Knicks · Jalen Johnson - a miss at 19? (page 2)
Nalod wrote:Jalen Johnson a miss after summer league?
“The benchmark of success is accomplishing your goals”………….If true then we did not want him. Does that mean it was a mistake? Let’s see in a few years. Until then kicks had him available but declined. Thus, it was not a mistake.
He did not check the boxes for those who decide.
Him leaving duke the reason? Or the reasons he left duke that we are not privvy to the reason. I admire Duke for doing what they did when they did it. This was pre-vax.
I don’t have enough intel but the kid dropped and we not the only ones to skip on him.
We could definitely use depth at the wing and he’s an athletic 6’9” 212lb play making youngster with upside that was sitting there at 19bafter sliding out of the lottery. Mitch dropped out of school to prepare for the draft and we still picked him. Calling an 18 y.o. Is not an issue if they will grow out of it.
Nalod wrote:Jalen Johnson a miss after summer league?
“The benchmark of success is accomplishing your goals”………….If true then we did not want him. Does that mean it was a mistake? Let’s see in a few years. Until then kicks had him available but declined. Thus, it was not a mistake.
He did not check the boxes for those who decide.
Him leaving duke the reason? Or the reasons he left duke that we are not privvy to the reason. I admire Duke for doing what they did when they did it. This was pre-vax.
I don’t have enough intel but the kid dropped and we not the only ones to skip on him.
It wasn't only Duke he bailed out on. Talent-wise, I figure he was low to mid-teens in the 1st round before the draft, and without all the baggage, even higher. Clearly, his draft position wasn't based on his BB talent.
Growing concerns about Duke basketball signee Jalen Johnson.Now that a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity has slipped away for the Duke basketball program’s highest-ranked 2020 prize, worrisome speculation is on the rise.
Five-star small forward Jalen Johnson, who ranks No. 6 overall on the 247Sports 2020 Composite, has not played for any prep team this season. The Duke basketball signee left IMG Academy (Fla.) — his third school in three years — several weeks ago for undisclosed reasons.
Unfortunately, as a result, the 6-foot-8, 215-pound Wisconsin native is now ineligible for the McDonald’s All-American Game at the Toyota Center in Houston on April 1...
Rookie wrote:Knickoftime wrote:Rookie wrote:Knickoftime wrote:Rookie wrote:Uptown wrote:I think we did. Before the season, when our playoff chances were cloudy at best, we were hoping to have a chance to draft Jalen in the lotto. We made the playoffs and still had a chance to draft a lotto talent like Johnson towards the back of the first round. On top of that, we had 3 picks!! One not use one of those picks to take a homerun swing at Johnson? He would have made us more athletic, longer and stronger in the front court.Even if they picked him to trade him later, he still has to be a better asset then a lottery protected pick, cuz lottery talent.
So who's knocking down the door for Kevin Knox for pick #19?
Asking for a friend.
Knevin knucks at knasketball
Kevin Knox was one of the stars of his summer league. He had one of the best starts of any rookie in the regular season.
His value as an "asset" wasn't long-term.
19 teams passed on him THIS draft and we don't know how many more other than Atlanta would have.
So your argument that he'd be a more valuable asset "later" doesn't necessarily hold water.
It’s hard to believe how far Knox has fallen since his nba start in 2018. He has the physical tools, but the late bloomer ship is sailing. Johnson projects to be a good player and a value pick up after he slid out of the lottery.
Just as we can't guarantee our picks as sure fire rotation quality guys, you have to look at Johnson in the same way, and to be honest, forgetting BB ability, I haven't read any stories about any of our guys having to go to 3 different HS programs his last 3 years, and dropping out of the 3rd one, w/o playing, and then opting out of the Duke season.
It really appears that we went for high character guys who were also very good BB players. I'm not saying Johnson won't end up being a steal, but who knows how he will hold up long term. We got some major talent in the draft, and all of them seem to be those gritty type players Thibs must love, even Rokas, who surprised the heck out of me in the few minutes he was on the court with his hustle, toughness and fearless play.
Based on draft order, we could have gone 19-Johnson, 21-Grimes, 32-McBride, and 58-Sims. I would've been fine with that, but the Knicks brass clearly thought otherwise.
smackeddog wrote:This is like getting married and instead of spending time with your beautiful new wife, you spend all day checking out other women you used to like on social media, in case you made a mistake
CleaverGreene wrote:smackeddog wrote:This is like getting married and instead of spending time with your beautiful new wife, you spend all day checking out other women you used to like on social media, in case you made a mistake
Haha! Only thing to add is Jalen Johnson has crabs.
Jmpasq wrote:I really wanted us to take Jalen Johnson. It really sux the Hawks got him. Now if he turns out great it will compound the issue more
They have an advantage in size length and athletic ability. Johnson mightve been a counter for us but we also have a filled roster
BRIGGS wrote:Jmpasq wrote:I really wanted us to take Jalen Johnson. It really sux the Hawks got him. Now if he turns out great it will compound the issue moreThey have an advantage in size length and athletic ability. Johnson mightve been a counter for us but we also have a filled roster
The Hawks have an army of long athletic wings. Thats a huge hole on our roster. We don't have a true SF on the team
we all know JJ is going to be a happy little camper playing behind Bogdanovic, Hunter, Reddish (maybe), Huerter, Danilo and to some extent Lou Williams. We're all confident he'll be first off the bench waving a towel and cheering his teammates on.
martin wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:I still don't agree with trading out of the 19th spot in such a strong draft. Now, maybe that extra pick is useful in getting a star here (because we all know chance are good a trade for one is coming)
but if I'm another team, I'd rather take a flyer on the 19th pick from this draft (relatively consensus talent) than one from a regular draft. That said, if it conveys in 23' (or whatever year high schoolers can enter, then all bets are off.) We do probably get that CHA pick in the next 2 drafts imo.I don't get your logic. Let's assume that Grimes WAS their first player target after the 18th pick happened (it's not 100% certain but we can have a good feel for that).
Why was it bad to trade back and get an extra asset while getting the guy you wanted?
I didn't say trading back was bad. I have no problem with that. And as I said, I loved our draft.
I said trading out of 19 was bad because the talent available there is most likely better than what will be available with the CHA pick. (Barring we luck out and get into the high school draft.)
CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:martin wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:I still don't agree with trading out of the 19th spot in such a strong draft. Now, maybe that extra pick is useful in getting a star here (because we all know chance are good a trade for one is coming)
but if I'm another team, I'd rather take a flyer on the 19th pick from this draft (relatively consensus talent) than one from a regular draft. That said, if it conveys in 23' (or whatever year high schoolers can enter, then all bets are off.) We do probably get that CHA pick in the next 2 drafts imo.I don't get your logic. Let's assume that Grimes WAS their first player target after the 18th pick happened (it's not 100% certain but we can have a good feel for that).
Why was it bad to trade back and get an extra asset while getting the guy you wanted?
I didn't say trading back was bad. I have no problem with that. And as I said, I loved our draft.
I said trading out of 19 was bad because the talent available there is most likely better than what will be available with the CHA pick. (Barring we luck out and get into the high school draft.)
Assuming Charlotte becomes a top 12 team in the league
New York will receive a heavily protected first-rounder from Charlotte in 2022, tweets Zach Lowe of ESPN, who adds that the protections will decrease over the next three years. According to ESPN’s Bobby Marks, the protections are 1-18 next year, 1-16 in 2023, 1-14 in 2024 and 1-14 in 2025. If not conveyed by then, the pick will become two future second-rounders
CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:martin wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:I still don't agree with trading out of the 19th spot in such a strong draft. Now, maybe that extra pick is useful in getting a star here (because we all know chance are good a trade for one is coming)
but if I'm another team, I'd rather take a flyer on the 19th pick from this draft (relatively consensus talent) than one from a regular draft. That said, if it conveys in 23' (or whatever year high schoolers can enter, then all bets are off.) We do probably get that CHA pick in the next 2 drafts imo.I don't get your logic. Let's assume that Grimes WAS their first player target after the 18th pick happened (it's not 100% certain but we can have a good feel for that).
Why was it bad to trade back and get an extra asset while getting the guy you wanted?
I didn't say trading back was bad. I have no problem with that. And as I said, I loved our draft.
I said trading out of 19 was bad because the talent available there is most likely better than what will be available with the CHA pick. (Barring we luck out and get into the high school draft.)
What?
Grimes was the target at 19 for the Knicks.
Grimes > Grimes + future pick?
THE KNICKS GOT AN EXTRA ASSET and the player they wanted at 19. End of story. The rest of your logic just don't stand up
martin wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:martin wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:I still don't agree with trading out of the 19th spot in such a strong draft. Now, maybe that extra pick is useful in getting a star here (because we all know chance are good a trade for one is coming)
but if I'm another team, I'd rather take a flyer on the 19th pick from this draft (relatively consensus talent) than one from a regular draft. That said, if it conveys in 23' (or whatever year high schoolers can enter, then all bets are off.) We do probably get that CHA pick in the next 2 drafts imo.I don't get your logic. Let's assume that Grimes WAS their first player target after the 18th pick happened (it's not 100% certain but we can have a good feel for that).
Why was it bad to trade back and get an extra asset while getting the guy you wanted?
I didn't say trading back was bad. I have no problem with that. And as I said, I loved our draft.
I said trading out of 19 was bad because the talent available there is most likely better than what will be available with the CHA pick. (Barring we luck out and get into the high school draft.)
What?
Grimes was the target at 19 for the Knicks.
Grimes > Grimes + future pick?
THE KNICKS GOT AN EXTRA ASSET and the player they wanted at 19. End of story. The rest of your logic just don't stand up
I never understand why this is so hard for people to understand. They drafted the players they wanted and knew they would still be there if they traded back. So they did just that to gain more assets while getting the same players they would have if they kept 19/21. While you might have wanted to draft Jalen or Keon that was never happening because the Knicks did not want those players.
How they would have drafted incase of no trade
19 - Grimes
21 - McBride
32 - Rokas
58 - Sims
They did trade because of trade
25 - Grimes
34 - Rokas
36 - McBride
58 - Sims
- Future 1st
- Future 2nd
- Grimes and McBride signed to smaller deals since they were drafted later thus freeing up more cap space that was used to sign Kemba.
How can anyone say that is anything but good?
Clean wrote:martin wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:martin wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:I still don't agree with trading out of the 19th spot in such a strong draft. Now, maybe that extra pick is useful in getting a star here (because we all know chance are good a trade for one is coming)
but if I'm another team, I'd rather take a flyer on the 19th pick from this draft (relatively consensus talent) than one from a regular draft. That said, if it conveys in 23' (or whatever year high schoolers can enter, then all bets are off.) We do probably get that CHA pick in the next 2 drafts imo.I don't get your logic. Let's assume that Grimes WAS their first player target after the 18th pick happened (it's not 100% certain but we can have a good feel for that).
Why was it bad to trade back and get an extra asset while getting the guy you wanted?
I didn't say trading back was bad. I have no problem with that. And as I said, I loved our draft.
I said trading out of 19 was bad because the talent available there is most likely better than what will be available with the CHA pick. (Barring we luck out and get into the high school draft.)
What?
Grimes was the target at 19 for the Knicks.
Grimes > Grimes + future pick?
THE KNICKS GOT AN EXTRA ASSET and the player they wanted at 19. End of story. The rest of your logic just don't stand up
I never understand why this is so hard for people to understand. They drafted the players they wanted and knew they would still be there if they traded back. So they did just that to gain more assets while getting the same players they would have if they kept 19/21. While you might have wanted to draft Jalen or Keon that was never happening because the Knicks did not want those players.
How they would have drafted incase of no trade
19 - Grimes
21 - McBride
32 - Rokas
58 - SimsThey did trade because of trade
25 - Grimes
34 - Rokas
36 - McBride
58 - Sims
- Future 1st
- Future 2nd
- Grimes and McBride signed to smaller deals since they were drafted later thus freeing up more cap space that was used to sign Kemba.How can anyone say that is anything but good?
Unless you have some very good opposition team draft intel, it's always difficult to do what the Knicks did and, seemingly, get everyone on your wish list...but we actually did it. Call it luck...or whatever, but getting the guys we wanted and extra draft picks is impressive, and something we're not that used to.
martin wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:martin wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:I still don't agree with trading out of the 19th spot in such a strong draft. Now, maybe that extra pick is useful in getting a star here (because we all know chance are good a trade for one is coming)
but if I'm another team, I'd rather take a flyer on the 19th pick from this draft (relatively consensus talent) than one from a regular draft. That said, if it conveys in 23' (or whatever year high schoolers can enter, then all bets are off.) We do probably get that CHA pick in the next 2 drafts imo.I don't get your logic. Let's assume that Grimes WAS their first player target after the 18th pick happened (it's not 100% certain but we can have a good feel for that).
Why was it bad to trade back and get an extra asset while getting the guy you wanted?
I didn't say trading back was bad. I have no problem with that. And as I said, I loved our draft.
I said trading out of 19 was bad because the talent available there is most likely better than what will be available with the CHA pick. (Barring we luck out and get into the high school draft.)
What?
Grimes was the target at 19 for the Knicks.
Grimes > Grimes + future pick?
THE KNICKS GOT AN EXTRA ASSET and the player they wanted at 19. End of story. The rest of your logic just don't stand up
Grimes wasn't the target at 19, it was Murphy or Mann, judging from reports. If Grimes was the target, do you pass on your target?
My problem is a HEAVILY protected future pick is less valuable than #19 from this draft, strongest draft in last 10 years.
We sold ourselves short and most definitely could have gotten a better pick from another team, but probably they were caught off guard.
Regardless, just bookmark this and let's see how it plays out over the coming years. Looking at other forums, it is clear many fans agree with me.
But it's just a game, no big deal for me.
Who here would trade out of the strongest draft in the last 10 years for a heavily protected future pick, maybe even 2 2nd's?
KnickDanger wrote:I think what we're sort of skirting over is that our FO has a vision, a plan, a formula. Based on philosophy, scouting, the cap. We look at the outcome, or what might of been the outcome, and see it as see it as something set in stone, whereas in reality I am guessing it is a flowing process based on the above. So and so is gone so we go to plan B. Or C etc. Maybe if Johnson were available at #58 we would have taken him, who knows? I'm guessing they had their good reasons to pass on him. I am tickled to have an FO with these qualities -- not like it used to be, eh? And I am certainly going to trust them over clickbait pundits or ADD posters who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.
Shots fired.....lol....but yes, can't understand the argument against the FO so far. Especially for old knick fans who been through worst FO decisions. We can play this, "we shouldve" game all season. Or simply reserve that energy for appreciating what they did and what we have.
KnickDanger wrote:I think what we're sort of skirting over is that our FO has a vision, a plan, a formula. Based on philosophy, scouting, the cap. We look at the outcome, or what might of been the outcome, and see it as see it as something set in stone, whereas in reality I am guessing it is a flowing process based on the above. So and so is gone so we go to plan B. Or C etc. Maybe if Johnson were available at #58 we would have taken him, who knows? I'm guessing they had their good reasons to pass on him. I am tickled to have an FO with these qualities -- not like it used to be, eh? And I am certainly going to trust them over clickbait pundits or ADD posters who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.
YES
It's clear they have a type of player they want. And then they do their background checks. They want workers, zero drama, zero distractions. It's the reason they hired guys like Wes and Alex Kline and Zanin and Perrin and Johnnie Bryant.
No way they were taking Johnson with his history.
CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:martin wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:martin wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:I still don't agree with trading out of the 19th spot in such a strong draft. Now, maybe that extra pick is useful in getting a star here (because we all know chance are good a trade for one is coming)
but if I'm another team, I'd rather take a flyer on the 19th pick from this draft (relatively consensus talent) than one from a regular draft. That said, if it conveys in 23' (or whatever year high schoolers can enter, then all bets are off.) We do probably get that CHA pick in the next 2 drafts imo.I don't get your logic. Let's assume that Grimes WAS their first player target after the 18th pick happened (it's not 100% certain but we can have a good feel for that).
Why was it bad to trade back and get an extra asset while getting the guy you wanted?
I didn't say trading back was bad. I have no problem with that. And as I said, I loved our draft.
I said trading out of 19 was bad because the talent available there is most likely better than what will be available with the CHA pick. (Barring we luck out and get into the high school draft.)
What?
Grimes was the target at 19 for the Knicks.
Grimes > Grimes + future pick?
THE KNICKS GOT AN EXTRA ASSET and the player they wanted at 19. End of story. The rest of your logic just don't stand up
Grimes wasn't the target at 19, it was Murphy or Mann, judging from reports. If Grimes was the target, do you pass on your target?
My problem is a HEAVILY protected future pick is less valuable than #19 from this draft, strongest draft in last 10 years.
We sold ourselves short and most definitely could have gotten a better pick from another team, but probably they were caught off guard.Regardless, just bookmark this and let's see how it plays out over the coming years. Looking at other forums, it is clear many fans agree with me.
But it's just a game, no big deal for me.Who here would trade out of the strongest draft in the last 10 years for a heavily protected future pick, maybe even 2 2nd's?
You don't make a decision at pick #19 on guys who were already off the board. They also wanted Duarte and Bouknight too. So what?
You make decisions on what is in front of you and their decision was based off of what was available after #18.
It's comes down to this.... you want a protected future pick or nothing. And you keep choosing nothing and then whine about players who were already drafted.
Your problem is that you don't understand the situation.