Knicks · Poll time........Donovan or not? (page 2)
You give up to much and u remove the team hedge against collapse for atleast half a decade.
We got a much better player Carmelo for less than what has been thrown out and the bottom line w that trade is big failure. There’s too much risk w the unknowns here to go all in on an undersized player who takes a ton of shots AFTER getting Brunson. How many basketballs are there? If I paid a mighty price for Kevin Durant. Ok. Even though he’s a diva. I’d pay up. But Mitchell????? When we already have Brunson?
Nalod wrote:Fascinating 13 apiece thus far. Was not expecting this.
What were you expecting?
Another worthy poll question:
If you could get Durant for the exact same package as Mitchell, would that be more appealing?
The main downside of a Mitchell is that he's undersized for the position he's best at. Plus we like to argue he's not even a generational talent.
Those criticisms go away with KD. He's taller and longer than the typical competition at any position he plays. He slots in at a position of relative weakness. He can legit play 3-5. And he's about as great a shooter AND scorer as the league has ever seen.
His main downside is that he's relatively old - and with that, a little more fragile/prone to injury.
ramtour420 wrote:One concept that I think has not been brought up is the new rule change on intentional fouls to stop fast breaks. How much more valuable players are going to be who can take advantage of playing a very past pace. Fast break based offences are going to be even stronger now. Defensive schemes will have to adjust. Obi comes to mind as does Brunson and RJ. Is Donovan Mitchell good on the fast break?
That rule is such a major change to the game and I think everyone is underestimating it.
BRIGGS wrote:It’s pretty telling the vote is not well received
You give up to much and u remove the team hedge against collapse for atleast half a decade.
We got a much better player Carmelo for less than what has been thrown out and the bottom line w that trade is big failure. There’s too much risk w the unknowns here to go all in on an undersized player who takes a ton of shots AFTER getting Brunson. How many basketballs are there? If I paid a mighty price for Kevin Durant. Ok. Even though he’s a diva. I’d pay up. But Mitchell????? When we already have Brunson?
WE gave up too much for Melo because we could not field a good team with him.
It fails if we don’t do well. Thats obvious, and the picks don’t allow for rebuild. Thats Eddy legacy.
But what if it does work?
wargames wrote:I don’t like that Brunson/Mitchell Backcourt. How is that suppose to survive the playoffs?
Doncic and Brunson weren’t that much better defensively and they survived with guys around them all the way to WC finals.
You make it work in other ways.
Nalod wrote:PUsh the rock up the hill as far as you can. If its with DM, cool.
If we can't get to the summit, there will other things we an do.The Westbrook thing is interesting. Dump Randle and his trade kicker, and EF for Westbrook and just buy him out. create cap space for whom?
https://www.spotrac.com/nba/free-agents/...Not a banner year. Lakers keeping AD? Play him at center and Randle at PF? Not sure I see that. But not for me to either.
we so jones up to get OBI playing time we do that?22 votes. Curious if we can get a better sample.
How much you want to bet we would end up Harrision Barnes or Jermai Grant
martin wrote:wargames wrote:I don’t like that Brunson/Mitchell Backcourt. How is that suppose to survive the playoffs?Doncic and Brunson weren’t that much better defensively and they survived with guys around them all the way to WC finals.
You make it work in other ways.
Yeah but Luka Doncic is in my opinion a future MVP. I think it’s really saying a lot that Brunson toasted Mitchell when Mitchell’s partner was Conley who in my opinion is the player that Brunson closest resembles. I actually like our Bigs more than Rudy because they can switch to the perimeter and hold their own, but still…
I just don’t like it.
I have a theory that if Ainge had announced that he was willing to trade Mitchell before FA, the Knicks would have traded for him and tried to use that Brunson cap space for someone else. It’s just not a good fit with this roster. Brunson was brought in to work with Randle and RJ now they are trying to bring in another ball dominant player like Mitchell.
This is like Amare/Melo when the Knicks got Amare and he and the team they had were playing really well and then they traded for Melo the better player, but the fit was NEVER good.
Everything about trading for Mitchell screams Melo 2.0 where there are a lot of basketball reasons that he isn’t a good fit for this roster. It’s going to take time to fix the roster after trading for him and that’s not accounting for the assets the Knicks have to give up for him to even make the deal.
BRIGGS wrote:It’s pretty telling the vote is not well received
You give up to much and u remove the team hedge against collapse for atleast half a decade.
We got a much better player Carmelo for less than what has been thrown out and the bottom line w that trade is big failure. There’s too much risk w the unknowns here to go all in on an undersized player who takes a ton of shots AFTER getting Brunson. How many basketballs are there? If I paid a mighty price for Kevin Durant. Ok. Even though he’s a diva. I’d pay up. But Mitchell????? When we already have Brunson?
Objectively, why would you argue Melo was a much better player than Mitchell? The issue with Melo was that he was to be a free agent in 5 months when we paid a kings ransom for him. I don’t know how much people were really looking at advanced metrics at that time but he was coming to play at a time when he really belonged in a PF slot in a SSOL offense but remained as SF due to Amare.
Mitchell would also be coming here playing out of position, I think he belongs in the PG slot, but his relationship to Johnny Bryant (heir apparent to the coaching position) is what I am really getting. Bryant has Mitchell. I think that leadership transition is obvious and I would basically build my future team around him, knowing we need to gather more pieces. Maybe Barrett takes that step to be that next piece. Maybe Toppin shows his Amare-like attributes. But I want to clear out the one way players. You need to play defense and have a high eFG in my plan. Not every player meets that criteria. Mitchell even has his criticisms. But I’d rather see the below team then retread Randle/Fournier again.
Brunson
Mitchell
Barrett
Toppin
Robinson/Hart
This squad works for me. And I believe in Johnny Bryant long term.
Knixkik wrote:25 year old proven star with no injury history that grew up local. How can you not want him ? This is what you deal picks for. Those picks have a 99.9% chance of never turning into a Mitchell level player.
Outside of the 4 concussions he has had
EwingsGlass wrote:BRIGGS wrote:It’s pretty telling the vote is not well received
You give up to much and u remove the team hedge against collapse for atleast half a decade.
We got a much better player Carmelo for less than what has been thrown out and the bottom line w that trade is big failure. There’s too much risk w the unknowns here to go all in on an undersized player who takes a ton of shots AFTER getting Brunson. How many basketballs are there? If I paid a mighty price for Kevin Durant. Ok. Even though he’s a diva. I’d pay up. But Mitchell????? When we already have Brunson?Objectively, why would you argue Melo was a much better player than Mitchell? The issue with Melo was that he was to be a free agent in 5 months when we paid a kings ransom for him. I don’t know how much people were really looking at advanced metrics at that time but he was coming to play at a time when he really belonged in a PF slot in a SSOL offense but remained as SF due to Amare.
Mitchell would also be coming here playing out of position, I think he belongs in the PG slot, but his relationship to Johnny Bryant (heir apparent to the coaching position) is what I am really getting. Bryant has Mitchell. I think that leadership transition is obvious and I would basically build my future team around him, knowing we need to gather more pieces. Maybe Barrett takes that step to be that next piece. Maybe Toppin shows his Amare-like attributes. But I want to clear out the one way players. You need to play defense and have a high eFG in my plan. Not every player meets that criteria. Mitchell even has his criticisms. But I’d rather see the below team then retread Randle/Fournier again.
Brunson
Mitchell
Barrett
Toppin
Robinson/HartThis squad works for me. And I believe in Johnny Bryant long term.
On the same page with Briggsy here. Despite those who trash him (and I am not a big fan) Carmelo Anthony in his prime was a notch above Donovan Mitchell (a "notch" I said). Essentially their game was/is about scoring. Carmelo the better rebounder and averaged a couple more points a game, Mitchell the better disher. My opinion is based on reputation somewhat and who I believe can more take over a game. But even if we say they are entirely equal, the ideas of trades floating around completely remind me of what we gave up for Anthony. Some good young players, a useful vet or two, and a bunch of firsts. Carmelo Anthony brought the Knicks instant relevance and respectability, but in the long run we were strapped of assets for someone who couldn't put us over the top. Don't do it.
And, I have felt IQ might be our most talented player, and could well develop into a lethal crunch time player.
So- wanting to change my vote. Keep the youth, keep the picks. Thank Ainge for the chance to discuss acquiring DM. Tell him he is a fantastic player, and worth everything he is asking for.
KnickDanger wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:BRIGGS wrote:It’s pretty telling the vote is not well received
You give up to much and u remove the team hedge against collapse for atleast half a decade.
We got a much better player Carmelo for less than what has been thrown out and the bottom line w that trade is big failure. There’s too much risk w the unknowns here to go all in on an undersized player who takes a ton of shots AFTER getting Brunson. How many basketballs are there? If I paid a mighty price for Kevin Durant. Ok. Even though he’s a diva. I’d pay up. But Mitchell????? When we already have Brunson?Objectively, why would you argue Melo was a much better player than Mitchell? The issue with Melo was that he was to be a free agent in 5 months when we paid a kings ransom for him. I don’t know how much people were really looking at advanced metrics at that time but he was coming to play at a time when he really belonged in a PF slot in a SSOL offense but remained as SF due to Amare.
Mitchell would also be coming here playing out of position, I think he belongs in the PG slot, but his relationship to Johnny Bryant (heir apparent to the coaching position) is what I am really getting. Bryant has Mitchell. I think that leadership transition is obvious and I would basically build my future team around him, knowing we need to gather more pieces. Maybe Barrett takes that step to be that next piece. Maybe Toppin shows his Amare-like attributes. But I want to clear out the one way players. You need to play defense and have a high eFG in my plan. Not every player meets that criteria. Mitchell even has his criticisms. But I’d rather see the below team then retread Randle/Fournier again.
Brunson
Mitchell
Barrett
Toppin
Robinson/HartThis squad works for me. And I believe in Johnny Bryant long term.
On the same page with Briggsy here. Despite those who trash him (and I am not a big fan) Carmelo Anthony in his prime was a notch above Donovan Mitchell (a "notch" I said). Essentially their game was/is about scoring. Carmelo the better rebounder and averaged a couple more points a game, Mitchell the better disher. My opinion is based on reputation somewhat and who I believe can more take over a game. But even if we say they are entirely equal, the ideas of trades floating around completely remind me of what we gave up for Anthony. Some good young players, a useful vet or two, and a bunch of firsts. Carmelo Anthony brought the Knicks instant relevance and respectability, but in the long run we were strapped of assets for someone who couldn't put us over the top. Don't do it.
Comparing Mitchell to Melo is asinine and this is a terrible take.
Melo improved the Nuggets the minute he stepped on the court for the Nuggets (check the stats). ALL THOSE AMAZING PLAYERS that the Knicks traded for Anthony amounted to jack sh1t. Gallanari has had a decent career has a role player in the NBA but that was about it. Would the Knicks have been much better WITH Wilson Chandler and Gallanari playing along side Melo? Hell yeah, but the Knicks became a better team after that trade was made. Where the Knicks messed up (and its been brought up time and time again on this board) were the moves they made AFTER that trade.
Swishfm3 wrote:KnickDanger wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:BRIGGS wrote:It’s pretty telling the vote is not well received
You give up to much and u remove the team hedge against collapse for atleast half a decade.
We got a much better player Carmelo for less than what has been thrown out and the bottom line w that trade is big failure. There’s too much risk w the unknowns here to go all in on an undersized player who takes a ton of shots AFTER getting Brunson. How many basketballs are there? If I paid a mighty price for Kevin Durant. Ok. Even though he’s a diva. I’d pay up. But Mitchell????? When we already have Brunson?Objectively, why would you argue Melo was a much better player than Mitchell? The issue with Melo was that he was to be a free agent in 5 months when we paid a kings ransom for him. I don’t know how much people were really looking at advanced metrics at that time but he was coming to play at a time when he really belonged in a PF slot in a SSOL offense but remained as SF due to Amare.
Mitchell would also be coming here playing out of position, I think he belongs in the PG slot, but his relationship to Johnny Bryant (heir apparent to the coaching position) is what I am really getting. Bryant has Mitchell. I think that leadership transition is obvious and I would basically build my future team around him, knowing we need to gather more pieces. Maybe Barrett takes that step to be that next piece. Maybe Toppin shows his Amare-like attributes. But I want to clear out the one way players. You need to play defense and have a high eFG in my plan. Not every player meets that criteria. Mitchell even has his criticisms. But I’d rather see the below team then retread Randle/Fournier again.
Brunson
Mitchell
Barrett
Toppin
Robinson/HartThis squad works for me. And I believe in Johnny Bryant long term.
On the same page with Briggsy here. Despite those who trash him (and I am not a big fan) Carmelo Anthony in his prime was a notch above Donovan Mitchell (a "notch" I said). Essentially their game was/is about scoring. Carmelo the better rebounder and averaged a couple more points a game, Mitchell the better disher. My opinion is based on reputation somewhat and who I believe can more take over a game. But even if we say they are entirely equal, the ideas of trades floating around completely remind me of what we gave up for Anthony. Some good young players, a useful vet or two, and a bunch of firsts. Carmelo Anthony brought the Knicks instant relevance and respectability, but in the long run we were strapped of assets for someone who couldn't put us over the top. Don't do it.
Comparing Mitchell to Melo is asinine and this is a terrible take.
Melo improved the Nuggets the minute he stepped on the court for the Nuggets (check the stats). ALL THOSE AMAZING PLAYERS that the Knicks traded for Anthony amounted to jack sh1t. Gallanari has had a decent career has a role player in the NBA but that was about it. Would the Knicks have been much better WITH Wilson Chandler and Gallanari playing along side Melo? Hell yeah, but the Knicks became a better team after that trade was made. Where the Knicks messed up (and its been brought up time and time again on this board) were the moves they made AFTER that trade.
I think people miss the fact that once they sign Barrett it is hard to find cap space to add a legitimate star through free agency and without clearing out some players, it will be a struggle to develop youth with any allocation of minutes.
So, adding 3 more picks next year doesn’t really help us. Mitchell is a top 15 player today and 25 years old. He is an improvement at SG over anything they can otherwise find. I wouldn’t overpay for him, but the original thread is if you get him at your own imaginary fictitious value.
I think you have a chance to get Mitchell, you have to take it seriously. 6 picks and all youth is stupid. But you have to give to get. 4 picks (hopefully not ours), Fournier and a couple of our youth gets it done for me.
martin wrote:Knixkik wrote:25 year old proven star with no injury history that grew up local. How can you not want him ? This is what you deal picks for. Those picks have a 99.9% chance of never turning into a Mitchell level player.Outside of the 4 concussions he has had
Yes I guess that has to count. I am just thinking more so in terms of games missed.
Swishfm3 wrote:KnickDanger wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:BRIGGS wrote:It’s pretty telling the vote is not well received
You give up to much and u remove the team hedge against collapse for atleast half a decade.
We got a much better player Carmelo for less than what has been thrown out and the bottom line w that trade is big failure. There’s too much risk w the unknowns here to go all in on an undersized player who takes a ton of shots AFTER getting Brunson. How many basketballs are there? If I paid a mighty price for Kevin Durant. Ok. Even though he’s a diva. I’d pay up. But Mitchell????? When we already have Brunson?Objectively, why would you argue Melo was a much better player than Mitchell? The issue with Melo was that he was to be a free agent in 5 months when we paid a kings ransom for him. I don’t know how much people were really looking at advanced metrics at that time but he was coming to play at a time when he really belonged in a PF slot in a SSOL offense but remained as SF due to Amare.
Mitchell would also be coming here playing out of position, I think he belongs in the PG slot, but his relationship to Johnny Bryant (heir apparent to the coaching position) is what I am really getting. Bryant has Mitchell. I think that leadership transition is obvious and I would basically build my future team around him, knowing we need to gather more pieces. Maybe Barrett takes that step to be that next piece. Maybe Toppin shows his Amare-like attributes. But I want to clear out the one way players. You need to play defense and have a high eFG in my plan. Not every player meets that criteria. Mitchell even has his criticisms. But I’d rather see the below team then retread Randle/Fournier again.
Brunson
Mitchell
Barrett
Toppin
Robinson/HartThis squad works for me. And I believe in Johnny Bryant long term.
On the same page with Briggsy here. Despite those who trash him (and I am not a big fan) Carmelo Anthony in his prime was a notch above Donovan Mitchell (a "notch" I said). Essentially their game was/is about scoring. Carmelo the better rebounder and averaged a couple more points a game, Mitchell the better disher. My opinion is based on reputation somewhat and who I believe can more take over a game. But even if we say they are entirely equal, the ideas of trades floating around completely remind me of what we gave up for Anthony. Some good young players, a useful vet or two, and a bunch of firsts. Carmelo Anthony brought the Knicks instant relevance and respectability, but in the long run we were strapped of assets for someone who couldn't put us over the top. Don't do it.
Comparing Mitchell to Melo is asinine and this is a terrible take.
Melo improved the Nuggets the minute he stepped on the court for the Nuggets (check the stats). ALL THOSE AMAZING PLAYERS that the Knicks traded for Anthony amounted to jack sh1t. Gallanari has had a decent career has a role player in the NBA but that was about it. Would the Knicks have been much better WITH Wilson Chandler and Gallanari playing along side Melo? Hell yeah, but the Knicks became a better team after that trade was made. Where the Knicks messed up (and its been brought up time and time again on this board) were the moves they made AFTER that trade.
At some point everyone who was against the melo trade has to say 11 years later that the Knicks gave up very little for melo. He was a top 10 player age 26 and Knicks gave away a few decent prospects and 1 first round draft pick ?
Swishfm3 wrote:KnickDanger wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:BRIGGS wrote:It’s pretty telling the vote is not well received
You give up to much and u remove the team hedge against collapse for atleast half a decade.
We got a much better player Carmelo for less than what has been thrown out and the bottom line w that trade is big failure. There’s too much risk w the unknowns here to go all in on an undersized player who takes a ton of shots AFTER getting Brunson. How many basketballs are there? If I paid a mighty price for Kevin Durant. Ok. Even though he’s a diva. I’d pay up. But Mitchell????? When we already have Brunson?Objectively, why would you argue Melo was a much better player than Mitchell? The issue with Melo was that he was to be a free agent in 5 months when we paid a kings ransom for him. I don’t know how much people were really looking at advanced metrics at that time but he was coming to play at a time when he really belonged in a PF slot in a SSOL offense but remained as SF due to Amare.
Mitchell would also be coming here playing out of position, I think he belongs in the PG slot, but his relationship to Johnny Bryant (heir apparent to the coaching position) is what I am really getting. Bryant has Mitchell. I think that leadership transition is obvious and I would basically build my future team around him, knowing we need to gather more pieces. Maybe Barrett takes that step to be that next piece. Maybe Toppin shows his Amare-like attributes. But I want to clear out the one way players. You need to play defense and have a high eFG in my plan. Not every player meets that criteria. Mitchell even has his criticisms. But I’d rather see the below team then retread Randle/Fournier again.
Brunson
Mitchell
Barrett
Toppin
Robinson/HartThis squad works for me. And I believe in Johnny Bryant long term.
On the same page with Briggsy here. Despite those who trash him (and I am not a big fan) Carmelo Anthony in his prime was a notch above Donovan Mitchell (a "notch" I said). Essentially their game was/is about scoring. Carmelo the better rebounder and averaged a couple more points a game, Mitchell the better disher. My opinion is based on reputation somewhat and who I believe can more take over a game. But even if we say they are entirely equal, the ideas of trades floating around completely remind me of what we gave up for Anthony. Some good young players, a useful vet or two, and a bunch of firsts. Carmelo Anthony brought the Knicks instant relevance and respectability, but in the long run we were strapped of assets for someone who couldn't put us over the top. Don't do it.
Comparing Mitchell to Melo is asinine and this is a terrible take.
Melo improved the Nuggets the minute he stepped on the court for the Nuggets (check the stats). ALL THOSE AMAZING PLAYERS that the Knicks traded for Anthony amounted to jack sh1t. Gallanari has had a decent career has a role player in the NBA but that was about it. Would the Knicks have been much better WITH Wilson Chandler and Gallanari playing along side Melo? Hell yeah, but the Knicks became a better team after that trade was made. Where the Knicks messed up (and its been brought up time and time again on this board) were the moves they made AFTER that trade.
If you are referring to my post you might notice I said Melo was better than Mitchell.
Also no one seems to mention that Jamaal Murray was picked by the Nuggets in a pick swap from that trade.
Chandler and Gallo has had nice NBA careers and their upside was not known then. We got hindsight. Felton was still a good player and Mozgov was proved a good servicable center and back up. That was the trade then and as mentioned Melo had leverage as he was prepared to walk. CBA now has extensions that could have made things differnt. At some point DM could extend here way in front of his contract season.
Both teams seemed to have faired about the same in retrospect. WE had a 54 win season, they had a 57 with Karl winning COTY. Both teams retooled in the aftermath with Denver getting Joikic has made them relevant for a while now. Injuiries to Murray and MPJ delicate gamble has yet to really pay off. This is a team that can go all the way or bounce out as they have.
The mega trade era now involved picks. I don’t see the “Well melo did not work so we should not do this”. Thats kind of silly unless you believe we don’t have a good core to work with. Then we had Amare on Fragile knee but playing very well, Melo, Billups who was on his last leg. Then we got JR Smith. The cupboard was empty.
What does it look like in the aftermath and do we really think the folks that developed this core of yoot some of youu are super excited about cannot duplicate it going forward? Teh trade is likey not going to be 5 picks and Obi,Grimes, Deuce, IQ and Sims.
We still have yoot and picks left over. Also:
One seaosn removed All NBA/all star Randle. We needed a playmaking guard. We get two. He should be more efficient player.
22 year old trending allstar RJ on the rise.
One of the better rim protectors in MRob.
That is very different than the aftermath of the MElo trade. Its not a championship team on paper. But I don’t see one in the horizon if we don’t. I believe we are better with Brunson and am fine either with or without DM.
Yes, another star might become available. Yes, one of the picks might prove to be very good. Its how things work.
Our 54 win season built on 5 retiring players was super fun and nobody really cared how good Denver was or was not. We had our fun, the garden rocked and on paper the deal for Bargnani was a reasonable Risk based on his health. It failed miserably. We gave up Novak, Camby, 2 2nd round picks and the 1st which became https://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/nba/... a good player. For sure would have been better than Bargs. But, if healthy Bargs at 7 foot and could shoot was a bit of a visionary concept for this new era. (Not saying he was transcend). Like many knick risk attempts it did not execute well and it continued the drain on rebuilding assets going forward. I doubt Grunwald was fired over that but it was the type of move a GM does to save his ass. The next season the mass retirments occured and we dropped to under .500. Woodson was let go and the Phil era ensued after a brief Mills reign. Very brief. Phil did not have his all his picks and had to attempt a quasi relevant team while rebuilding. Core of Drose, Noah and Melo could have been a low seed playoff team on paper. Too bad we don’t play on paper. The rest we know all to well. My guess was Grunwald was on thin ice given he was really left behind by Isiah and unless he got them to playoffs he was toast. Stupid to do that to a gm and make trades. Then even dumber to cut Phil off before he traded KP for max value. Dolan seems to get things wrong even when he does the right thing.
My point is the cupboard is much more robust and was filled to make a trade like this. None of it played out like we thought it would. The Brunson signing was very telegraphed and we played it good. If he had extended at any time last season we were out. So dumping Kemba was not awful. It was not a high price. That DM was made available after is curious. Ainge and the world knew knicks and him are a good fit and we had the assets. If anything getting Brunson works out of his favor as we are not so motivated as would be if he did not sign here. Seems as if they got an offer they could not refuse on Rudy and he went first. Im not so sure utah is that desperate to trade DM. Utah wants to be motivated and knicks under leon don’t chase fi the price is not right.
I only know what I read. Seems media says it gets done and knicks have best package to offer but that don’t mean leon will spend all the booty on one trade.