RealGM

Cleveland - Allen, Jerome, and Niang

Knicks - Randle and Dadiet

Cavs: get more of a floor spacer next to Mobley who’s physical with a rookie to provide upside incase Randle leaves

Knicks: Get a big man to replace Hartenstein that is a big upgrade over Mitchell.

This should be the hardest of passes from the Cavs for an entire host of reasons, not the least of which is it fixes the biggest problem the Knicks currently have. I think they're probably the favorites in the East after this.

Conversely, Randle has yet to show his game translates to the offseason, he's more expensive, and looking for an extension.

Hard pass for New York. Allen got dominated by Robinson and we need to give Brunson more help, not less.

Mitch dominated Allen h2h in the PO… borderline emasculated him. I don’t have interest in swapping them straight up let alone the rest of the deal.

And why trade our starting All NBA/All-Star pf to solve our backup center issue?

Saying this would make NY favorites is crazy

spree8 wrote:Mitch dominated Allen h2h in the PO… borderline emasculated him. I don’t have interest in swapping them straight up let alone the rest of the deal.

And why trade our starting All NBA/All-Star pf to solve our backup center issue?

Saying this would make NY favorites is crazy

And last postseason, Allen dominated the Magic frontcourt. Mitch wouldn't start over Allen now. Knicks fans are in for a rude awakening with Hartenstein gone, the roles reversed, and Mitch Robinson being the one asked to log heavy minutes against fresh bodies.

I have zero interest in bringing Randle to Cleveland, nor would I want to be on the hook for his next contract.

jbk1234 wrote:

spree8 wrote:Mitch dominated Allen h2h in the PO… borderline emasculated him. I don’t have interest in swapping them straight up let alone the rest of the deal.

And why trade our starting All NBA/All-Star pf to solve our backup center issue?

Saying this would make NY favorites is crazy

And last postseason, Allen dominated the Magic frontcourt. Mitch wouldn't start over Allen now. Knicks fans are in for a rude awakening with Hartenstein gone, the roles reversed, and Mitch Robinson being the one asked to log heavy minutes against fresh bodies.

What does Allen’s performance vs Orlando over 2 good games have to do with his performance h2h against Mitch? And Mitch is far more effective defensively against Embiid which most of us would prefer for the PO…. Embiid murdered iHart, so he won’t be missed too much there.

iHart is good but you’re making him sound like Jokić lol. You’ve been oddly hating on this team for a while trying to speak bs into existence like “NY is going to lose OG”…we’re good and the offseason isn’t over so pump the brakes.

No mention of Randle here tho and how well he played last season with Jalen & OG… there’s no reality that exists where the Knicks are better with Allen over both Randle & Mitch. It’s an extremely laughable concept.

spree8 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

spree8 wrote:Mitch dominated Allen h2h in the PO… borderline emasculated him. I don’t have interest in swapping them straight up let alone the rest of the deal.

And why trade our starting All NBA/All-Star pf to solve our backup center issue?

Saying this would make NY favorites is crazy

And last postseason, Allen dominated the Magic frontcourt. Mitch wouldn't start over Allen now. Knicks fans are in for a rude awakening with Hartenstein gone, the roles reversed, and Mitch Robinson being the one asked to log heavy minutes against fresh bodies.

What does Allen’s performance vs Orlando over 2 good games have to do with his performance h2h against Mitch? And Mitch is far more effective defensively against Embiid which most of us would prefer for the PO…. Embiid murdered iHart, so he won’t be missed too much there.

iHart is good but you’re making him sound like Jokić lol. You’ve been oddly hating on this team for a while trying to speak bs into existence like “NY is going to lose OG”…we’re good and the offseason isn’t over so pump the brakes.

No mention of Randle here tho and how well he played last season with Jalen & OG… there’s no reality that exists where the Knicks are better with Allen over both Randle & Mitch. It’s an extremely laughable concept.

.

Allen lifted last offseason and came back stronger last year. Also, when you look at Allen's numbers in that Knicks series, they got worse as the series wore on. There were two reasons: Allen had to log heavy minutes against Mitchell and Hartenstein; and Thibs had his team get multiple bodies on Allen in the later games and JB had no answer.

I want nothing to do with Randle so it appears we're in agreement as far not wanting to make this trade.

jbk1234 wrote:

spree8 wrote:Mitch dominated Allen h2h in the PO… borderline emasculated him. I don’t have interest in swapping them straight up let alone the rest of the deal.

And why trade our starting All NBA/All-Star pf to solve our backup center issue?

Saying this would make NY favorites is crazy

And last postseason, Allen dominated the Magic frontcourt. Mitch wouldn't start over Allen now. Knicks fans are in for a rude awakening with Hartenstein gone, the roles reversed, and Mitch Robinson being the one asked to log heavy minutes against fresh bodies.

I’m genuinely confused why you say this. Robinson started over Hartenstein whenever he was healthy. It’s not like he was coming in after IH had worn our opponents down.

Mitch could break at any time, but when healthy he’s been an absolute force for us as a defensive anchor, rebounder, & screener. Though we’ve always underutilized him as a roll man.

The question with losing iHart is will we get one of Mitch’s 30 game seasons or one of his 60 game seasons. Losing IH really hurts if Mitch misses most of the season, Sims regresses, and OG gets banged up while Mitch is out.

But if Mitch continues his pattern and plays 59 or more games this year, while sims & Achiuwa just repeat what they gave us last year, and OG’s injuries don’t coincide with Mitch’s, our center play could be even better than it was last year.

Sims has started for us before and done a very solid job, when forced to deputize in that role. And Achiuwa did a very a good job for us post trade. Plus the iHart to Robinson upgrade.

cgf wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

spree8 wrote:Mitch dominated Allen h2h in the PO… borderline emasculated him. I don’t have interest in swapping them straight up let alone the rest of the deal.

And why trade our starting All NBA/All-Star pf to solve our backup center issue?

Saying this would make NY favorites is crazy

And last postseason, Allen dominated the Magic frontcourt. Mitch wouldn't start over Allen now. Knicks fans are in for a rude awakening with Hartenstein gone, the roles reversed, and Mitch Robinson being the one asked to log heavy minutes against fresh bodies.

I’m genuinely confused why you say this. Robinson started over Hartenstein whenever he was healthy. It’s not like he was coming in after IH had worn out opponents down.

Mitch could break at any time, but when healthy he’s been an absolute force for us as a defensive anchor, rebounder, & screener. Though we’ve always underutilized him as a roll man.

The question with losing iHart is will we get one of Mitch’s 30 game seasons or one of his 60 game seasons. Losing IH really hurts if Mitch misses most of the season, Sims regresses, and OG gets banged up while Mitch is out.

But if Mitch continues his pattern and plays 59 or more games this year, while sims & Achiuwa just repeat what they gave us last year, and OG’s injuries don’t coincide with Mitch’s, our center play could be even better than it was last year.

Sims has started for us before and done a very solid job, when forced to deputize in that role. If he takes another step this season he could be a straight up quality backup in his own right. And Achiuwa did a very a good job for us post trade.

There's nothing terribly confusing about it. Allen logged a lot more minutes in that series than Mitch, and when Mitch checked out, a fresh Hartenstein checked in. The Knicks did most of their damage when one of Allen or Mobley was out.

jbk1234 wrote:

cgf wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
And last postseason, Allen dominated the Magic frontcourt. Mitch wouldn't start over Allen now. Knicks fans are in for a rude awakening with Hartenstein gone, the roles reversed, and Mitch Robinson being the one asked to log heavy minutes against fresh bodies.

I’m genuinely confused why you say this. Robinson started over Hartenstein whenever he was healthy. It’s not like he was coming in after IH had worn out opponents down.

Mitch could break at any time, but when healthy he’s been an absolute force for us as a defensive anchor, rebounder, & screener. Though we’ve always underutilized him as a roll man.

The question with losing iHart is will we get one of Mitch’s 30 game seasons or one of his 60 game seasons. Losing IH really hurts if Mitch misses most of the season, Sims regresses, and OG gets banged up while Mitch is out.

But if Mitch continues his pattern and plays 59 or more games this year, while sims & Achiuwa just repeat what they gave us last year, and OG’s injuries don’t coincide with Mitch’s, our center play could be even better than it was last year.

Sims has started for us before and done a very solid job, when forced to deputize in that role. If he takes another step this season he could be a straight up quality backup in his own right. And Achiuwa did a very a good job for us post trade.

There's nothing terribly confusing about it. Allen logged a lot more minutes in that series than Mitch, and when Mitch checked out, a fresh Hartenstein checked in. The Knicks did most of their damage when one of Allen or Mobley was out.

I remember Mitch dominating them both on the boards at the same time… a lot. That’s another reason I’d rather have Mitch… his rebounding on the offensive glass is other worldly.

jbk1234 wrote:

cgf wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
And last postseason, Allen dominated the Magic frontcourt. Mitch wouldn't start over Allen now. Knicks fans are in for a rude awakening with Hartenstein gone, the roles reversed, and Mitch Robinson being the one asked to log heavy minutes against fresh bodies.

I’m genuinely confused why you say this. Robinson started over Hartenstein whenever he was healthy. It’s not like he was coming in after IH had worn out opponents down.

Mitch could break at any time, but when healthy he’s been an absolute force for us as a defensive anchor, rebounder, & screener. Though we’ve always underutilized him as a roll man.

The question with losing iHart is will we get one of Mitch’s 30 game seasons or one of his 60 game seasons. Losing IH really hurts if Mitch misses most of the season, Sims regresses, and OG gets banged up while Mitch is out.

But if Mitch continues his pattern and plays 59 or more games this year, while sims & Achiuwa just repeat what they gave us last year, and OG’s injuries don’t coincide with Mitch’s, our center play could be even better than it was last year.

Sims has started for us before and done a very solid job, when forced to deputize in that role. If he takes another step this season he could be a straight up quality backup in his own right. And Achiuwa did a very a good job for us post trade.

There's nothing terribly confusing about it. Allen logged a lot more minutes in that series than Mitch, and when Mitch checked out, a fresh Hartenstein checked in. The Knicks did most of their damage when one of Allen or Mobley was out.

Care to back that up? Cause I too remember Mitch imposing himself on you even with both of your big men out there. Not just when they sat. But i could be misremembering

cgf wrote:Hard pass for New York. Allen got dominated by Robinson and we need to give Brunson more help, not less.

I think it is better to make trades based on how the players do against the rest of the league and not head to head. It might just be anecdotal, but I see players ball out against the celts year in year out that are more meh against the rest of the league.

patman66 wrote:

cgf wrote:Hard pass for New York. Allen got dominated by Robinson and we need to give Brunson more help, not less.

I think it is better to make trades based on how the players do against the rest of the league and not head to head. It might just be anecdotal, but I see players ball out against the celts year in year out that are more meh against the rest of the league.

That’s fair and in my next post I expanded on Robinson being an exceptional defensive anchor and dominant rebounder when healthy. I just don’t agree that Allen is an upgrade to us over a healthy Robinson.

He’s an upgrade to an injured Robinson, but a backup Center is not something you give up your 2nd option for.

patman66 wrote:

cgf wrote:Hard pass for New York. Allen got dominated by Robinson and we need to give Brunson more help, not less.

I think it is better to make trades based on how the players do against the rest of the league and not head to head. It might just be anecdotal, but I see players ball out against the celts year in year out that are more meh against the rest of the league.

The justification isn’t for h2h alone at all tho, it’s just a caveat. Julius and his 24, 9, 5 stat line and gravity along with Mitch’s league leading ORB% and rim protection against everyone else is the main argument here…

spree8 wrote:

patman66 wrote:

cgf wrote:Hard pass for New York. Allen got dominated by Robinson and we need to give Brunson more help, not less.

I think it is better to make trades based on how the players do against the rest of the league and not head to head. It might just be anecdotal, but I see players ball out against the celts year in year out that are more meh against the rest of the league.

The justification isn’t for h2h alone at all tho, it’s just a caveat. Julius and his 24, 9, 5 stat line and gravity along with Mitch’s league leading ORB% and rim protection against everyone else is the main argument here…

not saying anything about the trade itself, just my opinion that head to head is not a very valid metric to use in discussing a trade.

cgf wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

cgf wrote:
I’m genuinely confused why you say this. Robinson started over Hartenstein whenever he was healthy. It’s not like he was coming in after IH had worn out opponents down.

Mitch could break at any time, but when healthy he’s been an absolute force for us as a defensive anchor, rebounder, & screener. Though we’ve always underutilized him as a roll man.

The question with losing iHart is will we get one of Mitch’s 30 game seasons or one of his 60 game seasons. Losing IH really hurts if Mitch misses most of the season, Sims regresses, and OG gets banged up while Mitch is out.

But if Mitch continues his pattern and plays 59 or more games this year, while sims & Achiuwa just repeat what they gave us last year, and OG’s injuries don’t coincide with Mitch’s, our center play could be even better than it was last year.

Sims has started for us before and done a very solid job, when forced to deputize in that role. If he takes another step this season he could be a straight up quality backup in his own right. And Achiuwa did a very a good job for us post trade.

There's nothing terribly confusing about it. Allen logged a lot more minutes in that series than Mitch, and when Mitch checked out, a fresh Hartenstein checked in. The Knicks did most of their damage when one of Allen or Mobley was out.

Care to back that up? Cause I too remember Mitch imposing himself on you even with both of your big men out there. Not just when they sat. But i could be misremembering

Allen has 14 rbs in Game 1. Robinson had 8. Mobley had 11 rbs. Randle lead the Knicks with 10.

Allen had 10 rbs in Game 2. Mitch had 5. Mobley had 13. Randle again lead the Knicks with 8. Hartenstein actually had more rebounds than Mitch in that Game with 7.

It really wasn't until later in that series that where Mobley got into foul trouble in NY and JB left Allen out there way too long thar Mitch started winning that battle.

patman66 wrote:

spree8 wrote:

patman66 wrote:
I think it is better to make trades based on how the players do against the rest of the league and not head to head. It might just be anecdotal, but I see players ball out against the celts year in year out that are more meh against the rest of the league.

The justification isn’t for h2h alone at all tho, it’s just a caveat. Julius and his 24, 9, 5 stat line and gravity along with Mitch’s league leading ORB% and rim protection against everyone else is the main argument here…

not saying anything about the trade itself, just my opinion that head to head is not a very valid metric to use in discussing a trade.

Sure it’s not the end all be all, but I don’t think you can disregard it entirely. There is some merit to it. If Mitch can dominate both Allen and Mobley on the boards together, and rebounding is a big deal for us with the way we play, I think it’s understandable to say, ehhh our guy crushes that guy in one of the most important areas we need, why would we swap them?

jbk1234 wrote:

cgf wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
There's nothing terribly confusing about it. Allen logged a lot more minutes in that series than Mitch, and when Mitch checked out, a fresh Hartenstein checked in. The Knicks did most of their damage when one of Allen or Mobley was out.

Care to back that up? Cause I too remember Mitch imposing himself on you even with both of your big men out there. Not just when they sat. But i could be misremembering

Allen has 14 rbs in Game 1. Robinson had 8. Mobley had 11 rbs. Randle lead the Knicks with 10.

Allen had 10 rbs in Game 2. Mitch had 5. Mobley had 13. Randle again lead the Knicks with 8. Hartenstein actually had more rebounds than Mitch in that Game with 7.

It really wasn't until later in that series that where Mobley got into foul trouble in NY and JB left Allen out there way too long thar Mitch started winning that battle.

I’m sure you can admit that not all rebounds are created equally. Battling for a board vs having one fall right to you is a big difference. We witnessed many times where Mitch was battling them both and came up victorious giving us second chances. He averaged 6 offensive rebounds that series against you guys. Had highs as much as 11 offensive boards. Typically you gotta fight for those the most… it demoralizes the opponent

cgf wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

cgf wrote:
I’m genuinely confused why you say this. Robinson started over Hartenstein whenever he was healthy. It’s not like he was coming in after IH had worn out opponents down.

Mitch could break at any time, but when healthy he’s been an absolute force for us as a defensive anchor, rebounder, & screener. Though we’ve always underutilized him as a roll man.

The question with losing iHart is will we get one of Mitch’s 30 game seasons or one of his 60 game seasons. Losing IH really hurts if Mitch misses most of the season, Sims regresses, and OG gets banged up while Mitch is out.

But if Mitch continues his pattern and plays 59 or more games this year, while sims & Achiuwa just repeat what they gave us last year, and OG’s injuries don’t coincide with Mitch’s, our center play could be even better than it was last year.

Sims has started for us before and done a very solid job, when forced to deputize in that role. If he takes another step this season he could be a straight up quality backup in his own right. And Achiuwa did a very a good job for us post trade.

There's nothing terribly confusing about it. Allen logged a lot more minutes in that series than Mitch, and when Mitch checked out, a fresh Hartenstein checked in. The Knicks did most of their damage when one of Allen or Mobley was out.

Care to back that up? Cause I too remember Mitch imposing himself on you even with both of your big men out there. Not just when they sat. But i could be misremembering

Cavs starting lineups were neutral with the Knicks in that series, even as poorly as everyone played. Mobley + Allen was a net positive. https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CLE/2023/lineups/#lineups_5-man__p

If you look at the replays of Robinson's rebounds, most of his rebounds weren't contested. Allen in particular was schemed out of the paint and out to the perimeter to contain Brunson-- a scheme choice by a now-fired coach. The scheme succeeded somewhat against Brunson, but killed the Cavs on the boards. Robinson was often there all alone for easy putbacks.

In addition to that, the Cavs played most of their bench minutes with Osman, Danny Green, and LeVert as their second big while trying to execute that strategy. Of course the Cavs got killed on the boards when their first big vacates the paint, their "PF" is a poor-rebounding 2/3, and the other team is the best offensive rebounding team in the league.

What you remember is commentators who looked at box scores and derived narratives from them-- Robinson killed Allen on the boards!-- rather than actually analyzing how those stats came to be.

But there's no need to litigate that because Robinson simply isn't a full-time C. He can't stay healthy and even when he does, he can't play 30 minutes a night. At the very least Robinson should be driven off the court in playoff settings by his free throw shooting, but that would require having a good coach going against him.