Do you want Mikal Bridges?

[thebuzzardman]

Johnny Bryant and Donovan Mitchell to Nets, Mikal to Knicks, whatever etc, picks to Cleveland.
Something like Bogs, Deuce, One of the Cams, 2 picks from Knicks, 2 from Nets.

[El Poochio]

No space for Mikal with CAA on the line

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Brunson
Deuce
Book
PG13
iHart

The OG omission …….. not good.

Traded for Book, no cap space. Deuce - iHart is cheap enough to surround stars with

[Nazrmohamed]

I love Mikal but I don't see where he fits with OG on the roster

Why do you say so?

[Fat Kat]

Read on Twitter

[sol537]

Randle for Bridges straight up. Who says no?

[3toheadmelo]

sorry mikal fans. hes not going anywhere

per jake fischer

NBA personnel believe Brooklyn’s search will be wide-ranging, with less of a specific archetype of candidate compared to the strategy in Charlotte or Washington, where the focus will be on finding the right development-minded coaches to enhance a youth movement. The Nets, by all accounts, still hold aspirations of adding to a core that already features a complementary piece in Mikal Bridges.

[Wildcat]

Randle for Bridges straight up. Who says no?

No.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

Randle for Bridges straight up. Who says no?

no

[spree2kawhi]

Randle for Bridges straight up. Who says no?

I’d do it if we could get Lauri or Ingram in a separate deal

Brunson, Bridges, OG, Lauri, Hartenstein

[KnicksGod]

Not a lot, no.

[rajajackal]

yes but not for randle

then again brunson/donte/mikal/og/mitch is an intriguing lineup

[Phish Tank]

Not on this iteration of the squad. Few red flags regarding Mikal:

1) His defense isn't the same anymore as it was in Phoenix. Yes, it's due to the offensive responsibilities, but it's quite rare to see players go from not playing defense to playing defense, especially after starting their career as good to great defenders

2) His troubles creating any semblance of offense in Brooklyn (largely due to the lack of strength) will actually be a bit of an issue here with the Knicks. One key staple of our offense is capitalizing on individual matchups. When Randle was active, that was in full force. The entire SL is full of strong beasts. Mikal's the opposite of that.

3) As alluded to above, he's not a great rebounder. That's a bit of a problem if you pair him with OG (who's also not a great rebounder).

4) Truthfully, Josh Hart as a starter > Mikal as a starter.

[jvsimonetti0514]

I voted maybe cuz he’s not my first option. I totally agree with whatever poster said the deal the Nets didn’t take for Mikal probably doesn’t end up being his actual price when he gets traded. Whatever the price may be, he's still going to cost us like 75% of a star trade would be. So we have to be comfortable without making another move in case Booker or someone else becomes available. If there’s truly no other option than sure but we need a true second option to Brunson. Mikal isn’t even an offense upgrade over Randle. Just spacing the floor with Donte, OG, Mikal and letting Brunson do all the creating isn’t going to help us take the next step. Even if it’s possible to get him without giving up Randle, it would be a better team but I’m not sure there’s enough offense fire power to get us over the Celtics.

[MrDollarBills]

Not on this iteration of the squad. Few red flags regarding Mikal:

1) His defense isn't the same anymore as it was in Phoenix. Yes, it's due to the offensive responsibilities, but it's quite rare to see players go from not playing defense to playing defense, especially after starting their career as good to great defenders

2) His troubles creating any semblance of offense in Brooklyn (largely due to the lack of strength) will actually be a bit of an issue here with the Knicks. One key staple of our offense is capitalizing on individual matchups. When Randle was active, that was in full force. The entire SL is full of strong beasts. Mikal's the opposite of that.

3) As alluded to above, he's not a great rebounder. That's a bit of a problem if you pair him with OG (who's also not a great rebounder).

4) Truthfully, Josh Hart as a starter > Mikal as a starter.

Co signed.

I think he would be good here, but everything you've pointed out is what I've been saying: Mikal isn't that good.

High end roleplayer, yes. But highly overvalued by the idiots on Atlantic Ave and not worth the asking price. He's gonna rot in Brooklyn

[MrDollarBills]

sorry mikal fans. hes not going anywhere

per jake fischer

NBA personnel believe Brooklyn’s search will be wide-ranging, with less of a specific archetype of candidate compared to the strategy in Charlotte or Washington, where the focus will be on finding the right development-minded coaches to enhance a youth movement. The Nets, by all accounts, still hold aspirations of adding to a core that already features a complementary piece in Mikal Bridges.

He has to feel sick seeing his friends winning and enjoying their careers while a genocide financier holds his career hostage.

[Spree2Houston]

Nets aren’t interested in rebuilding so our package of Bojan and picks won’t get him. It would need to be a 3team trade where a 3rd team is looking to unload a high end role player for picks. 3rd team can send that player to Brooklyn, Mikal to Knicks, and Bojan + picks to 3rd team. Portland (Ayton) or Washington (Kuzma) would be an interesting 3rd team

FYI this trade works in the trade checker

Kuzma to Nets
Bridges to Knicks
Bojan + Picks to Wizards

[RHODEY]

Not on this iteration of the squad. Few red flags regarding Mikal:

1) His defense isn't the same anymore as it was in Phoenix. Yes, it's due to the offensive responsibilities, but it's quite rare to see players go from not playing defense to playing defense, especially after starting their career as good to great defenders

2) His troubles creating any semblance of offense in Brooklyn (largely due to the lack of strength) will actually be a bit of an issue here with the Knicks. One key staple of our offense is capitalizing on individual matchups. When Randle was active, that was in full force. The entire SL is full of strong beasts. Mikal's the opposite of that.

3) As alluded to above, he's not a great rebounder. That's a bit of a problem if you pair him with OG (who's also not a great rebounder).

4) Truthfully, Josh Hart as a starter > Mikal as a starter.

1) I don't think he permanently forgets all of this in one year.

Watch on YouTube

https://www.netsdaily.com/2023/10/10/23911445/in-nba-gm-survey-mikal-bridges-gets-votes-for-defense-versatility

According to Schuhmann, Bridges is listed as

the second best perimeter defender in the NBA (behind only Jrue Holiday) with 13% of the GMs vote;
the second best player at moving without the ball (behind only Steph Curry) with 13% of the vote;
the fourth best versatile defender in the NBA (behind Giannis Antetokounmpo, Draymond Green and Bam Adebayo) with 7% of the vote;

2) Mikal might be skinny but he is also an active beast. For us he's be a third option and a shooting guard and IMO a better starter than even big Ragu.


3)How do his rebounds compare to Ragu? He doesnt need to spell Hart in that category.

4)Disagree, because Hart cant shoot. But you can pair him WITH Hart -which gives the best of both worlds.

[Knicksfan1992]

Pros:
-Although, obviously, Brooklyn has struggled with Mikal as the de facto #1 option, he's proven he can maintain an adequate level of efficiency while taking on extra burden. In one and a half seasons in BK he has a 57.5 TS% and a 52.8 EFG%. Both slightly above average efficiency marks. This bodes well for him coming into a Knicks situation where he would only be relied on to carry the offense for small stretches.

-Mikal plays every game. As we've seen this year this is nothing to scoff at. With Randle approaching his 30's, OG picking up random injuries, and Hart's playstyle being as reckless as it is then having Mikal be a steady presence in the starting lineup would be great insurance to have.

-While he hasn't been great defensively in BK, you may be able to bank on him ratcheting up the effort a bit in NY. Also he provides another true wing sized option that we currently lack around OG. Even if Mikal isn't elite anymore, he's someone teams absolutely will not target.

-His contract is very easy for matching salary purposes. We would not need to include Randle to get a deal done.

-He is obviously ok with playing/living in NYC. Chemistry will not be any sort of issue. He also has deep playoff and NCAA tournament experience. Ready to win now.

Cons:

-While his contract is good for a trade now, it also is a hinderance down the line in a way most fans don't realize. Like Brunson, because the perception is that he's underpaid, he almost certainly would turn down any pre-emptive attempt at an extension because he stands to earn more on the open market. If you trade for Mikal, then you really only have 1 season of not having to worry about that before you have to think about either possibly trading him or losing him for nothing. It provides a very thin window for contention in a way other targets may not burden you.

-While Mikal is a little more than 3 and D, he's not exactly a guy who creates for others nor is he truly a dynamic shooter or passer. Replacing Donte with him in the starting line up could make us lean even more into iso ball than we already do when fully healthy. Donte provides quickness and athleticism that Mikal lacks and off-ball shooting gravity. We already struggle to get easy buckets. Stagnating our offense more with another static option could provide more harm than good.

-Brooklyn doesn't want to trade with us ever. It's borne out over time. If they trade Mikal, then I have a suspicion they either just won't deal with us entirely or ask more from us than anyone else. The demand for Bridges is already going to be high. Do we really want to get in a bidding war for a guy who doesn't necessarily even make us favorites in our own conference? Something for the FO to consider.

-Mikal is not a good rebounder for his size and can get pushed around a lot in general. Knicks have built their success on a foundation of toughness and winning the margins on hustle plays. Does trading some guys who fit and contribute to that philosophy for a guy who doesn't necessarily fit that ethos make us actually better or do we just lose some identity for a small talent upgrade?

- You could make the argument that Mikal brings too much overlap with what OG brings and that the Knicks need something different than what Mikal does.

I, ultimately voted yes because I think Mikal brings more than he takes away in a vacuum. We've all seen what this team looks like when Randle is out and Brunson has to carry the load... It can get ugly and stagnant. Mikal always being there helps even if he's not the greatest shot creator in the world. Also even if the offense doesn't improve all that much with Mikal, I can't help but think about how good a defense could potentially be built around OG, Mikal, Hart and Hartenstein. It doesn't get much better than that in modern hoops or for a Thibodeau coached team.

[gavran]

Yes. Gotta catch them all.

[Ray Williams]

Getting Mikal would make our team a defensive juggernaut!
Trade Randle and picks for
Mikal and we eat Ben Simmons contract. I feel that’s the only way Brooklyn traded him to us. Then just send Summind home, cost of doing business to get Bridges.