Ma10 wrote:When you consider that Okc could also have Sengun, Quickley and McBride.... crazy!
And we could’ve had Jalen Williams or Jalen duren lol I don’t like this game
Moderators: j4remi, Deeeez Knicks, NoLayupRule, mpharris36, GONYK, HerSports85, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Capn'O
Ma10 wrote:When you consider that Okc could also have Sengun, Quickley and McBride.... crazy!
Capn'O wrote:I wonder what Paul Reed's feelings are about metal bats.
Clyde_Style wrote:robillionaire wrote:Let’s start the Towns > Jokic conversation
Our board heavily underrates KAT in general
Jokic is an amazing player, but Minny's defense has the answer to him this time
I have said KAT would fit into our roster well. I know it would mean moving Randle, but KAT would answer our need for a stretch big. We literally have NO shooting from our frontline in this post-season other than OG
aggo wrote:Mitch to OKC in the offseason is a perfect match btw
omerome wrote:aggo wrote:Mitch to OKC in the offseason is a perfect match btw
What do we get back, though?
omerome wrote:aggo wrote:Mitch to OKC in the offseason is a perfect match btw
What do we get back, though?
omerome wrote:aggo wrote:Mitch to OKC in the offseason is a perfect match btw
What do we get back, though?
robillionaire wrote:omerome wrote:aggo wrote:Mitch to OKC in the offseason is a perfect match btw
What do we get back, though?
Cap space
aggo wrote:Mitch to OKC in the offseason is a perfect match btw
omerome wrote:robillionaire wrote:omerome wrote:What do we get back, though?
Cap space
Nah. IMO, that's a case of wasting an asset. I'd want more. Like a conditional pick or something. Mitch still has value despite his injury history, and then to think of him coming off the bench in OKC for 10-15 minutes, that would be a huge get for them.
spree2kawhi wrote:aggo wrote:Mitch to OKC in the offseason is a perfect match btw
Where does that come from?
KnicksGadfly wrote:Guano wrote:It's extremely insulting to Brunson that some of you use the Cleveland backcourt as an example of Donovan not working here. Like Garland and Brunson are in the same realm of players. Shameful.
Nah, don't get it wrong. Brunson would be the alpha in the relationship. He has been better than Mitchell since last year. It's a non-starter to even consider bringing in Mitchell so Brunson could be the "Darius Garland" in the relationship. If Mitchell gets here, both guys need to adjust, but Mitchell would be sacrificing more.
The big question is how good Mitchell would be in a secondary role (aka whether he can be a good Robin to Brunson). It's a tough ask: Mitchell has to be Mitchell (at times), but the rest of the time, he'd have to play a Klay Thompson/Derrick White role...less of a ball-dominating ball, but needing to contribute elsewhere. Unfortunately, things aren't going to be equal for Brunson...we know he's not the best 1 on 1 defender, but that's kinda how it goes. Someone in the backcourt needs to guard the Maxeys and Haliburtons and all that. Someone needs to be DiVincenzo when Brunson takes over in the late game and gets doubled and needs to pass it out. If Mitchell has more energy because Brunson is gonna get the ball more, he needs to step up. Mitchell is basically the one who needs to prove that he would be better than Garland in a secondary role, and not just better than Garland, but MUCH better than Garland. Garland is not the standard.
Luckily, there's a good opportunity to really evaluate this. We've heard that Mitchell is a great two-way player now. The main concern many posters have is that he and Brunson are too small. Boston is a really big team with big guards and forwards that are very talented, and they might be a team we'll need to try and surpass in the foreseeable future. I'm sure the Knicks scouts are watching too. I'll keep an open mind too. Maybe Mitchell proves me wrong...DWade was a monster defender, so not impossible. It won't answer all the questions, but it's a big one that deserves answering.
Chanel Bomber wrote:This board really is full of bad people.
3toheadmelo wrote:Guano wrote:It's extremely insulting to Brunson that some of you use the Cleveland backcourt as an example of Donovan not working here. Like Garland and Brunson are in the same realm of players. Shameful.
Very shameful
Also my pre draft takes on Mobley and garland aging like fine wine . Took a while but it’s hitting now. I thought they both were overrated hehe
Chanel Bomber wrote:This board really is full of bad people.
NYKnickerbocker wrote:Guano wrote:It's extremely insulting to Brunson that some of you use the Cleveland backcourt as an example of Donovan not working here. Like Garland and Brunson are in the same realm of players. Shameful.
I just don’t think you can have two defensive liabilities in the closing minutes of game on the floor luke Brunson and Mitchell would be mainly due to their height
Chanel Bomber wrote:This board really is full of bad people.
3toheadmelo wrote:Guano wrote:It's extremely insulting to Brunson that some of you use the Cleveland backcourt as an example of Donovan not working here. Like Garland and Brunson are in the same realm of players. Shameful.
Very shameful
Also my pre draft takes on Mobley and garland aging like fine wine . Took a while but it’s hitting now. I thought they both were overrated hehe
Guano wrote:3toheadmelo wrote:Guano wrote:It's extremely insulting to Brunson that some of you use the Cleveland backcourt as an example of Donovan not working here. Like Garland and Brunson are in the same realm of players. Shameful.
Very shameful
Also my pre draft takes on Mobley and garland aging like fine wine . Took a while but it’s hitting now. I thought they both were overrated hehe
Mobley couldn't survive the Cap curse.
BigShot Bojan wrote:Ma10 wrote:When you consider that Okc could also have Sengun, Quickley and McBride.... crazy!
And we could’ve had Jalen Williams or Jalen duren lol I don’t like this game