RealGM

The KNICKS have some glaring holes, such as the lack of an additional playmaker in the starting five, and the huge defensive hole that comes with playing KAT at the 5. This trade partially addresses those flaws.


The Suns have declared actively and passively that they do not want to rebuild, they get a younger star who is also a great friend of Booker, after this trade they would have to make additional moves to balance the roster.. something like Beal + (all the picks they have left for Claxton/Russell ST?)

I don’t like this for NY. Towns had a great year and makes significantly more sense age wise than Durant and stat wise compared to Richards.

I think Phoenix has to pay for this swap given the age difference here, don’t think Richards is payment enough.

I do think it’s worth paying for. If you can figure out a defense in between KAT/Booker, you can have a respectable playoff team as long as they stick together.

For NY, I would understand it a bit if you think you can win a championship next season. That’s all that really matters anyways, but their pick debt is fresh and they might not be too eager to get that much older unless Phoenix pays an unreasonable amount.

Astaluego wrote:The KNICKS have some glaring holes, such as the lack of an additional playmaker in the starting five, and the huge defensive hole that comes with playing KAT at the 5. This trade partially addresses those flaws.

How does trading away Towns and Kolek for KD and Nick Richards "partially address" any of the issues in bold?

Yes, KD is a guaranteed first-ballot Hall of Famer, and KAT is not. This said, KD is about to turn 37, and KAT is just 29. Maybe it's Father Time (or the major leg injuries) catching up with KD, but a strong argument can be made that KAT just had a better year than KD. Disagree? Fine...I think you're wrong, but it's still so close that there is no real upside to replacing KAT with the older (and increasingly more fragile) KD. None.

I don't know anything about Nick Richards. His stats and age seem to suggest that he's neither a strong rim-defender or play-maker now, nor will he be becoming either in the future. He also seems to have no range as a shooter. In other words, this guy fills no area of need--"partially" or otherwise--on the New York Knicks. Accordingly, why would we give up Kolek (though flawed, one of the few actual play-makers on our roster) for this guy?

If they did something like this, that would make me seriously question our FO. Just makes zero sense for us.