickley was much better at those. I think good shooting Rookies tend to stand out and have value, so I’m not surprised Ainge likes Grimes. Quickley plays a position that often has a several year learning curve and he’s doing fine at learning. I’m not intending to diminish him by saying Grimes is good.

    28. I prefer to keep Grimes and it’s not because i’m overrating him, it’s because he’s a low usage player. With Brunson and Mitchell in the backcourt, we need low usage players. I also think people are forgetting Quick’s streaky shooting. About Obi, he’s low usage too and i think we should do our best to keep him and find a home for Randle (he’ll never adapt to being a low usage player). Even RJ will have to lower his usage a bit.

    29. “I concede there’s a case for Quickley being better than Grimes, but I don’t see how you can call Grimes unproductive. His true shooting was 0.565 and his eFG was 0.557. ”

      His eFG% and TS% being nearly identical is part of the problem. He never gets to the line (FTr=.081, ridiculoudly low), he rarely shoots from 2 (3PAr=.804 is ridiculously high). He is a low-usage, low rebounding, low assist rate player. Now you can argue that he’s a late bloomer who will work hard at improving on those things, but he’s a long way from being the kind of prospect you are hesitant to include in a trade.

      OTOH, IQ gets to the line a lot and hits 90% from there when he does, takes only half of his shots from 3, gets far more assists, and just as many rebounds and steals as Grimes, and has virtually the same TOV% as Grimes. And being that he shoots 90% from the FT line it’s logical to think that the 3pt% will stabilize at least in the high 30’s. He also seems to have more natural range than Grimes, although that’s not a given yet.

      To me, IQ is as close to untouchable as anyone on our roster. I would HATE to include him in a Mitchell deal.

    30. I concede there’s a case for Quickley being better than Grimes, but I don’t see how you can call Grimes unproductive.

      Quentin Grimes:
      BPM: -0.3
      RPM: -2.36
      EPM: -1.4
      LEBRON: -1.19
      RAPTOR: 0.0

      There’s some stuff to like in his statistical profile below the top-line #s and I don’t mean to say it to hate on the kid – I like his potential. But I just don’t see a guy who is a lock to be a starter level player for a really good team, like most young players he will need to improve substantially to hit that level and there’s always a lot of uncertainty there.

    31. “cybersoze
      July 25, 2022 at 11:59 am
      I prefer to keep Grimes and it’s not because i’m overrating him, it’s because he’s a low usage player. With Brunson and Mitchell in the backcourt, we need low usage players. I also think people are forgetting Quick’s streaky shooting. About Obi, he’s low usage too and i think we should do our best to keep him and find a home for Randle (he’ll never adapt to being a low usage player). Even RJ will have to lower his usage a bit.”

      cyber, I don’t get this argument at all. I wouldn’t worry about usage. The only question for me is, who is the better player? If you are arguing that Grimes is better than IQ when not shooting the ball, that would be fair. But if Grimes is “low usage” because that’s all he can be, and IQ is clearly better at many other aspects of the game, then the usage argument is not all that valid.

      I also wouldn’t assume that Brunson is coming here to be a high-usage player. In fact, I think his main role is going to be to “regulate” the usage of guys like RJ and Julius, and even Mitchell, in a way that maximizes our chances of winning. His job is to get guys in position to take the most efficient shots in their shot profile. Randle and RJ are better at catching and shooting or slashing than at multi-dribble iso-ball. Our offense needs to be more opportunistic and refined, and Brunson’s the right guy to organize our offense.

    32. Wow, looks like Grimes island has a lot less people than i thought. Maybe i’m alone here, but Quick is very far from what you guys are describing, he spent all year being a bad PG, and then had 10 good games and it’s settled. He spent half the year shooting like crap, and then the other half he shoot well and it’s settled. At least Grimes is steady. He just needs to up his 3P% and he’ll be a very good player. He’s good at defense, i don’t know from where came the sense that Quick is better. Grimes’ DBPM was 0.9, Quick was -0.5 his first season and 0.0 on the second. Grimes looks better defensively on the eye test, and the stats say the same.

    33. I also think that having a three-guard rotation of Mitchell, Brunson and IQ makes perfect sense. All are combo guards who can play on or off the ball. You can juggle the minutes with a 4th bigger guard (RJ, Cam, Grimes, Fournier) depending on matchups. But those 3 will put a lot of pressure on opposing defenses.

    34. His job is to get guys in position to take the most efficient shots in their shot profile. Randle and RJ are better at catching and shooting or slashing than at multi-dribble iso-ball. Our offense needs to be more opportunistic and refined, and Brunson’s the right guy to organize our offense.

      That seems like the plan, yeah. I just don’t believe all those guys will lower their usage by a lot. If i was the GM i’d make some changes to address the usage problem. Mitchell will be high usage, that’s almost a given, then RJ i think he can adapt to lower his usage a bit, but not Randle. Brunson i hope can be the player you’re describing, that’d be great for us.

    35. Yeah I don’t get the low usage thing either.

      It’s the first quarter ofgame 7 of a playoff series and Donovan Mitchell has just gone down with an injury and can’t play the rest of the game. Do you want the low usage guy or the high usage guy stepping into that role?

      IQ is the more dynamic, higher ceiling player. You want to keep him and sacrifice Grimes. We can find other guys like Grimes in future drafts or as a free agent to fill out the bench. IQ has future 6th man of the year/sometimes starter potential.

    36. “cybersoze
      July 25, 2022 at 12:19 pm
      Wow, looks like Grimes island has a lot less people than i thought. Maybe i’m alone here, but Quick is very far from what you guys are describing, he spent all year being a bad PG, and then had 10 good games and it’s settled. He spent half the year shooting like crap, and then the other half he shoot well and it’s settled. At least Grimes is steady. He just needs to up his 3P% and he’ll be a very good player. He’s good at defense, i don’t know from where came the sense that Quick is better. Grimes’ DBPM was 0.9, Quick was -0.5 his first season and 0.0 on the second. Grimes looks better defensively on the eye test, and the stats say the same.”

      I know it comes across as Grimes-bashing, but trust me, I really like Grimes. I just think that IQ already is better and will continue to be better.

      I think it’s unfair to say that we are judging IQ on 10 good games and ignoring the larger preceding sample. Most here agree that Thibs made lots of mistakes with his rotations and minutes distributions last year, but through it all he was convinced that IQ had the ability to convert to PG if given enough reps. It’s an incredibly hard position to learn at the NBA level, and it is not a reach to assume that it impacted IQ’s shooting efficiency early on. But by the end of the season, he had a couple of triple-doubles and some close calls. He was also improving at getting to the rim. I feel that he made dramatic improvements over his rookie year in overall play and is worth keeping around to see what his next level is.

    37. Knicks Fan, that’s funny. Most other sites list Grimes at 6’4″, which seems right to me (slightly undersized SG). I seem to remember Klay was listed as 6’7″, but as with most people as they age he seems to have ‘shrunk’ to 6’6″. Osteoporosis is a bitch. And another clear example of how with all stats, it’s garbage in, garbage out…

      Based on his bizarre history, strong work ethic, and brass cojones, I really like Grimes. I just like IQ more.

    38. I would prefer to keep Quickley but I understand cyber’s point. Brunson, Mitchell, RJ, and IQ are all 20%+ USG players. That’s not even grappling with what happens in the dreadful scenario in which we have to try to pretend Randle makes any sense on this team.

      That’s a lot of shots going to smaller (i.e. generally less efficient) players, and while we can hope they’d all make the necessary adjustments to make it more workable than it looks on paper that doesn’t always work in practice. Maybe we could stagger lineups to make this less of an issue but you can only do so much of that if you want Quickley to play a lot.

      It’s much easier to see how Grimes fits in here. Of course, I think this is at least partially *because* Grimes has a lower ceiling and will probably never be a high usage player. For that reason I prefer to keep Quickley because we should still primarily be thinking about stacking talent more than anything else.

    39. The larger point is that Grimes vs. IQ is a reasonable debate because WE NEED MORE INFO ON BOTH!! That’s why I am so reluctant to part with any of them before we get Brunson in and run some preseason games vs. other teams. I don’t see the Mitchell situation as particularly unique. There is going to be a bloodbath in both conferences these next two years, and other teams are going to choose to rebuild and/or stars are going to become frustrated and disgruntled with losing in the playoffs. Teams are going to have key injuries and are going to make some desperate trades to stp the bleeding in a playoff race. We are in a fabulous position to play the waiting game.

    40. Also, something worth flagging is that on the merits Brunson should clearly be a higher usage guy than RJ. Brunson was one of the most efficient high usage guards in the NBA last season. RJ was one of the least efficient high usage *players* in the NBA last season.

      Now of course, I understand there’s a hell of a lot more to this equation than figuring out what shot distribution will lead to the most wins in 2022-2023 and I have absolutely no problem with that. One of the problems with the “hybrid” method though is it becomes a bit unclear how things like moving RJ’s development along fit into the larger plan.

    41. I think many (most?) philosophers would tell you that the universe is a set of deterministic chemical reactions with some randomness mechanics mixed in. We don’t have free will, and whether or not we do has little to do with whether the universe is expanding or contracting.

      hi ABK :)

      deterministic chemical reactions with some randomness mechanics mixed in

      this part right here is gonna take a minute or two to sort out…

      We don’t have free will

      that’s funny – this statement is like having some computer answer for pi…

      you know, i don’t think i’d even want to try argue the counterpoint to that…default = faith…yes, and a bit of a leaky vessel it can be at times…i wonder, whom do atheists blame when shit goes wrong…

    42. I would strongly prefer to make no-deal than to make a bad deal, but if you want to understand why the Knicks might feel some sense of urgency look no further than Ainge’s reported lack of interest in both RJ Barrett and Tyler Herro.

      In a world where contracts were meaningless, both of those guys would probably be factoring strongly into any trade discussions. In the real world where a rebuilding team has obvious reasons to not want to pay them a lot of of money, much less so.

      Next offseason, Quickley and Obi are all of the sudden in RJ’s position. Grimes is one year closer. Our own 2023 pick and the DAL 2023 pick vest, and who the hell knows maybe the 2023 WAS does too. We all know teams prefer picks to picked players, so we have to either make the picks and hope the players we pick are the rare birds who retain the value of a first-round pick or trade them in a scenario in which we’re obviously desperate to do so (regulars here may, uh, recall one such trade we made involving a first-round pick).

      It’s not crazy to think right now is at least close to the peak value of our viable trade package(s). I will repeat that this does not mean we should be desperate to make a deal, but understanding this stuff helps one understand why Leon might strongly prefer to get this done sooner rather than later.

    43. IQ struggled shooting last year because they took away his bread and butter foul drawing techniques with the new rules and because he was used to playing off the ball with Rose and was asked to play PG and create for himself and others. He had to adjust his game to keep his usage up and create shots in new ways.

      Granted he had one terrible streak mid season and the Knicks slumped badly during that period (which is evidence of his overall impact on games) but once he figured it all out he started playing well again. If we move him back to off the ball like I expect, he think his efficiency is going to spike up. He was a more skilled player last year, but in a different and tougher role. The data from the prior year is relevant also.

    44. “He is a low-usage, low rebounding, low assist rate player.”

      This is exactly what Grimes was tasked to do playing next to RJ, who was hellbent on getting to the line after December. Quickley’s game is something between PG and SG, and he was developing during his second season (Grimes was only in his rookie season.)

      I guarantee Grimes would’ve been benched if he had tried to squeeze a fancy pass into the post, and he knew that. Thibs clearly told him to play hard defense and make spot-up threes, and he basically did that. Now he’s trying out some other skills… cut the lid some slack!

    45. The issue with RJ and Herro is not unique, but its player specific. This is the kind of situation I’ve been talking about for years when it comes to drafting very young players. You often have to make a decision on extending them before you know what you have. There are going to be mistakes made. Some will be paid too much and then not develop and some will be traded and then develop later and set you back years.

      Ainge doesn’t want to be in the position NY and Miami are with those respective players either. That does not mean it’s automatically a mistake to pay them.

      However, many times you know exactly what you are dealing with from all star all the way down to role player. You know if the salary is attractive, fair, or risky. So there is no problem trading a player like that.

      With RJ we are dealing with his shot. We don’t know how efficient he will be in a few years because shot is often the last thing to develop. He has also been playing without a PG on a space challenged team. Other than that, he’s terrific. If his TS% rises to 56% next year with help from Brunson, better corner 3s (horrible last year) and a little elsewhere, he’s back to being a huge trade asset even with a bigger salary.

      With Herro, we know he can score, but will he ever be able to defend at all. As soon as we know, “fair” becomes clear.

    46. ess, again, it isn’t about bashing Grimes, just about preference. If Grimes was obviously bad there wouldn’t even be a discussion.

    47. We have talked forever about how hard it is to judge almost any Knicks player (other than perhaps super low-usage guys like Mitch or Reggie Bullock) without a for-real point guard on the roster. Brunson is not the second coming of John Stockton as a playmaker, but I would sure love to see what RJ, Quickley, Obi, and everyone else on the team — yes, maybe even Julius Randle — can do when the most important position on the court doesn’t feature a starter who is either washed, playing out of position, or never good in the first place. You know?

      Maybe then we can decide how badly we need Spida. The problem is that by then, it may be too late. So frustrating.

    48. i feel like this debate between grimes vs IQ is silly… nobody should hesitate including any of them in any deal for Mitchell… every single one of them is largely replaceable either through the waiver wire or through trade… and if anyone doubts that then just ask yourself if it would cost more or less than any/most future first the knicks will throw in to trade for them or someone who approximates their value on the open market… of course if you think Grimes is gonna be Klay then this is likely gonna look like the Frank discussions….

      on a team that made long term commitments for Brunson… and presumably Mitchell and RJ…. neither IQ or grimes is going to see many minutes so if Utah is asking for both of them and willing to drop the ask on draft compensation then that’s a slam dunk….

    49. We have talked forever about how hard it is to judge almost any Knicks player (other than perhaps super low-usage guys like Mitch or Reggie Bullock) without a for-real point guard on the roster.

      i think more than anything we need to see this team with an efficient high usage scorer… something Brunson is also but would take the ball away from Randle and RJ… there were MANY occassions last year.. .as well as the last three years… where they would have the ball in their hands and were legitimately trying to move the ball but would get the ball back since the initial play stagnated…. that has led to them just having to go for a terrible shot and develop bad habits….

      now a lot of that is also their fault…. but i imagine having an efficient scorer that eases the burden will take a fair chunk of bad shots away from both RJ and Randle which will hopefully lead to more efficient offense all around…. that doesn’t even get into Brunson setting either of them up with better shot opportunities on top of it…

      when you also add in Mitchell it will be a very interesting dynamic which i think will lead to good results also…. that is if the rest of the team comes to the realization what the pecking order should be and what a good and bad shot is….

    50. I’d keep Grimes. He’s more switchable and better on defense and better off-ball. He has a faster release at a higher point and switchable defenders are increasingly valuable.

      IQ is much better on-ball, but he won’t be on-ball.

    51. “i feel like this debate between grimes vs IQ is silly”

      It’s really just a “which one is your favorite player” discussion and a totally legit one for a Knicks blog.

      But both will probably be shipped out in this trade anyway, so whatever.

    52. I would actually put both IQ’s and Grimes’s value at about equivalent to a late 1st round pick, even more to us since we need to put a team around Mitchell. Including them in the trade should definitely and significantly effect the draft capital we send out.

      The order of keeping players would be Obi first, he is our only power forward (Hunt doesn’t really count and Randle needs to be gone) and has the highest upside of anyone on our roster outside of RJ. Next would be IQ, since Rose is likely going out for salary purposes we need a backup pg and IQ has a higher ceiling than Grimes. Finally Grimes, losing him would hurt but ultimately on this team he will never be a starter with RJ and Mitchell here and is the most easily replaceable. I still think we should absolutely do everything in our power to keep him however.

    53. If the Knicks prefer Grimes to IQ, I think it would be for floor spacing reasons, that they see Grimes as a true floor stretching sniper. Grimes is a high eFG% player who rarely gets to the line, while IQ is a low eFG% player who makes up for that by getting to the line a lot.

      Rose may feel that he has enough guys who are looking to drive to the basket and draw contact, and not enough spot up shooters that can knock down lots of threes. Defensively IQ and Grimes are roughly a wash, I’ll buy that Grimes is a slightly better defender but it’s not a large gap. The Knicks also may feel like Grimes’ driving game has untapped potential– he was a “stand in the corner and wait for the ball” guy last year, but it’s possible he could do more. At least some of that microscopic FTr is probably because of role.

    54. Grimes has an extra year of team control before they’d have to make a decision on extending him or not. Maybe that breaks the tie? That also might be why Utah (allegedly) prefers him over Quickley. Also, Grimes is a bit cheaper over the next two years.

    55. I think Grimes will have to bulk up quite a bit to be an effective defender and penetrator with his measurables, I’m thinking along the lines of what Desmond Bane did this season. Bane was also an older rookie and mostly a spot up shooter in his rookie year and his measurables are also not great at all, just 6’5″ with a very short wingspan, but he’s so strong and he developed his handles to the point where he became very effective attacking close outs and driving while still being a very good shooter. If Grimes ever develops into something more I’d guess this is the path he should be looking for.

    56. Grimes went from 1.5 FTA per game last year in the summer league to 7 this year (he played basically the same amount of minutes). Obviously it’s not the NBA, but he certainly seems to be trying to diversify his game.

    57. Hawks waived Sharife Cooper, who IIRC was one of the guys people wanted us to take with 19 or 21 last year. (Back when we had 19 and 21.)

    58. I would actually put both IQ’s and Grimes’s value at about equivalent to a late 1st round pick, even more to us since we need to put a team around Mitchell. Including them in the trade should definitely and significantly effect the draft capital we send out.

      well i don’t really think so on either count…..

      hypothetically speaking let’s say IQ and Grimes are able to hit something like their 90th percentile projection… whatever that may be…. are we starting them ahead of Brunson or Mitchell? if the answer to that question is no… then there’s no way for us to match a hypothetical contract that pays them at their hypothetical 90% percentile outcome…

      and if you assume that’s true… what upside do they really have on this squad? that they’ll be an important bench piece? can’t we use the mid level to get that? use a second rd pick for one? at worst take back Burks and Noel for another double incinerated first?

      i know ppl really like Grimes and IQ but there’s really shouldn’t be any scenario where you would want to trade any of our first rd picks to give them the pleasure to sit on our bench…..

    59. Hawks waived Sharife Cooper, who IIRC was one of the guys people wanted us to take with 19 or 21 last year. (Back when we had 19 and 21.)

      He fits the profile we’re searching for – 6’1 guards. LOL

    60. If IQ and Grimes hit their 90% outcome that is great news. We are the Knicks the luxury tax isn’t really an issue for us, if we have to pony up to pay very good bench pieces we do or we trade them for more picks or consolidate for another star. There is no scenario where keeping IQ and Grimes and having them hit their 90% outcome is bad.

      As for their value, there are 3-4 players picked over the last 4 years between 20-30 that are better than IQ. Maybe 7-10 that are surefire better than Grimes. Most likely whoever we would pick with the Dallas 2023 or the Milwaukie 2025 picks will not be better than IQ and probably not even better than Grimes. So why would we give up a player that can help us now and over the next 3-5 years for the possibility of a player that probably won’t even be as good in the future and can not help us for a couple years.

      IQ and Grimes are not moving the needle in terms of unprotected picks, for sure we are trading 2-3 of them but I would rather keep IQ and trade the Dallas pick or keep Grimes and trade the Milwaukie one.

      They are good enough that their inclusion needs to move the needle of the trade or we need to fight to keep them.

      If the Mitchell trade goes through we are almost for sure losing Rose and Fournier and probably moving Randle. If we do that and include Grimes and IQ we have no bench and will have to fill it up with minimum players this year and then use up our midlevel next year to probably still have a mediocre bench.

      IQ and Grimes both raise our current team and the upside of our team long-term. That is better than saving one or two late 1st round picks.

    61. I would totally pick up Cooper off of waivers. I would much rather use a 2-way on him than Keels. Or maybe sign Hunt to a regular contract and have both Cooper and Keels on 2-way contracts.

    62. If Quickley hits his 90% outcome he’s better than Brunson and maybe Mitchell too. By LEBRON (one of the newer public RAPM derivatives) there have been 15 PG seasons since 2010 by a player 22 or under more productive than the one IQ had last year. Not all of those 15 are stars (Tyus Jones & DeAnthony Melton are on the list) but the rest of them are. Quickley wasn’t particularly good last year so he doesn’t scream future superstar, but it is unusual for guards that young to be effective in the league and I think the odds are pretty good he’s an above average NBA player.

    63. I hate to say this, but from a positional scarcity point of view it’s much harder to find a decent point guard (even a backup one), than a capable three point shooter and defender. Knick’s history at point guard bears this out. So even though I think Grimes is going to be an excellent player, I can see the arguments for Quickly. I don’t want to trade either one.

    64. There is no scenario where keeping IQ and Grimes and having them hit their 90% outcome is bad.

      if you’re not planning to resign them and let them leave for nothing… yes that is bad… that is TREMENDOUSLY bad….

      i mean whatever your opinion is.. there is no precedent for anyone paying good starter level money (right now ~$25+ mm aav) for a bench piece intentionally…. the closest we have is something like eric gordon who was making 18.9mm per and they were contending and capped out and forced to pay up…. and before that it was probably manu who was basically a reserve in name only….

      So why would we give up a player that can help us now and over the next 3-5 years for the possibility of a player that probably won’t even be as good in the future and can not help us for a couple years.

      because you can easily find them NOW for PEANUTS…. i don’t know how good you think grimes is or will be… but the Miami Heat was able to grab Max Strus for a bag of skittles…. before that they were able to get Duncan Robinson for two bags…. but maybe you want defense? why not get patrick beverley thrown into the deal? donte divincenzo just signed for 2 years 9.3 mm…. both aaron and justin holiday was gotten for very small one-year deals….

      it’s really not that hard to find someone who shoots 3s and play some defense for about 18 minutes a game… and again… if it’s going to be anything appreciably more than that… there’s going to come a point where it’s not going to make sense to keep them around…. unless you really do want the real klay thompson and his 189mm contract along with it (kidding)….

      If Quickley hits his 90% outcome he’s better than Brunson and maybe Mitchell too

      so instead of 90% let’s say it’s the 50% outcome.. in that case any number of future firsts is more valuable than that considering that’s utterly replaceable isn’t it?

    65. I hate to say this, but from a positional scarcity point of view it’s much harder to find a decent point guard (even a backup one), than a capable three point shooter and defender.

      But the goal isn’t to accumulate the most valuable individual pieces, the goal is to assemble the best team. Grimes fits better with Brunson and Donovan. One of those two is likely to have the ball in their hands at all times.

    66. A lot, if not the majority, of late 1sts flame out of the league. I think people are overrating late 1st rd picks.

    67. That’s why we should trade late first round picks instead of useful player for Mitchell, assuming we actually do a deal.

    68. That’s why we should trade late first round picks instead of useful player for Mitchell, assuming we actually do a deal.

      But that assumes we’re going to mostly have late first round picks. And a Mitchell/Brunson/RJ core does not automatically guarantee us such a thing, unless RJ takes a leap. So suddenly those picks could be in the mid teens, if not the late lotto. And you can get real NBA players in that range. That’s why it’s dangerous.

    69. It is not easy to simply find the next Strus or Robinson. Unless we all of a sudden get Pat Riley, who always seems to find gold, I do not have a ton of faith we will find players better than IQ or Grimes off the scrap heap. Yes, next summer we might be able to use our mid level to get one player as good as them but IQ could easily improve and be much better than anyone we could afford. Our upside with them is better than without them.

      I am not suggesting that we add unprotected picks in order to keep IQ and Grimes I am suggesting that I would not throw them into the deal unless it saved us legitimate draft capital.

      A future protected first from Milwaukee or Dallas is not that valuable and I would rather have good productive young players than late 1sts.

    70. the whole value of late firsts.. or any draft pick for that matter… is that they represent opportunities to grab talent… and i’ve been told many times that you can grab 4bpm players anywhere in the draft…. and there are 4x as many examples for 2-3bpm players as well…. there also used to be a consensus about using the draft to chase for upside…. upside that both IQ and Grimes don’t really have… and if you don’t believe that then why was the Brunson signing universally praised? if you don’t believe that then are you really turning down a Mitchell for Grimes trade straight up?

      maybe in isolation IQ and Grimes are worth more than a late first (I would still say no but that’s another 1000 words i don’t wanna write)… or worth more than the Washington pick for example…. but in this specific trade for Mitchell you would rather keep those other firsts because what you’re hoping to replace IQ and Grimes with is freely available and cheaper than a late first…. and you’ve effectively cashed in on whatever upside they had by obtaining the players you were hoping they would be….

      put another way…. if you were the Lakers and you just signed Lebron and trying to trade for AD… if you had a crystal ball that tells you what Brandon Ingram will become… is that still stopping you from including him in a deal? I would hope not …. and they don’t even play the same positions…

    71. The value of draft picks, as djphan has alluded to, is always going to be connected with rookie scale contracts and bird rights. At any point in the development of a team its going to be better to draft a player than signing an equal production player as a free agent because you’ll have 4 years of a cheap as hell contract, then RFA then bird rights over the player. If we can draft the new IQ and Grimes then those players will immediately be more valuable assets to us than they would be post their rookie contracts.

      So I don’t buy that late firsts are not that valuable anymore, they’re still valuable, they’re just harder to hit in.

    72. I like Grimes, and you all know I was an IQ stan since his draft night.

      That said, in comparing them to DM, Mitchell is the “bird in the hand” and they’re the “two in the bush”. I mean that just objectively speaking based on their production. *If* Leon can negotiate the cost to being those two plus Fournier plus 2 of the protected 1sts plus two of our unprotected firsts (esp if we can hold onto our 2023 1RP)… it’s a lot but not quite close to selling the farm. And you’re not gutting the team of all its young talent bc you’re holding onto Obi and RJ*.

      *yes I realize he needs to take another big step forward this season. It’ll significantly lessen the blow of losing IQ and Grimes if he does.

    73. Ultimately I think Grimes is probably replaceable but he is a good cost controlled bench piece. That has value and should not be a throw in on a trade.

      IQ on the other hand in my opinion has borderline all-star upside. There is a very good chance he will just be a solid nba player but there is also a chance he could be hit his upside and be better than Brunson or RJ. I don’t think he’ll ever be as good as Mitchell but I still don’t want to trade him unless he is a centerpiece in the trade.

      If you think IQ tops at a NBA journeyman than I understand your willingness to throw him in. I think he is better than that. That is probably where the disagreement lies.

      If the Lakers knew Ingram was going to be a star they could have swapped Kuzma for him. They chose to keep Kuzma. They could have kept Ingram if they had wanted. We are in the same boat with our young players. We get to choose who to keep. We have enough assets we can keep what we want it’ll just cost more in other places.

    74. DJphan, there is no consensus here that Grimes and IQ don’t have upside. And Brunson is a good player that we didn’t sacrifice other players to get. He doesn’t play the same position as Grimes so any upside for Grimes doesn’t conflict with getting Brunson. As for IQ, are you really saying that we only need one point guard? No one is complaining about our center rotation where we have three playable centers. You always need backups and the better the backup, the better.

    75. Crazy idea, let’s keep players who are good at basketball and get rid of the ones who aren’t

    76. Djphan’s problem is that he thinks RJ is the former when he’s the latter. I think it may be more urgent to trade him than Randle, and Randle was truly egregious last year.

    77. again.. if IQ has a chance to be a borderline all-star.. you literally paid someone 110+ mil to BE exactly that for you… unless you think IQ is going to be a borderline all-star at SG… in which case why the hell are we trading for Mitchell in the first place? Mitchell is still miles away from an idealized version of IQ isn’t he?

      what exactly is the hope in keeping either of them? that they eventually become the people that you invested all these assets into? and EVEN IF you assume that they do have that upside… whoever is leftover is going to be playing… at most … 25 mpg.. is that really enough playtime with the amount left on their contracts to realize that potential?

      And Brunson is a good player that we didn’t sacrifice other players to get. He doesn’t play the same position as Grimes so any upside for Grimes doesn’t conflict with getting Brunson.

      but it does conflict with Mitchell doesn’t it?

      As for IQ, are you really saying that we only need one point guard?

      absolutely not… but we absolutely can get a backup pg for much MUCH less than any of our picks… we likely don’t even need to give up a second rd pick…. if you really want to shop at the top shelf backup pg market you could have gotten DeAnthony Melton for a late first in a terrible draft… and Melton is actually better than IQ….

    78. Djphan’s problem is that he thinks RJ is the former when he’s the latter.

      ok then let’s get into the arena rama…. who is good at basketball on this team?

    79. Probably every player on the roster should be available for Mitchell tbh, and ultimately, we will have to give Ainge most of what he wants… I don’t think this hypothetical choice between Grimes and Quickley will be available to the Knicks at all.

      We will give Utah the 5-6 picks, 1-2 swaps, and young players they want. We might get to pick the filler if we are lucky.

      They probably don’t even want Quickley because his contract isn’t team friendly. Maybe Obi because they could flip him easier and Grimes because he’s cheap. They might also want Reddish who is flippable and expiring.

      Honestly, let’s just do this already and get on with it.

    80. but it does conflict with Mitchell doesn’t it?

      Absolutely so, which is one reason I’m not thrilled about trading for Mitchell as I’ve expressed before.

      I have no idea if IQ can become a borderline all star but I certainly think he’s already a good backup and will get better. Having a starter quality backup is not a terrible situation. Depth is good. If we get Mitchell at a reasonable price (probably unlikely) I’m not going to complain we have too many good players.

      As for getting a backup point guard for a second round pick, we got Rose for a second round pick and we considered that a great deal even though he can’t play full time if our starting point guard is injured. We are not going to do better than that on the trade market. I prefer having Quickley as the point guard backup and maybe Rose too so that we are three deep.

    81. You try and keep Grimes & IQ because having good players is good.

      If they eventually cost too much, then you trade them for a player you need more. If they cost more than the MLE, they’ll fetch assets.

      If they don’t improve that much, then you have a really nice bench piece.

      Or they do improve and they make the jump with 3 years left on their contract.

      You still get DMitch and Brunson because they’re good now.

      Both IQ & Grimes are young and have played well. We don’t know what level they’ll reach. You don’t give those players away for skittles.

      BTW, Grimes—as a rookie—outperformed all the listed 3&D guys in his combination of 3P% and 3PA/36.

      Maybe Grimes falls apart like you think, then you have a cost-controlled bench player for 3 more years.

    82. ***Djphan’s problem is that he thinks RJ is the former when he’s the latter***

      Djphan’s other problem is that he thinks periods are commas.

    83. If IQ improves to the point that Brunson is redundant, that is a good problem to have. At that point you trade one of them or keep both and have a kick-ass 6th man, but even if IQ becomes a borderline all-star that probably won’t happen for 2-3 years. PGs often don’t fully develop until they are around 25. So you sign Brunson to start as IQ develops and then you see what happens. IQ can easily get 30 minutes a game coming off the bench, or maybe they switch roles down the line. That is a problem for the future and I hope we have it.

      As for teams paying players to be backups Boston just traded for Brogdon and will pay him $20 million+ to be a backup.

      At this point, I would put IQ and RJ as having a similar chance to be an all-star. RJ has a higher ceiling but he has further to go.

    84. Ben R I agree with you 100%. IQ has a very good chance of being a 6MoY candidate. Like many 22yo players, he needs to work on consistency and and a new wrinkle or two to his game every year. But he’s proven folks wrong at every level and I think he will continue to do so. He and Brunson should make a tremendous pairing.

    85. Getting back to the Melo vs. Mitchell deal comparisons, the reason why it becomes so complicated is because Mitchell is already locked in on a 3-year guaranteed deal at like 1/2 of the price of Lillard’s extension, probably at about 20-25% of the cap in the next 3 years. Melo was at 33% of the cap and we also had Amar’e at around 33% of the cap. That’s 2/3 of the cap on two players, which wouldn’t be the case for the Knicks right now. The fourth year of Mitchell’s contract is a player option which he will likely decline if he doesn’t extend before then. As such, I suppose you can ask the question, is the $>20Mill in cap space worth the additional assets we would have to pay out?

      I suppose it depends on what we can do with Julius Randle and his salary. As long as he’s on the team, we won’t really have the cap space to do anything really creative, especially with a depleted stockpile of assets.

    Leave a Reply