Knicks · Are the Knicks that smart doing what they did on the 19th and 21st.Or maybe the same ol dumb Knicks (page 3)
EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:TheGame wrote:VDesai wrote:All things considered, the price was reasonable. Per ESPN's Bobby Marks, the Hornets' first-rounder will be top-18 protected next year, top-16 protected in 2023 and then lottery-protected in 2024 and 2025 before converting into a pair of future second-rounders if not conveyed by that point. So the highest this pick can be (No. 15) is just four spots better -- not much compared to the usual premium teams pay when trading future picks for current ones.I probably would have pushed for it to be only top-16 protected first year, top-10 protected in second year and then top-7 protected. The Hornets are on the rise but they have been on the rise before and fallen flat. There is a decent chance we only get two second round picks out of this. Jones was a very good prospect. He needs 2-3 years, but in 3 years the kid could a better shooting Mitch.
My problem is this was a DEEP draft. By all accounts one that happens once every 10 years or so (but time will tell.)
You don't sell low on that. You get a premium.That said, I'm very happy with getting two of our apparent targets in Grimes and Mcbride.
It is pretty clear that Thibs wasn't (and isn't) going to play any young guys much and he wanted 2 way players for the most part.We have SO MUCH cap space, I would have preferred rolling the dice in a deep draft on a high upside guy, much like the Spurs did at 12 with Primo.
Again, that said, let's see what happens but with trades and what not. If not much,... then we've done it again by blowing a good pick. It will be years before we get another draft this good imo.You know we are all gonna be watching those guys selected at 19 to 24 or so.
Canitgetanyworse? We'll see...
If Kai Jones, Keon Johnsom, Jalen Johnson become stars, you still have to wonder whether that would have happened in NY. Would Jalen Johnson have the mental fortitude to handle NY? Just because a player does well doesn't mean they would have done well here. Would Knox have been better in Orlando? Probably. I think the Knicks picked tough players with strong mentality.
You bring up a very fair point - Can these guys play in N.Y.? It is always something to consider.
But do you really think the lotto talent sitting (potentially) at picks 19-23 all couldn't? It just seems like we didn't prepare for this (judging by the return on pick 19.) Seems like a last minute thing.Re Knox, I like the kid. He is a great shooter imo but can't do a whole lot else. Never crossed my mind that he couldn't play defense or drive and score regularly because of N.Y. (LOL /jk)
Like I said, I'm happy with our picks, but letting 19 go like that (in this very strong draft) is inexcusable (unless of course we need every bit of the cap space but that would mean deals are done.) You don't hope on that and relatively
speaking we have a whole lot of cap space, so do you let 19 go so easily over around 2 million in salary when we have so much projected cap space? Doesn't make sense to me (barring deals already arranged.)Projection for 2021-22 ($112,414,000 cap): Up to $70.2 million in cap space, $52.7 million with Julius Randle’s partially-guaranteed $19.8 million.I'm not giving the team a pass on #19 because of doing well with our other picks.
Who did you love at 19 that is unforgivable to pass on? I assumed we were getting one of Duarte or Trey Murphy. I’d guess Grimes was third on our board for that role. I liked the possibility of Keon Johnson and his insane vertical. But his fundamentals are deeply flawed.
No one loves when you get a push except when it looks like you are going to lose the hand. We lost out on Murphy and Duarte. Better luck next year.
Knicks may not have gotten the best draws here, but they did pretty damn well with what they had and made some pretty solid moves to create asset value while getting the players at the range that they valued them.
People bitched about Quickley being picked too early. Unclear where Toppin ends up in the grand scheme. Gotta give these moves a chance based solely on track record.
I wasn't set on any one guy at 19 that was there. I was with the board for the most part and wanted guys already taken.
My point is that any of the guys taken at 19-23 have higher value in the next few drafts (barring another historical draft.)
You DON'T trade out of strength (unless again, that they have deals on the table and need the space, but I 99% doubt that is true.
You don't equate a top 18 protection next year on a player from this year taken at 19-23; Because most likely a player worthy of 19-23 this year would be quite easily top 10 next year (or the years after.)
You just don't trade at 1:1 for a player taken from a historically rich draft class. You don't trade out of that for less value. You grab the player and develop them (at least as an asset.)
You can put them in the G league on display at the very least.
In closing, I think top 10 protection AT THE MAX would have been reasonable. And if the draft this year was weak, then sure, give them top 18 protection or close.
CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:TheGame wrote:VDesai wrote:All things considered, the price was reasonable. Per ESPN's Bobby Marks, the Hornets' first-rounder will be top-18 protected next year, top-16 protected in 2023 and then lottery-protected in 2024 and 2025 before converting into a pair of future second-rounders if not conveyed by that point. So the highest this pick can be (No. 15) is just four spots better -- not much compared to the usual premium teams pay when trading future picks for current ones.I probably would have pushed for it to be only top-16 protected first year, top-10 protected in second year and then top-7 protected. The Hornets are on the rise but they have been on the rise before and fallen flat. There is a decent chance we only get two second round picks out of this. Jones was a very good prospect. He needs 2-3 years, but in 3 years the kid could a better shooting Mitch.
My problem is this was a DEEP draft. By all accounts one that happens once every 10 years or so (but time will tell.)
You don't sell low on that. You get a premium.That said, I'm very happy with getting two of our apparent targets in Grimes and Mcbride.
It is pretty clear that Thibs wasn't (and isn't) going to play any young guys much and he wanted 2 way players for the most part.We have SO MUCH cap space, I would have preferred rolling the dice in a deep draft on a high upside guy, much like the Spurs did at 12 with Primo.
Again, that said, let's see what happens but with trades and what not. If not much,... then we've done it again by blowing a good pick. It will be years before we get another draft this good imo.You know we are all gonna be watching those guys selected at 19 to 24 or so.
Canitgetanyworse? We'll see...
If Kai Jones, Keon Johnsom, Jalen Johnson become stars, you still have to wonder whether that would have happened in NY. Would Jalen Johnson have the mental fortitude to handle NY? Just because a player does well doesn't mean they would have done well here. Would Knox have been better in Orlando? Probably. I think the Knicks picked tough players with strong mentality.
You bring up a very fair point - Can these guys play in N.Y.? It is always something to consider.
But do you really think the lotto talent sitting (potentially) at picks 19-23 all couldn't? It just seems like we didn't prepare for this (judging by the return on pick 19.) Seems like a last minute thing.Re Knox, I like the kid. He is a great shooter imo but can't do a whole lot else. Never crossed my mind that he couldn't play defense or drive and score regularly because of N.Y. (LOL /jk)
Like I said, I'm happy with our picks, but letting 19 go like that (in this very strong draft) is inexcusable (unless of course we need every bit of the cap space but that would mean deals are done.) You don't hope on that and relatively
speaking we have a whole lot of cap space, so do you let 19 go so easily over around 2 million in salary when we have so much projected cap space? Doesn't make sense to me (barring deals already arranged.)Projection for 2021-22 ($112,414,000 cap): Up to $70.2 million in cap space, $52.7 million with Julius Randle’s partially-guaranteed $19.8 million.I'm not giving the team a pass on #19 because of doing well with our other picks.
Who did you love at 19 that is unforgivable to pass on? I assumed we were getting one of Duarte or Trey Murphy. I’d guess Grimes was third on our board for that role. I liked the possibility of Keon Johnson and his insane vertical. But his fundamentals are deeply flawed.
No one loves when you get a push except when it looks like you are going to lose the hand. We lost out on Murphy and Duarte. Better luck next year.
Knicks may not have gotten the best draws here, but they did pretty damn well with what they had and made some pretty solid moves to create asset value while getting the players at the range that they valued them.
People bitched about Quickley being picked too early. Unclear where Toppin ends up in the grand scheme. Gotta give these moves a chance based solely on track record.
I wasn't set on any one guy at 19 that was there. I was with the board for the most part and wanted guys already taken.
My point is that any of the guys taken at 19-23 have higher value in the next few drafts (barring another historical draft.)
You DON'T trade out of strength (unless again, that they have deals on the table and need the space, but I 99% doubt that is true.You don't equate a top 18 protection next year on a player from this year taken at 19-23; Because most likely a player worthy of 19-23 this year would be quite easily top 10 next year (or the years after.)
You just don't trade at 1:1 for a player taken from a historically rich draft class. You don't trade out of that for less value. You grab the player and develop them (at least as an asset.)
You can put them in the G league on display at the very least.In closing, I think top 10 protection AT THE MAX would have been reasonable. And if the draft this year was weak, then sure, give them top 18 protection or close.
this is just not true. The pick has more value next year or in a future deal (TO THE KNICKS) rather than just taking the BPA and sticking him the g league. Knicks also saved $2mm + in cap space by trading down.
You are 100% right they had a couple guys and couldnt trade for them. That happens. So they turned 2 FRPs and 2 SRPs into Grimes, McBride, Simms, the EU guard, and a future #1 and #2
It was not exciting I get it but they did a good job here
I gave the Knicks a lot of credit for the way they maneuvered last year's draft in their picks and trades...this year was the exact opposite. We could not have gotten less value out of the trade for 19. That was embarrassing and I'm not even sure how anybody is denying it. I don't know if they weren't prepared for a lot of guys on their board being gone or what happened...but yikes.
We traded a present day pick for a pick that can not be any lower than 19 in the future. We literally can't do better on a future year pick and we paid a present day pick for that. You will rarely ever see a deal with worse value than that, look up however many years worth of drafts as you want.
If you're thrilled with the guys we got...cool...but I don't know how anyone could possibly sit here today and say we did well with the trade of #19.
homeskillitprigioni wrote:First of all, it's hilarious that people assume Grimes and McBride were who they would have taken at 19 and 21 anyway, all teams say that about the guys they end up drafting. Obviously they didn't feel that strongly about Grimes or they probably would have just taken him at one of those spots and not taken the risk of losing him before 25. Especially when the value of the trade of #19 was absolutely horrendous.I gave the Knicks a lot of credit for the way they maneuvered last year's draft in their picks and trades...this year was the exact opposite. We could not have gotten less value out of the trade for 19. That was embarrassing and I'm not even sure how anybody is denying it. I don't know if they weren't prepared for a lot of guys on their board being gone or what happened...but yikes.
We traded a present day pick for a pick that can not be any lower than 19 in the future. We literally can't do better on a future year pick and we paid a present day pick for that. You will rarely ever see a deal with worse value than that, look up however many years worth of drafts as you want.
If you're thrilled with the guys we got...cool...but I don't know how anyone could possibly sit here today and say we did well with the trade of #19.
Wrong. It may be quibbling but it could as low as 15. And this is just me and I know I'm a dinosaur but I wish the definition of "literally" was understood.
CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:TheGame wrote:VDesai wrote:All things considered, the price was reasonable. Per ESPN's Bobby Marks, the Hornets' first-rounder will be top-18 protected next year, top-16 protected in 2023 and then lottery-protected in 2024 and 2025 before converting into a pair of future second-rounders if not conveyed by that point. So the highest this pick can be (No. 15) is just four spots better -- not much compared to the usual premium teams pay when trading future picks for current ones.I probably would have pushed for it to be only top-16 protected first year, top-10 protected in second year and then top-7 protected. The Hornets are on the rise but they have been on the rise before and fallen flat. There is a decent chance we only get two second round picks out of this. Jones was a very good prospect. He needs 2-3 years, but in 3 years the kid could a better shooting Mitch.
My problem is this was a DEEP draft. By all accounts one that happens once every 10 years or so (but time will tell.)
You don't sell low on that. You get a premium.That said, I'm very happy with getting two of our apparent targets in Grimes and Mcbride.
It is pretty clear that Thibs wasn't (and isn't) going to play any young guys much and he wanted 2 way players for the most part.We have SO MUCH cap space, I would have preferred rolling the dice in a deep draft on a high upside guy, much like the Spurs did at 12 with Primo.
Again, that said, let's see what happens but with trades and what not. If not much,... then we've done it again by blowing a good pick. It will be years before we get another draft this good imo.You know we are all gonna be watching those guys selected at 19 to 24 or so.
Canitgetanyworse? We'll see...
If Kai Jones, Keon Johnsom, Jalen Johnson become stars, you still have to wonder whether that would have happened in NY. Would Jalen Johnson have the mental fortitude to handle NY? Just because a player does well doesn't mean they would have done well here. Would Knox have been better in Orlando? Probably. I think the Knicks picked tough players with strong mentality.
You bring up a very fair point - Can these guys play in N.Y.? It is always something to consider.
But do you really think the lotto talent sitting (potentially) at picks 19-23 all couldn't? It just seems like we didn't prepare for this (judging by the return on pick 19.) Seems like a last minute thing.Re Knox, I like the kid. He is a great shooter imo but can't do a whole lot else. Never crossed my mind that he couldn't play defense or drive and score regularly because of N.Y. (LOL /jk)
Like I said, I'm happy with our picks, but letting 19 go like that (in this very strong draft) is inexcusable (unless of course we need every bit of the cap space but that would mean deals are done.) You don't hope on that and relatively
speaking we have a whole lot of cap space, so do you let 19 go so easily over around 2 million in salary when we have so much projected cap space? Doesn't make sense to me (barring deals already arranged.)Projection for 2021-22 ($112,414,000 cap): Up to $70.2 million in cap space, $52.7 million with Julius Randle’s partially-guaranteed $19.8 million.I'm not giving the team a pass on #19 because of doing well with our other picks.
Who did you love at 19 that is unforgivable to pass on? I assumed we were getting one of Duarte or Trey Murphy. I’d guess Grimes was third on our board for that role. I liked the possibility of Keon Johnson and his insane vertical. But his fundamentals are deeply flawed.
No one loves when you get a push except when it looks like you are going to lose the hand. We lost out on Murphy and Duarte. Better luck next year.
Knicks may not have gotten the best draws here, but they did pretty damn well with what they had and made some pretty solid moves to create asset value while getting the players at the range that they valued them.
People bitched about Quickley being picked too early. Unclear where Toppin ends up in the grand scheme. Gotta give these moves a chance based solely on track record.
I wasn't set on any one guy at 19 that was there. I was with the board for the most part and wanted guys already taken.
My point is that any of the guys taken at 19-23 have higher value in the next few drafts (barring another historical draft.)
You DON'T trade out of strength (unless again, that they have deals on the table and need the space, but I 99% doubt that is true.You don't equate a top 18 protection next year on a player from this year taken at 19-23; Because most likely a player worthy of 19-23 this year would be quite easily top 10 next year (or the years after.)
You just don't trade at 1:1 for a player taken from a historically rich draft class. You don't trade out of that for less value. You grab the player and develop them (at least as an asset.)
You can put them in the G league on display at the very least.In closing, I think top 10 protection AT THE MAX would have been reasonable. And if the draft this year was weak, then sure, give them top 18 protection or close.
So, the value to us this year was established by the time our turn on the clock arrived. The Knicks FO knew at that moment that they preferred a future pick to what they saw available after predicting where they could still get the players they wanted. You cannot insinuate further value this year as a class than our opportunities at that moment regardless of how good this class is. Those 5 picks from 19-24 are really your only argument over Grimes -- if you thought one of them would have been better than the optionality and uncertainty of a future draft pick.
Will Kai Jones at the trade deadline have more value than the Charlotte pick in a proposed trade for Zach Lavine? How can you know? The trade created optionality where the present pick had limited value to us where the FO had a plan in place for the remaining players. We drafted 4 players and signed a Euroleague played (Vildoza), 3 of which will be vying for roster spots for certain. What is the marginal benefit of one more regardless how stacked the class is?
The stacked class argument also must fail. If this pick turns into #17 in the 2023 draft, you could be entirely wrong about the strength of the class. Drafting a 6th rookie for this team this year is not guaranteed to be better value than a 2nd 1st round pick in one of 2022-2025.
The only way I can understand that objection is if there is a specific player you wanted that is better than the picks the FO wanted (e.g. guys who wanted Sharife Cooper, Usman Garuba, Keon Johnson, Jalen Johnson).
I could have seen Usman Garuba, but after seeing what the FO picked, it was clear they had their board well understood as to placement and value.
homeskillitprigioni wrote:First of all, it's hilarious that people assume Grimes and McBride were who they would have taken at 19 and 21 anyway, all teams say that about the guys they end up drafting. Obviously they didn't feel that strongly about Grimes or they probably would have just taken him at one of those spots and not taken the risk of losing him before 25. Especially when the value of the trade of #19 was absolutely horrendous.I gave the Knicks a lot of credit for the way they maneuvered last year's draft in their picks and trades...this year was the exact opposite. We could not have gotten less value out of the trade for 19. That was embarrassing and I'm not even sure how anybody is denying it. I don't know if they weren't prepared for a lot of guys on their board being gone or what happened...but yikes.
We traded a present day pick for a pick that can not be any lower than 19 in the future. We literally can't do better on a future year pick and we paid a present day pick for that. You will rarely ever see a deal with worse value than that, look up however many years worth of drafts as you want.
If you're thrilled with the guys we got...cool...but I don't know how anyone could possibly sit here today and say we did well with the trade of #19.
Create a value for the marginal benefit to the Knicks of an additional rookie player this year and multiply that by your rating of the best player available from 19-24 that are no longer there at 25. Now subtract the value of 2.3mm worth of additional cap space in this offseason.
Then create a value for the marginal benefit of an additional draft pick in a future year (randomized to 2022-2025) multiplied by the assumed value of those hypothetical players in that class and range (e.g. 19-30 in 2022). Project whether the Knicks will be below or above the salary cap at that moment to either deduct the value of the rookie scale contract for that position in terms of cap space or give a benefit to the salary cap exception created by the FRP exception.
After all those words, you can basically just determine that we (i) didn't want that many rookies this year (ii) saved cap space and (iii) deferred an asset that would not help us this year for a future year.
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/shwinnypooh/status/1421175224293371911?s=20
Click here to view the Tweet
EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:TheGame wrote:VDesai wrote:All things considered, the price was reasonable. Per ESPN's Bobby Marks, the Hornets' first-rounder will be top-18 protected next year, top-16 protected in 2023 and then lottery-protected in 2024 and 2025 before converting into a pair of future second-rounders if not conveyed by that point. So the highest this pick can be (No. 15) is just four spots better -- not much compared to the usual premium teams pay when trading future picks for current ones.I probably would have pushed for it to be only top-16 protected first year, top-10 protected in second year and then top-7 protected. The Hornets are on the rise but they have been on the rise before and fallen flat. There is a decent chance we only get two second round picks out of this. Jones was a very good prospect. He needs 2-3 years, but in 3 years the kid could a better shooting Mitch.
My problem is this was a DEEP draft. By all accounts one that happens once every 10 years or so (but time will tell.)
You don't sell low on that. You get a premium.That said, I'm very happy with getting two of our apparent targets in Grimes and Mcbride.
It is pretty clear that Thibs wasn't (and isn't) going to play any young guys much and he wanted 2 way players for the most part.We have SO MUCH cap space, I would have preferred rolling the dice in a deep draft on a high upside guy, much like the Spurs did at 12 with Primo.
Again, that said, let's see what happens but with trades and what not. If not much,... then we've done it again by blowing a good pick. It will be years before we get another draft this good imo.You know we are all gonna be watching those guys selected at 19 to 24 or so.
Canitgetanyworse? We'll see...
If Kai Jones, Keon Johnsom, Jalen Johnson become stars, you still have to wonder whether that would have happened in NY. Would Jalen Johnson have the mental fortitude to handle NY? Just because a player does well doesn't mean they would have done well here. Would Knox have been better in Orlando? Probably. I think the Knicks picked tough players with strong mentality.
You bring up a very fair point - Can these guys play in N.Y.? It is always something to consider.
But do you really think the lotto talent sitting (potentially) at picks 19-23 all couldn't? It just seems like we didn't prepare for this (judging by the return on pick 19.) Seems like a last minute thing.Re Knox, I like the kid. He is a great shooter imo but can't do a whole lot else. Never crossed my mind that he couldn't play defense or drive and score regularly because of N.Y. (LOL /jk)
Like I said, I'm happy with our picks, but letting 19 go like that (in this very strong draft) is inexcusable (unless of course we need every bit of the cap space but that would mean deals are done.) You don't hope on that and relatively
speaking we have a whole lot of cap space, so do you let 19 go so easily over around 2 million in salary when we have so much projected cap space? Doesn't make sense to me (barring deals already arranged.)Projection for 2021-22 ($112,414,000 cap): Up to $70.2 million in cap space, $52.7 million with Julius Randle’s partially-guaranteed $19.8 million.I'm not giving the team a pass on #19 because of doing well with our other picks.
Who did you love at 19 that is unforgivable to pass on? I assumed we were getting one of Duarte or Trey Murphy. I’d guess Grimes was third on our board for that role. I liked the possibility of Keon Johnson and his insane vertical. But his fundamentals are deeply flawed.
No one loves when you get a push except when it looks like you are going to lose the hand. We lost out on Murphy and Duarte. Better luck next year.
Knicks may not have gotten the best draws here, but they did pretty damn well with what they had and made some pretty solid moves to create asset value while getting the players at the range that they valued them.
People bitched about Quickley being picked too early. Unclear where Toppin ends up in the grand scheme. Gotta give these moves a chance based solely on track record.
I wasn't set on any one guy at 19 that was there. I was with the board for the most part and wanted guys already taken.
My point is that any of the guys taken at 19-23 have higher value in the next few drafts (barring another historical draft.)
You DON'T trade out of strength (unless again, that they have deals on the table and need the space, but I 99% doubt that is true.You don't equate a top 18 protection next year on a player from this year taken at 19-23; Because most likely a player worthy of 19-23 this year would be quite easily top 10 next year (or the years after.)
You just don't trade at 1:1 for a player taken from a historically rich draft class. You don't trade out of that for less value. You grab the player and develop them (at least as an asset.)
You can put them in the G league on display at the very least.In closing, I think top 10 protection AT THE MAX would have been reasonable. And if the draft this year was weak, then sure, give them top 18 protection or close.
So, the value to us this year was established by the time our turn on the clock arrived. The Knicks FO knew at that moment that they preferred a future pick to what they saw available after predicting where they could still get the players they wanted. You cannot insinuate further value this year as a class than our opportunities at that moment regardless of how good this class is. Those 5 picks from 19-24 are really your only argument over Grimes -- if you thought one of them would have been better than the optionality and uncertainty of a future draft pick.
Will Kai Jones at the trade deadline have more value than the Charlotte pick in a proposed trade for Zach Lavine? How can you know? The trade created optionality where the present pick had limited value to us where the FO had a plan in place for the remaining players. We drafted 4 players and signed a Euroleague played (Vildoza), 3 of which will be vying for roster spots for certain. What is the marginal benefit of one more regardless how stacked the class is?
The stacked class argument also must fail. If this pick turns into #17 in the 2023 draft, you could be entirely wrong about the strength of the class. Drafting a 6th rookie for this team this year is not guaranteed to be better value than a 2nd 1st round pick in one of 2022-2025.
The only way I can understand that objection is if there is a specific player you wanted that is better than the picks the FO wanted (e.g. guys who wanted Sharife Cooper, Usman Garuba, Keon Johnson, Jalen Johnson).
I could have seen Usman Garuba, but after seeing what the FO picked, it was clear they had their board well understood as to placement and value.
I probably would have gotten a better backup for Mitch at 19 (instead of who we got at 58.) Perhaps Isaiah Jackson. But regardless, it seems like management got low return on our pick. Didn't another team not far under us trade their first for two protected firsts? I forget the team and when I heard that I thought - bad deal as I thought we had no protection on the pick from CHA.
We are going to find out in due time how this trade goes down. I'm happy with the rest of our draft and I am not going to conflate the two. You seem to be doing that, at least you are bringing the other picks up. I only have a problem with trading 19 in a historically strong draft for something that most likely has less value. Looking at others reactions (e.g. Youtube, other forums) I am not alone in thinking it was a bad trade, or at the very least we sold ourselves short. But again, I'm quite happy with the rest of the draft, in particular Grimes and McBride.
But there is still hope, as Martin posted. CHA might have to lower the protections if they want to trade a first.
Not to be right or wrong as I don't care, but I'll bookmark this topic of the trade for 19 as many of us will. I'm curious how it turns out.
martin wrote:Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/shwinnypooh/status/1421175224293371911?s=20
Click here to view the Tweet
Good points. So we have some leverage to get more in the future. That helps but we still should have gotten more for our pick.
RSparrow2 wrote:I'm not sure how what we traded for @19 can be defended.
The Knicks just weren't that into any of the players available at 19. So they maintained having a first round pick in the future rather than take a guy they're not that high on. If the Knicks had actually used the 19th pick to draft a player there is no way they would then be able to trade that player for a future first. So its better to have the asset converted into a future asset. The 2023 draft is shaping up to be a great draft too so you might get a better player even if the pick isn't as high. PLUS the protections are actually a double-edged sword for Charlotte and they might have to offer MORE compensation to the Knicks in the future to lift the protection.
Simply put, the Knicks changed 3 assets (19, 21, 32) into 2 players and 3 assets. It was a genius move. After last years dealing down in the draft you have to give this braintrust the benefit of the doubt.
TheGame wrote:martin wrote:Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/shwinnypooh/status/1421175224293371911?s=20
Click here to view the Tweetbut we still should have gotten more for our pick.
It takes two teams to make a trade. Charlotte knew the Knicks main targets were gone so we didn't have as much leverage as you think. We either had to reach for a player we liked or do the deal Charlotte was dangling.
Keon would’ve been fucking spreewell here like what the fuck
Then to make this even worse, the protections on the CHA pick suck. If we get a first it’s going to be because CHA made the playoffs… like what the actual fuck. Some get me the manager. That’s not how present value works. I don’t want a shittier pick in the future. You look at it and they will probably be seconds. Great. Let’s get excited about Maciej Lampe and Landry Fields. What the fuck… we watched a bunch of smartest guys in the room fuck a football
SupremeCommander wrote: That's not how present value works. I don't want a shittier pick in the future.
The value of the 19th was about to evaporate. It was either NO pick in the future and draft Grimes at 19 or a pick in the future.
homeskillitprigioni wrote:First of all, it's hilarious that people assume Grimes and McBride were who they would have taken at 19 and 21 anyway, all teams say that about the guys they end up drafting. Obviously they didn't feel that strongly about Grimes or they probably would have just taken him at one of those spots and not taken the risk of losing him before 25. Especially when the value of the trade of #19 was absolutely horrendous.I gave the Knicks a lot of credit for the way they maneuvered last year's draft in their picks and trades...this year was the exact opposite. We could not have gotten less value out of the trade for 19. That was embarrassing and I'm not even sure how anybody is denying it. I don't know if they weren't prepared for a lot of guys on their board being gone or what happened...but yikes.
We traded a present day pick for a pick that can not be any lower than 19 in the future. We literally can't do better on a future year pick and we paid a present day pick for that. You will rarely ever see a deal with worse value than that, look up however many years worth of drafts as you want.
If you're thrilled with the guys we got...cool...but I don't know how anyone could possibly sit here today and say we did well with the trade of #19.
What you don't seem to get is that we were thinking of trade value/assets. A future first is worth more in a trade than the average player drafted with it- the way a lot of bball people liken it to is buying a car- as soon as you drive it out of the lot, it loses value. With a future first in a trade, you're trading potential (it might be higher than 19, you might get a fantastic player, where as when. you're trading a drafted player, it's become a pretty much known quantity (unless the player has untapped upside.
We've gone from only having the Mavs 2023 lottery protected first as our extra first round capital, back to having 2 future firsts as our extra draft capital- that's good.
I understood the logic of handing out stop gap contracts when we whiffed on Klay, Kawai, Kyrie and Kevin. Not a great scenario, but logical at its time. Our draft logic in the last two years, however, escapes me.
I can only hope that McBride and Grimes were the guys that our FO wanted all along, so it decided to just squeeze an extra couple of drops of value through their draft-day shenanigans.
homeskillitprigioni wrote:First of all, it's hilarious that people assume Grimes and McBride were who they would have taken at 19 and 21 anyway, all teams say that about the guys they end up drafting. Obviously they didn't feel that strongly about Grimes or they probably would have just taken him at one of those spots and not taken the risk of losing him before 25. Especially when the value of the trade of #19 was absolutely horrendous.I gave the Knicks a lot of credit for the way they maneuvered last year's draft in their picks and trades...this year was the exact opposite. We could not have gotten less value out of the trade for 19. That was embarrassing and I'm not even sure how anybody is denying it. I don't know if they weren't prepared for a lot of guys on their board being gone or what happened...but yikes.
We traded a present day pick for a pick that can not be any lower than 19 in the future. We literally can't do better on a future year pick and we paid a present day pick for that. You will rarely ever see a deal with worse value than that, look up however many years worth of drafts as you want.
If you're thrilled with the guys we got...cool...but I don't know how anyone could possibly sit here today and say we did well with the trade of #19.
Yep, Its an awful trade from a value standpoint. I get the whole kick the can down the road but come on its a bad trade from what we received.
TheGame wrote:martin wrote:Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/shwinnypooh/status/1421175224293371911?s=20
Click here to view the TweetGood points. So we have some leverage to get more in the future. That helps but we still should have gotten more for our pick.
How is this true couldn't the Hornets trade the Lottery protections they still own? The Knicks traded the protections on a pick they still owned to the Raptors for Andrea Bargnani.
martin wrote:Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/shwinnypooh/status/1421175224293371911?s=20
Click here to view the Tweet
Hadn’t considered this. That’s brilliant.
CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:TheGame wrote:VDesai wrote:All things considered, the price was reasonable. Per ESPN's Bobby Marks, the Hornets' first-rounder will be top-18 protected next year, top-16 protected in 2023 and then lottery-protected in 2024 and 2025 before converting into a pair of future second-rounders if not conveyed by that point. So the highest this pick can be (No. 15) is just four spots better -- not much compared to the usual premium teams pay when trading future picks for current ones.I probably would have pushed for it to be only top-16 protected first year, top-10 protected in second year and then top-7 protected. The Hornets are on the rise but they have been on the rise before and fallen flat. There is a decent chance we only get two second round picks out of this. Jones was a very good prospect. He needs 2-3 years, but in 3 years the kid could a better shooting Mitch.
My problem is this was a DEEP draft. By all accounts one that happens once every 10 years or so (but time will tell.)
You don't sell low on that. You get a premium.That said, I'm very happy with getting two of our apparent targets in Grimes and Mcbride.
It is pretty clear that Thibs wasn't (and isn't) going to play any young guys much and he wanted 2 way players for the most part.We have SO MUCH cap space, I would have preferred rolling the dice in a deep draft on a high upside guy, much like the Spurs did at 12 with Primo.
Again, that said, let's see what happens but with trades and what not. If not much,... then we've done it again by blowing a good pick. It will be years before we get another draft this good imo.You know we are all gonna be watching those guys selected at 19 to 24 or so.
Canitgetanyworse? We'll see...
If Kai Jones, Keon Johnsom, Jalen Johnson become stars, you still have to wonder whether that would have happened in NY. Would Jalen Johnson have the mental fortitude to handle NY? Just because a player does well doesn't mean they would have done well here. Would Knox have been better in Orlando? Probably. I think the Knicks picked tough players with strong mentality.
You bring up a very fair point - Can these guys play in N.Y.? It is always something to consider.
But do you really think the lotto talent sitting (potentially) at picks 19-23 all couldn't? It just seems like we didn't prepare for this (judging by the return on pick 19.) Seems like a last minute thing.Re Knox, I like the kid. He is a great shooter imo but can't do a whole lot else. Never crossed my mind that he couldn't play defense or drive and score regularly because of N.Y. (LOL /jk)
Like I said, I'm happy with our picks, but letting 19 go like that (in this very strong draft) is inexcusable (unless of course we need every bit of the cap space but that would mean deals are done.) You don't hope on that and relatively
speaking we have a whole lot of cap space, so do you let 19 go so easily over around 2 million in salary when we have so much projected cap space? Doesn't make sense to me (barring deals already arranged.)Projection for 2021-22 ($112,414,000 cap): Up to $70.2 million in cap space, $52.7 million with Julius Randle’s partially-guaranteed $19.8 million.I'm not giving the team a pass on #19 because of doing well with our other picks.
Who did you love at 19 that is unforgivable to pass on? I assumed we were getting one of Duarte or Trey Murphy. I’d guess Grimes was third on our board for that role. I liked the possibility of Keon Johnson and his insane vertical. But his fundamentals are deeply flawed.
No one loves when you get a push except when it looks like you are going to lose the hand. We lost out on Murphy and Duarte. Better luck next year.
Knicks may not have gotten the best draws here, but they did pretty damn well with what they had and made some pretty solid moves to create asset value while getting the players at the range that they valued them.
People bitched about Quickley being picked too early. Unclear where Toppin ends up in the grand scheme. Gotta give these moves a chance based solely on track record.
I wasn't set on any one guy at 19 that was there. I was with the board for the most part and wanted guys already taken.
My point is that any of the guys taken at 19-23 have higher value in the next few drafts (barring another historical draft.)
You DON'T trade out of strength (unless again, that they have deals on the table and need the space, but I 99% doubt that is true.You don't equate a top 18 protection next year on a player from this year taken at 19-23; Because most likely a player worthy of 19-23 this year would be quite easily top 10 next year (or the years after.)
You just don't trade at 1:1 for a player taken from a historically rich draft class. You don't trade out of that for less value. You grab the player and develop them (at least as an asset.)
You can put them in the G league on display at the very least.In closing, I think top 10 protection AT THE MAX would have been reasonable. And if the draft this year was weak, then sure, give them top 18 protection or close.
So, the value to us this year was established by the time our turn on the clock arrived. The Knicks FO knew at that moment that they preferred a future pick to what they saw available after predicting where they could still get the players they wanted. You cannot insinuate further value this year as a class than our opportunities at that moment regardless of how good this class is. Those 5 picks from 19-24 are really your only argument over Grimes -- if you thought one of them would have been better than the optionality and uncertainty of a future draft pick.
Will Kai Jones at the trade deadline have more value than the Charlotte pick in a proposed trade for Zach Lavine? How can you know? The trade created optionality where the present pick had limited value to us where the FO had a plan in place for the remaining players. We drafted 4 players and signed a Euroleague played (Vildoza), 3 of which will be vying for roster spots for certain. What is the marginal benefit of one more regardless how stacked the class is?
The stacked class argument also must fail. If this pick turns into #17 in the 2023 draft, you could be entirely wrong about the strength of the class. Drafting a 6th rookie for this team this year is not guaranteed to be better value than a 2nd 1st round pick in one of 2022-2025.
The only way I can understand that objection is if there is a specific player you wanted that is better than the picks the FO wanted (e.g. guys who wanted Sharife Cooper, Usman Garuba, Keon Johnson, Jalen Johnson).
I could have seen Usman Garuba, but after seeing what the FO picked, it was clear they had their board well understood as to placement and value.
I probably would have gotten a better backup for Mitch at 19 (instead of who we got at 58.) Perhaps Isaiah Jackson. But regardless, it seems like management got low return on our pick. Didn't another team not far under us trade their first for two protected firsts? I forget the team and when I heard that I thought - bad deal as I thought we had no protection on the pick from CHA.
We are going to find out in due time how this trade goes down. I'm happy with the rest of our draft and I am not going to conflate the two. You seem to be doing that, at least you are bringing the other picks up. I only have a problem with trading 19 in a historically strong draft for something that most likely has less value. Looking at others reactions (e.g. Youtube, other forums) I am not alone in thinking it was a bad trade, or at the very least we sold ourselves short. But again, I'm quite happy with the rest of the draft, in particular Grimes and McBride.
But there is still hope, as Martin posted. CHA might have to lower the protections if they want to trade a first.
Not to be right or wrong as I don't care, but I'll bookmark this topic of the trade for 19 as many of us will. I'm curious how it turns out.
Fwiw, I have Jericho Sims above Isaiah Jackson on my draft board. Jackson has blue chip pedigree at Kentucky — meaning we have as much information as we could possibly want on the guy — and yet we still didn’t pick him.
Meanwhile, Sims destroyed the combine with both his wingspan 7’3 and his vertical 40”. He looks like a guy that was disguised behind Kai Jones and Greg Brown on a very athletic team. I don’t want to make him into a 1st rd draft pick/lottery talent, but the pick reminds me of the Robinson pick a few years ago where you have a big athletic player that needs some work but has physical attributes to dominate in this league.
I don’t think there was a starting center for this year available at 19. Time will tell. I could see Sims in the rotation by the end of the season with his athleticism. Most similar comp for me is Jarrett Allen.