Donovan Mitchell Discussion 4

[thebuzzardman]

More a general post, not looking to debate merit of Brunson/Mitchell, nor what the trade is. Between this board, the Jazz board and common sense we know what the general outline is. After that, it's how greedy Ainge gets and the rest is fans insisting it can't be too much or this player, or has to be this much and all these players. Probably a handful of reasonable posters collectively that have the trade parameters mostly right but can't blame people for wishing. No, all of my trade proposals aren't realistic either.

Tiny backcourt aside, Knicks would get that player who can create his own shot from all over the floor against nearly anyone and succeed at a high level, who can do it off the dribble and is capable of setting up others. Sorry, but the Knicks haven't had that for years and it's one of the differences between good and very good or even average and good. And I don't think Randle is that, and it's 50/50 at best RJ ever becomes a guy like that. Randle has some of that, RJ who knows - not getting into the RJ debates right now.

I get the Dame/CJ thing and it's probably right, but I'd rather take the chance on getting in Mitchell level talent and having Brunson as the competent secondary guy who can get his own shot, is efficient and can play on and off the ball.
Honestly, it's been years, even it's not an ideal combo, where the Knicks can put two players on the floor at once and BOTH are a threat to hit a jumper, take a defender off the dribble and the threat of having two guys who can both do that is going to be nice, even if it's not the deepest playoff team.

I really wanted to talk about minutes left over at guard/wing, and I'm still putting PF in the "front court"


Mitchell averages 33 mpg. Brunson averaged 32 mpg last year - his "breakout" year. Assume those numbers hold. RJ has played 34 mpg last two years and that can probably come down 2 minutes. Just round out DMitch/Brunson and RJ to 96 mpg, leaving 48 mpg for 2 or maybe 3 players - 5 here and 4 in the backcourt is a 9 man rotation. I know some teams run 10 at times, but does the 10th man ever get more than a couple of minutes?

People want Fournier gone. They want Rose gone. Less people care about Cam than they do Grimes or IQ.

If Rose and IQ go out in a trade, kind of left having Brunson and Mitchell being all the PG depth, even though yes IQ is a combo guard. If Rose goes and IQ stays backcourt is short, but we can pretend that takes up 24 of 48 minutes of "guard/wing depth"
Would be nice if Grimes gets the other 48 - he's a little undersized for 3, but that's life. Maybe the Knicks would prefer Cam's height.
I realized the various permutations get complicated fast and this might be an ebook.

TL/DR
If Rose goes out in the trade, in spite of the height, Knicks should retain IQ
If Fournier and Cam or Fournier and Grimes go out in the trade, Knicks have to (and probably would) need to retain Grimes or Cam.

Obi can either go or not, if you think it's a given Paschdall will sign if he goes. I believe he replaces bench version of Obi easily. This is an aside from what future Obi might be.

Nothing new here, I was mulling over it.

[APE]

**** them kids and picks.

[thebuzzardman]

This is the buzzardman optimistic hat on. After this coffee wears off I'll get back to my pessimistic self.

Again, tiny backcourt, defensive issues, some shooting concerns.

Mitchell and Brunson mean there will always be 48 minutes every game of a guard who can get in the paint, score, distribute decently
IF Randle can embrace a kind of 3a/2a scoring option and move the ball, that's a tertiary guy legitimately decent. Now RJ's a 4th/3rd option, with some ability. Gets a little more room to grow, if you are an optimist, or has less to do if you are a pessimist.

I think both RJ and Mitch are willing to stay in a lane and be good guys and not b*tch about touches. Chanel's weird takes on RJ being selfish aside - and RJ might have gotten shot happy in the last 1/4 of the season to chase 20 ppg in a lost year, mainly I think he's displayed the temperament to do what is necessary for the team. If he's truly selfish and/or inefficient it's easier to move him, unless the extension, and that's another issue about how much, implications of tax apron, etc.

Same for Randle. Different position, but if the team created some quality of depth, it's easier now to replace him, or RJ, with Robert Covington-model types - easier said than done, but possible.

Even Fournier, who I'd prefer would leave, probably looks better with Mitchell and Brunson, defense aside. For all the slander he gets, if Grimes gets to have Fournier's career, approximately, people would sh*t themselves on here from joy. And maybe Fournier has benefited from some volume on bad teams and the less flashy but better defender is really the answer - I'm just pointing out he's not a scrub - there's even a way if the Knicks retain him in the Burks role, he'll probably be a version of good.
Again, with Grimes, Knicks have a way to get rid of Fournier, and it'll be ok. Conversely, though it would suck, Grimes can go and Evan can stay and it would be ok.

Last couple of paragraphs are about our tendency, mine included, to beat up on players when asked to perform a level above what they are. I think Mitchell solves some of that. Brunson does too - not in that he's uber talented, but more along the lines it's the SET of skills he has and being above average at them. Again, Brunson coming from Vanderbilt, knowing team ball, proving he can take various roles and embrace it - that's a big thing. Particularly since he was going to get a chance to be the man here and now it would be the man's sidekick.
Or, he was aware this was the plan all along and was ok with it. Not sure how much WWW has been backchanneling and what is communicated to Leon and then to Jalen, and there's the fact that Jalen and Mitchell are friends.

Anyway, that's the end of longer early AM posts.
Now resumes my regularly scheduled snide posts.

[VirginiaKnickFan]

This is the buzzardman optimistic hat on. After this coffee wears off I'll get back to my pessimistic self.

Again, tiny backcourt, defensive issues, some shooting concerns.

Mitchell and Brunson mean there will always be 48 minutes every game of a guard who can get in the paint, score, distribute decently
IF Randle can embrace a kind of 3a/2a scoring option and move the ball, that's a tertiary guy legitimately decent. Now RJ's a 4th/3rd option, with some ability. Gets a little more room to grow, if you are an optimist, or has less to do if you are a pessimist.

I think both RJ and Mitch are willing to stay in a lane and be good guys and not b*tch about touches. Chanel's weird takes on RJ being selfish aside - and RJ might have gotten shot happy in the last 1/4 of the season to chase 20 ppg in a lost year, mainly I think he's displayed the temperament to do what is necessary for the team. If he's truly selfish and/or inefficient it's easier to move him, unless the extend, and that's another issue about how much, implications of tax apron, etc.

Same for Randle. Different position, but if the team created some quality of depth, it's easier now to replace him, or RJ, with Robert Covington-model types - easier said than done, but possible.

Even Fournier, who I'd prefer would stay, probably looks better with Mitchell and Brunson, defense aside. For all the slander he gets, if Grimes gets to have Fournier's career, approximately, people would sh*t themselves on here from joy. And maybe Fournier has benefited from some volume on bad teams and the less flashy but better defender is really the answer - I'm just pointing out he's not a scrub - there's even a way if the Knicks retain him, where, in the Burks role, he'll probably be a version of good.
Again, with Grimes, Knicks have a way to get rid of Fournier, and it'll be ok. Conversely, though it would suck, Grimes can go and Evan can stay and it would be ok.

Last couple of paragraphs are about our tendency, mine included, to beat up on players when asked to perform a level above what they are. I think Mitchell solves some of that. Brunson does too - not in that he's uber talented, but more along the lines it's the SET of skills he has and being above average at them. Again, Brunson coming from Vanderbilt, knowing team ball, proving he can take various roles and embrace it - that's a big thing. Particularly since he was going to get a chance to be the man here and now it would be the man's sidekick.
Or, he was aware this was the plan all along and was ok with it. Not sure how much WWW has been backchanneling and what is communicated to Leon and then to Jalen, and there's the fact that Jalen and Mitchell are friends.

Anyway, that's the end of longer early AM posts.
Now resumes my regularly scheduled snide posts.

[thebuzzardman]

This is the buzzardman optimistic hat on. After this coffee wears off I'll get back to my pessimistic self.

Again, tiny backcourt, defensive issues, some shooting concerns.

Mitchell and Brunson mean there will always be 48 minutes every game of a guard who can get in the paint, score, distribute decently
IF Randle can embrace a kind of 3a/2a scoring option and move the ball, that's a tertiary guy legitimately decent. Now RJ's a 4th/3rd option, with some ability. Gets a little more room to grow, if you are an optimist, or has less to do if you are a pessimist.

I think both RJ and Mitch are willing to stay in a lane and be good guys and not b*tch about touches. Chanel's weird takes on RJ being selfish aside - and RJ might have gotten shot happy in the last 1/4 of the season to chase 20 ppg in a lost year, mainly I think he's displayed the temperament to do what is necessary for the team. If he's truly selfish and/or inefficient it's easier to move him, unless the extend, and that's another issue about how much, implications of tax apron, etc.

Same for Randle. Different position, but if the team created some quality of depth, it's easier now to replace him, or RJ, with Robert Covington-model types - easier said than done, but possible.

Even Fournier, who I'd prefer would stay, probably looks better with Mitchell and Brunson, defense aside. For all the slander he gets, if Grimes gets to have Fournier's career, approximately, people would sh*t themselves on here from joy. And maybe Fournier has benefited from some volume on bad teams and the less flashy but better defender is really the answer - I'm just pointing out he's not a scrub - there's even a way if the Knicks retain him, where, in the Burks role, he'll probably be a version of good.
Again, with Grimes, Knicks have a way to get rid of Fournier, and it'll be ok. Conversely, though it would suck, Grimes can go and Evan can stay and it would be ok.

Last couple of paragraphs are about our tendency, mine included, to beat up on players when asked to perform a level above what they are. I think Mitchell solves some of that. Brunson does too - not in that he's uber talented, but more along the lines it's the SET of skills he has and being above average at them. Again, Brunson coming from Vanderbilt, knowing team ball, proving he can take various roles and embrace it - that's a big thing. Particularly since he was going to get a chance to be the man here and now it would be the man's sidekick.
Or, he was aware this was the plan all along and was ok with it. Not sure how much WWW has been backchanneling and what is communicated to Leon and then to Jalen, and there's the fact that Jalen and Mitchell are friends.

Anyway, that's the end of longer early AM posts.
Now resumes my regularly scheduled snide posts.

But I need to restore balance!

[CallMeKahn]

This is the buzzardman optimistic hat on. After this coffee wears off I'll get back to my pessimistic self.

Again, tiny backcourt, defensive issues, some shooting concerns.

Mitchell and Brunson mean there will always be 48 minutes every game of a guard who can get in the paint, score, distribute decently
IF Randle can embrace a kind of 3a/2a scoring option and move the ball, that's a tertiary guy legitimately decent. Now RJ's a 4th/3rd option, with some ability. Gets a little more room to grow, if you are an optimist, or has less to do if you are a pessimist.

I think both RJ and Mitch are willing to stay in a lane and be good guys and not b*tch about touches. Chanel's weird takes on RJ being selfish aside - and RJ might have gotten shot happy in the last 1/4 of the season to chase 20 ppg in a lost year, mainly I think he's displayed the temperament to do what is necessary for the team. If he's truly selfish and/or inefficient it's easier to move him, unless the extend, and that's another issue about how much, implications of tax apron, etc.

Same for Randle. Different position, but if the team created some quality of depth, it's easier now to replace him, or RJ, with Robert Covington-model types - easier said than done, but possible.

Even Fournier, who I'd prefer would stay, probably looks better with Mitchell and Brunson, defense aside. For all the slander he gets, if Grimes gets to have Fournier's career, approximately, people would sh*t themselves on here from joy. And maybe Fournier has benefited from some volume on bad teams and the less flashy but better defender is really the answer - I'm just pointing out he's not a scrub - there's even a way if the Knicks retain him, where, in the Burks role, he'll probably be a version of good.
Again, with Grimes, Knicks have a way to get rid of Fournier, and it'll be ok. Conversely, though it would suck, Grimes can go and Evan can stay and it would be ok.

Last couple of paragraphs are about our tendency, mine included, to beat up on players when asked to perform a level above what they are. I think Mitchell solves some of that. Brunson does too - not in that he's uber talented, but more along the lines it's the SET of skills he has and being above average at them. Again, Brunson coming from Vanderbilt, knowing team ball, proving he can take various roles and embrace it - that's a big thing. Particularly since he was going to get a chance to be the man here and now it would be the man's sidekick.
Or, he was aware this was the plan all along and was ok with it. Not sure how much WWW has been backchanneling and what is communicated to Leon and then to Jalen, and there's the fact that Jalen and Mitchell are friends.

Anyway, that's the end of longer early AM posts.
Now resumes my regularly scheduled snide posts.

But I need to restore balance!

Okay Darth.

[KnicksGadfly]

More a general post, not looking to debate merit of Brunson/Mitchell, nor what the trade is. Between this board, the Jazz board and common sense we know what the general outline is. After that, it's how greedy Ainge gets and the rest is fans insisting it can't be too much or this player, or has to be this much and all these players. Probably a handful of reasonable posters collectively that have the trade parameters mostly right but can't blame people for wishing. No, all of my trade proposals aren't realistic either.

Tiny backcourt aside, Knicks would get that player who can create his own shot from all over the floor against nearly anyone and succeed at a high level, who can do it off the dribble and is capable of setting up others. Sorry, but the Knicks haven't had that for years and it's one of the differences between good and very good or even average and good. And I don't think Randle is that, and it's 50/50 at best RJ ever becomes a guy like that. Randle has some of that, RJ who knows - not getting into the RJ debates right now.

I get the Dame/CJ thing and it's probably right, but I'd rather take the chance on getting in Mitchell level talent and having Brunson as the competent secondary guy who can get his own shot, is efficient and can play on and off the ball.
Honestly, it's been years, even it's not an ideal combo, where the Knicks can put two players on the floor at once and BOTH are a threat to hit a jumper, take a defender off the dribble and the threat of having two guys who can both do that is going to be nice, even if it's not the deepest playoff team.

I really wanted to talk about minutes left over at guard/wing, and I'm still putting PF in the "front court"


Mitchell averages 33 mpg. Brunson averaged 32 mpg last year - his "breakout" year. Assume those numbers hold. RJ has played 34 mpg last two years and that can probably come down 2 minutes. Just round out DMitch/Brunson and RJ to 96 mpg, leaving 48 mpg for 2 or maybe 3 players - 5 here and 4 in the backcourt is a 9 man rotation. I know some teams run 10 at times, but does the 10th man ever get more than a couple of minutes?

People want Fournier gone. They want Rose gone. Less people care about Cam than they do Grimes or IQ.

If Rose and IQ go out in a trade, kind of left having Brunson and Mitchell being all the PG depth, even those yes IQ is a combo guard. If Rose goes and IQ stays backcourt is short, but we can pretend that takes up 24 of 48 minutes of "guard/wing depth"
Would be nice if Grimes gets the other 48 - he's a little undersized for 3, but that's life. Maybe the Knicks would prefer Cam's height.
I realized the various permutations get complicated fast and this might be an ebook.

TL/DR
If Rose goes out in the trade, in spite of the height, Knicks should retain IQ
If Fournier and Cam or Fournier and Grimes go out in the trade, Knicks have to (and probably would) need to retain Grimes or Cam.

Obi can either go or not, if you think it's a given Paschdall will sign if he goes. I believe he replaces bench version of Obi easily. This is an aside from what future Obi might be.

Nothing new here, I was mulling over it.

I’m okay with getting Brunson and Mitchell in the short term but it probably does mean someone is getting moved in the future when it’s time to take the next leap. That’s doable but the FO can’t fall into the Olshey trap.

We also should be looking to move a mix of youth and picks for Mitchell as opposed to all picks. If we lose all the picks, it makes it more difficult to put together the package for the next guy that the Knicks start tampering with, especially if that happens a year or more later. Even if we keep some youth if we make this trade, even Grimes, we just gotta accept that they’re all trade fodder at this point.

Knicks also have to desperately up the value of some of their other guys. It really stings that Toppin, a high lotto pick, is now relegated to throw-in, no matter how highly you think of him. Maybe Hart will be a strong throw-in next year. Maybe Randle will learn to play hungry and humble again. As his contract descends and if Mitch improves, his contract will look good as well. Same with Brunson. And yea, RJ Barrett is gonna be a big one here. If we can up their value, it makes the next trade easier.

[thebuzzardman]

But I need to restore balance!

Okay Darth.

F*ck off Jazz fan.

There, it's starting.

[thebuzzardman]

More a general post, not looking to debate merit of Brunson/Mitchell, nor what the trade is. Between this board, the Jazz board and common sense we know what the general outline is. After that, it's how greedy Ainge gets and the rest is fans insisting it can't be too much or this player, or has to be this much and all these players. Probably a handful of reasonable posters collectively that have the trade parameters mostly right but can't blame people for wishing. No, all of my trade proposals aren't realistic either.

Tiny backcourt aside, Knicks would get that player who can create his own shot from all over the floor against nearly anyone and succeed at a high level, who can do it off the dribble and is capable of setting up others. Sorry, but the Knicks haven't had that for years and it's one of the differences between good and very good or even average and good. And I don't think Randle is that, and it's 50/50 at best RJ ever becomes a guy like that. Randle has some of that, RJ who knows - not getting into the RJ debates right now.

I get the Dame/CJ thing and it's probably right, but I'd rather take the chance on getting in Mitchell level talent and having Brunson as the competent secondary guy who can get his own shot, is efficient and can play on and off the ball.
Honestly, it's been years, even it's not an ideal combo, where the Knicks can put two players on the floor at once and BOTH are a threat to hit a jumper, take a defender off the dribble and the threat of having two guys who can both do that is going to be nice, even if it's not the deepest playoff team.

I really wanted to talk about minutes left over at guard/wing, and I'm still putting PF in the "front court"


Mitchell averages 33 mpg. Brunson averaged 32 mpg last year - his "breakout" year. Assume those numbers hold. RJ has played 34 mpg last two years and that can probably come down 2 minutes. Just round out DMitch/Brunson and RJ to 96 mpg, leaving 48 mpg for 2 or maybe 3 players - 5 here and 4 in the backcourt is a 9 man rotation. I know some teams run 10 at times, but does the 10th man ever get more than a couple of minutes?

People want Fournier gone. They want Rose gone. Less people care about Cam than they do Grimes or IQ.

If Rose and IQ go out in a trade, kind of left having Brunson and Mitchell being all the PG depth, even those yes IQ is a combo guard. If Rose goes and IQ stays backcourt is short, but we can pretend that takes up 24 of 48 minutes of "guard/wing depth"
Would be nice if Grimes gets the other 48 - he's a little undersized for 3, but that's life. Maybe the Knicks would prefer Cam's height.
I realized the various permutations get complicated fast and this might be an ebook.

TL/DR
If Rose goes out in the trade, in spite of the height, Knicks should retain IQ
If Fournier and Cam or Fournier and Grimes go out in the trade, Knicks have to (and probably would) need to retain Grimes or Cam.

Obi can either go or not, if you think it's a given Paschdall will sign if he goes. I believe he replaces bench version of Obi easily. This is an aside from what future Obi might be.

Nothing new here, I was mulling over it.

I’m okay with getting Brunson and Mitchell in the short term but it probably does mean someone is getting moved in the future when it’s time to take the next leap. That’s doable but the FO can’t fall into the Olshey trap.

We also should be looking to move a mix of youth and picks for Mitchell as opposed to all picks. If we lose all the picks, it makes it more difficult to put together the package for the next guy that the Knicks start tampering with, especially if that happens a year or more later. Even if we keep some youth if we make this trade, even Grimes, we just gotta accept that they’re all trade fodder at this point.

Knicks also have to desperately up the value of some of their other guys. It really stings that Toppin, a high lotto pick, is now relegated to throw-in, no matter how highly you think of him. Maybe Hart will be a strong throw-in next year. Maybe Randle will learn to play hungry and humble again. As his contract descends and if Mitch improves, his contract will look good as well. Same with Brunson. And yea, RJ Barrett is gonna be a big one here. If we can up their value, it makes the next trade easier.

Totally agree.

Also, since this is the Knicks and RealGM Knicks, it's also highly likely we've spent nearly 400 pages speculating, talking sh*t and insulting Utah for nothing.

There are real risks - covered by NoDope and others, not only of the ceiling of the team, but issues with the ability to upgrade in a logical way moving forward. I get all that. Aside from the takes on here that are really trying to understand the implications of stuff, there's also a lot of personal preference stuff. Or a mix.

I'm willing at this point to take a chance on getting the true star in (sorry Jalen, RJ, Randle) and working from there. For all the "beautiful game" stuff, "basketball is like jazz", the NBA, and maybe the game in general, sure rewards having one dominant guy - though the support has to be decent and right. Also, I get that in the Jazz analogy, people would rather see Miles Davis and 4 solid guys than 5 solid guys.

Also - like you are pointing out, there's a spectrum in the middle, sensible part of the trade (not Ainge's HR version or Aller's HR version) where, if done correctly, Knicks have some decent current depth and maneuverability for the future. Not being glib about the future - it won't be that easy.

[Chanel Bomber]

This is the buzzardman optimistic hat on. After this coffee wears off I'll get back to my pessimistic self.

Again, tiny backcourt, defensive issues, some shooting concerns.

Mitchell and Brunson mean there will always be 48 minutes every game of a guard who can get in the paint, score, distribute decently
IF Randle can embrace a kind of 3a/2a scoring option and move the ball, that's a tertiary guy legitimately decent. Now RJ's a 4th/3rd option, with some ability. Gets a little more room to grow, if you are an optimist, or has less to do if you are a pessimist.

I think both RJ and Mitch are willing to stay in a lane and be good guys and not b*tch about touches. Chanel's weird takes on RJ being selfish aside - and RJ might have gotten shot happy in the last 1/4 of the season to chase 20 ppg in a lost year, mainly I think he's displayed the temperament to do what is necessary for the team. If he's truly selfish and/or inefficient it's easier to move him, unless the extension, and that's another issue about how much, implications of tax apron, etc.

Same for Randle. Different position, but if the team created some quality of depth, it's easier now to replace him, or RJ, with Robert Covington-model types - easier said than done, but possible.

Even Fournier, who I'd prefer would leave, probably looks better with Mitchell and Brunson, defense aside. For all the slander he gets, if Grimes gets to have Fournier's career, approximately, people would sh*t themselves on here from joy. And maybe Fournier has benefited from some volume on bad teams and the less flashy but better defender is really the answer - I'm just pointing out he's not a scrub - there's even a way if the Knicks retain him in the Burks role, he'll probably be a version of good.
Again, with Grimes, Knicks have a way to get rid of Fournier, and it'll be ok. Conversely, though it would suck, Grimes can go and Evan can stay and it would be ok.

Last couple of paragraphs are about our tendency, mine included, to beat up on players when asked to perform a level above what they are. I think Mitchell solves some of that. Brunson does too - not in that he's uber talented, but more along the lines it's the SET of skills he has and being above average at them. Again, Brunson coming from Vanderbilt, knowing team ball, proving he can take various roles and embrace it - that's a big thing. Particularly since he was going to get a chance to be the man here and now it would be the man's sidekick.
Or, he was aware this was the plan all along and was ok with it. Not sure how much WWW has been backchanneling and what is communicated to Leon and then to Jalen, and there's the fact that Jalen and Mitchell are friends.

Anyway, that's the end of longer early AM posts.
Now resumes my regularly scheduled snide posts.

To your point, this line-up does theoretically put Randle and RJ in roles that they are better suited for. At the end of the day, assuming a starting 5 of Brunson-Mitchell-RJ-Randle-Mitch, the success of the line-up would primarily rest upon two things:

- Randle and RJ's willingness to sacrifice their usage and take on a lesser role with two players on the team who are better than them. Randle will be in the first year of a $117 extension and RJ will be in a contract year.

- Randle and RJ's 3-point shooting. These two have been inconsistent distance shooters and they will be expected to spread the court for Brunson and Mitchell, who are MUCH better pick-and-roll ball-handlers, and Mitch, the roll man. RJ has been a good/solid C&S scorer over the past two seasons - especially on wide-open shots - but he was the single worst shooter from the corners last year. It's the area of the floor he will most likely occupy in the geometry of this line-up. So he would need to improve significantly from that zone. Randle had one great season from 3 but he was atrocious all-around from 3 last year, and his career numbers would tend to suggest that his 2020-21 season was an aberration from 3.

The backcourt defense will be a challenge but it's a much lesser concern for me than those two question marks.

[thebuzzardman]

Small optimistic post, since it assumes Knick fan's hopes not crushed again.

What will be the acceptable naming conventions to distinguish Donovan Mitchell from Mitchell Robinson?

Since everyone on here has at least a 3rd grade education, pretty sure they can sort out context, so if the talk is about making jumpers and driving the ball, it's Donovan Mitchell, while if the talk is around blocking shots and being a big dummy, it's Mitchell Robinson. Still.

Donovan Mitchell: DMitch? Donovan? Little Mitch?
Mitchell Robinson: MRob? Meetch? Big Mitch?

[thebuzzardman]

This is the buzzardman optimistic hat on. After this coffee wears off I'll get back to my pessimistic self.

Again, tiny backcourt, defensive issues, some shooting concerns.

Mitchell and Brunson mean there will always be 48 minutes every game of a guard who can get in the paint, score, distribute decently
IF Randle can embrace a kind of 3a/2a scoring option and move the ball, that's a tertiary guy legitimately decent. Now RJ's a 4th/3rd option, with some ability. Gets a little more room to grow, if you are an optimist, or has less to do if you are a pessimist.

I think both RJ and Mitch are willing to stay in a lane and be good guys and not b*tch about touches. Chanel's weird takes on RJ being selfish aside - and RJ might have gotten shot happy in the last 1/4 of the season to chase 20 ppg in a lost year, mainly I think he's displayed the temperament to do what is necessary for the team. If he's truly selfish and/or inefficient it's easier to move him, unless the extension, and that's another issue about how much, implications of tax apron, etc.

Same for Randle. Different position, but if the team created some quality of depth, it's easier now to replace him, or RJ, with Robert Covington-model types - easier said than done, but possible.

Even Fournier, who I'd prefer would leave, probably looks better with Mitchell and Brunson, defense aside. For all the slander he gets, if Grimes gets to have Fournier's career, approximately, people would sh*t themselves on here from joy. And maybe Fournier has benefited from some volume on bad teams and the less flashy but better defender is really the answer - I'm just pointing out he's not a scrub - there's even a way if the Knicks retain him in the Burks role, he'll probably be a version of good.
Again, with Grimes, Knicks have a way to get rid of Fournier, and it'll be ok. Conversely, though it would suck, Grimes can go and Evan can stay and it would be ok.

Last couple of paragraphs are about our tendency, mine included, to beat up on players when asked to perform a level above what they are. I think Mitchell solves some of that. Brunson does too - not in that he's uber talented, but more along the lines it's the SET of skills he has and being above average at them. Again, Brunson coming from Vanderbilt, knowing team ball, proving he can take various roles and embrace it - that's a big thing. Particularly since he was going to get a chance to be the man here and now it would be the man's sidekick.
Or, he was aware this was the plan all along and was ok with it. Not sure how much WWW has been backchanneling and what is communicated to Leon and then to Jalen, and there's the fact that Jalen and Mitchell are friends.

Anyway, that's the end of longer early AM posts.
Now resumes my regularly scheduled snide posts.

At end of the day, assuming a starting 5 of Brunson-Mitchell-RJ-Randle-Mitch, the success of the line-up would primarily rest upon two things:

- Randle and RJ's willingness to sacrifice their usage and take on a lesser role with two players on the team who are better than them. Randle will be in the first year of a $117 extension and RJ will be in a contract year.

- Randle and RJ's 3-point shooting. These two have been inconsistent distance shooters and they will be expected to spread the court for Brunson and Mitchell, who are MUCH better pick-and-roll ball-handlers, and Mitch, the roll man. RJ has been a solid C&S scorer over the past two seasons - especially on wide-open shots - but he was the single worst shooter from the corners last year. It's the area of the floor he will most likely occupy in the geometry of this line-up. So he would need to improve significantly from that zone. Randle had one great season from 3 but he was atrocious all-around from 3 last year, and his career numbers would tend to suggest that his 2020-21 season was an aberration from 3.

The backcourt defense will be a challenge but it's a much lesser concern for me than those two question marks.

Thibs worries me because he's not offensively creative, but it's probably also overstated. We are going to find out.
Because, it's possible he puts RJ in the corner, where he's decent (I think) and that's it.

I guess in the above scenario Randle is at the 3 point elbows and hopefully Thibs is aware that it is allowed to have someone besides the 5 set the pick in the P&R.

Randle is already getting paid so maybe that helps but he's displayed a large ego so far.
RJ would be pushing to get paid, so not sure. I think his temperament is winning first, but $ does stuff to people.

[whocares1]

Spoiler:

This is the buzzardman optimistic hat on. After this coffee wears off I'll get back to my pessimistic self.

Again, tiny backcourt, defensive issues, some shooting concerns.

Mitchell and Brunson mean there will always be 48 minutes every game of a guard who can get in the paint, score, distribute decently
IF Randle can embrace a kind of 3a/2a scoring option and move the ball, that's a tertiary guy legitimately decent. Now RJ's a 4th/3rd option, with some ability. Gets a little more room to grow, if you are an optimist, or has less to do if you are a pessimist.

I think both RJ and Mitch are willing to stay in a lane and be good guys and not b*tch about touches. Chanel's weird takes on RJ being selfish aside - and RJ might have gotten shot happy in the last 1/4 of the season to chase 20 ppg in a lost year, mainly I think he's displayed the temperament to do what is necessary for the team. If he's truly selfish and/or inefficient it's easier to move him, unless the extension, and that's another issue about how much, implications of tax apron, etc.

Same for Randle. Different position, but if the team created some quality of depth, it's easier now to replace him, or RJ, with Robert Covington-model types - easier said than done, but possible.

Even Fournier, who I'd prefer would leave, probably looks better with Mitchell and Brunson, defense aside. For all the slander he gets, if Grimes gets to have Fournier's career, approximately, people would sh*t themselves on here from joy. And maybe Fournier has benefited from some volume on bad teams and the less flashy but better defender is really the answer - I'm just pointing out he's not a scrub - there's even a way if the Knicks retain him in the Burks role, he'll probably be a version of good.
Again, with Grimes, Knicks have a way to get rid of Fournier, and it'll be ok. Conversely, though it would suck, Grimes can go and Evan can stay and it would be ok.

Last couple of paragraphs are about our tendency, mine included, to beat up on players when asked to perform a level above what they are. I think Mitchell solves some of that. Brunson does too - not in that he's uber talented, but more along the lines it's the SET of skills he has and being above average at them. Again, Brunson coming from Vanderbilt, knowing team ball, proving he can take various roles and embrace it - that's a big thing. Particularly since he was going to get a chance to be the man here and now it would be the man's sidekick.
Or, he was aware this was the plan all along and was ok with it. Not sure how much WWW has been backchanneling and what is communicated to Leon and then to Jalen, and there's the fact that Jalen and Mitchell are friends.

Anyway, that's the end of longer early AM posts.
Now resumes my regularly scheduled snide posts.

To your point, this line-up does theoretically put Randle and RJ in roles that they are better suited for. At the end of the day, assuming a starting 5 of Brunson-Mitchell-RJ-Randle-Mitch, the success of the line-up would primarily rest upon two things:

- Randle and RJ's willingness to sacrifice their usage and take on a lesser role with two players on the team who are better than them. Randle will be in the first year of a $117 extension and RJ will be in a contract year.

- Randle and RJ's 3-point shooting. These two have been inconsistent distance shooters and they will be expected to spread the court for Brunson and Mitchell, who are MUCH better pick-and-roll ball-handlers, and Mitch, the roll man. RJ has been a good/solid C&S scorer over the past two seasons - especially on wide-open shots - but he was the single worst shooter from the corners last year. It's the area of the floor he will most likely occupy in the geometry of this line-up. So he would need to improve significantly from that zone. Randle had one great season from 3 but he was atrocious all-around from 3 last year, and his career numbers would tend to suggest that his 2020-21 season was an aberration from 3.

The backcourt defense will be a challenge but it's a much lesser concern for me than those two question marks.

I made the same point the other day that Randle and RJ would have to sacrifice. The issue here is that I don’t see that happening as much as Randle probably needs to. He likes to handle the ball a lot so he’s not going to change his game completely from that.

As far as RJ goes, if he thinks he’s a future star he won’t get the reps being a 4th option to prove that here. He is a floor spacer in this offense and that will hurt his wallet. It might help him to leave games earlier so he can play with the non existent bench we will have after the trade to get his points up.

[mpharris36]

Read on Twitter

we are waiting!!!

[Chanel Bomber]

This is the buzzardman optimistic hat on. After this coffee wears off I'll get back to my pessimistic self.

Again, tiny backcourt, defensive issues, some shooting concerns.

Mitchell and Brunson mean there will always be 48 minutes every game of a guard who can get in the paint, score, distribute decently
IF Randle can embrace a kind of 3a/2a scoring option and move the ball, that's a tertiary guy legitimately decent. Now RJ's a 4th/3rd option, with some ability. Gets a little more room to grow, if you are an optimist, or has less to do if you are a pessimist.

I think both RJ and Mitch are willing to stay in a lane and be good guys and not b*tch about touches. Chanel's weird takes on RJ being selfish aside - and RJ might have gotten shot happy in the last 1/4 of the season to chase 20 ppg in a lost year, mainly I think he's displayed the temperament to do what is necessary for the team. If he's truly selfish and/or inefficient it's easier to move him, unless the extension, and that's another issue about how much, implications of tax apron, etc.

Same for Randle. Different position, but if the team created some quality of depth, it's easier now to replace him, or RJ, with Robert Covington-model types - easier said than done, but possible.

Even Fournier, who I'd prefer would leave, probably looks better with Mitchell and Brunson, defense aside. For all the slander he gets, if Grimes gets to have Fournier's career, approximately, people would sh*t themselves on here from joy. And maybe Fournier has benefited from some volume on bad teams and the less flashy but better defender is really the answer - I'm just pointing out he's not a scrub - there's even a way if the Knicks retain him in the Burks role, he'll probably be a version of good.
Again, with Grimes, Knicks have a way to get rid of Fournier, and it'll be ok. Conversely, though it would suck, Grimes can go and Evan can stay and it would be ok.

Last couple of paragraphs are about our tendency, mine included, to beat up on players when asked to perform a level above what they are. I think Mitchell solves some of that. Brunson does too - not in that he's uber talented, but more along the lines it's the SET of skills he has and being above average at them. Again, Brunson coming from Vanderbilt, knowing team ball, proving he can take various roles and embrace it - that's a big thing. Particularly since he was going to get a chance to be the man here and now it would be the man's sidekick.
Or, he was aware this was the plan all along and was ok with it. Not sure how much WWW has been backchanneling and what is communicated to Leon and then to Jalen, and there's the fact that Jalen and Mitchell are friends.

Anyway, that's the end of longer early AM posts.
Now resumes my regularly scheduled snide posts.

At end of the day, assuming a starting 5 of Brunson-Mitchell-RJ-Randle-Mitch, the success of the line-up would primarily rest upon two things:

- Randle and RJ's willingness to sacrifice their usage and take on a lesser role with two players on the team who are better than them. Randle will be in the first year of a $117 extension and RJ will be in a contract year.

- Randle and RJ's 3-point shooting. These two have been inconsistent distance shooters and they will be expected to spread the court for Brunson and Mitchell, who are MUCH better pick-and-roll ball-handlers, and Mitch, the roll man. RJ has been a solid C&S scorer over the past two seasons - especially on wide-open shots - but he was the single worst shooter from the corners last year. It's the area of the floor he will most likely occupy in the geometry of this line-up. So he would need to improve significantly from that zone. Randle had one great season from 3 but he was atrocious all-around from 3 last year, and his career numbers would tend to suggest that his 2020-21 season was an aberration from 3.

The backcourt defense will be a challenge but it's a much lesser concern for me than those two question marks.

Thibs worries me because he's not offensively creative, but it's probably also overstated. We are going to find out.
Because, it's possible he puts RJ in the corner, where he's decent (I think) and that's it.

I guess in the above scenario Randle is at the 3 point elbows and hopefully Thibs is aware that it is allowed to have someone besides the 5 set the pick in the P&R.

Randle is already getting paid so maybe that helps but he's displayed a large ego so far.
RJ would be pushing to get paid, so not sure. I think his temperament is winning first, but $ does stuff to people.

Randle will get paid in the same ballpark as Brunson, who I believe is the better player. It could impact the way he perceives his role. I think it would be naive to think that the hopes of a large extension didn't factor at all in RJ's 20ppg chase. I don't blame him as much as the organization for enabling it. I think it was negligence on their part.

It's just a statistical observation: RJ was the worst volume shooter from the corners in the NBA last year according to Kirk Goldsberry. He was really good from the corners the year before (2020-21) at 42.9% so hopefully this past season was just an anomaly and not a regression to the mean.

I agree that Randle should be used as the roll man more often. Hopefully we see more of it with Hartenstein on the court. The Knicks usually got good shots with the Rose-Randle PNR in 2020-21, especially with Taj on the court to give a little more spacing.

PS: Corrected my post as I erroneously said Randle would get paid more than Brunson.

[thebuzzardman]

NBA is up to 88 FGA over the last few years - I know this isn't the most accurate stat around usage, as there are FTA - which average 22. Some of those are +1, Let's just say it represents another 10 FGA.

98 - this is FGA and the FGA that lead to FTs not +1 situations - I'm just guessing off broad stats

Donovan Mitchell is here to take 23 of those
Brunson 14 is an approximate guess

Julius has been at 19/20
RJ was at 18/19 last year
Mitchell Robinson basically 6 for his career

if no one reduces, there are 15 shots per game left over for 4 bench players.

[3toheadmelo]

Bigmike your reputation is on the line

[thebuzzardman]

At end of the day, assuming a starting 5 of Brunson-Mitchell-RJ-Randle-Mitch, the success of the line-up would primarily rest upon two things:

- Randle and RJ's willingness to sacrifice their usage and take on a lesser role with two players on the team who are better than them. Randle will be in the first year of a $117 extension and RJ will be in a contract year.

- Randle and RJ's 3-point shooting. These two have been inconsistent distance shooters and they will be expected to spread the court for Brunson and Mitchell, who are MUCH better pick-and-roll ball-handlers, and Mitch, the roll man. RJ has been a solid C&S scorer over the past two seasons - especially on wide-open shots - but he was the single worst shooter from the corners last year. It's the area of the floor he will most likely occupy in the geometry of this line-up. So he would need to improve significantly from that zone. Randle had one great season from 3 but he was atrocious all-around from 3 last year, and his career numbers would tend to suggest that his 2020-21 season was an aberration from 3.

The backcourt defense will be a challenge but it's a much lesser concern for me than those two question marks.

Thibs worries me because he's not offensively creative, but it's probably also overstated. We are going to find out.
Because, it's possible he puts RJ in the corner, where he's decent (I think) and that's it.

I guess in the above scenario Randle is at the 3 point elbows and hopefully Thibs is aware that it is allowed to have someone besides the 5 set the pick in the P&R.

Randle is already getting paid so maybe that helps but he's displayed a large ego so far.
RJ would be pushing to get paid, so not sure. I think his temperament is winning first, but $ does stuff to people.

Randle will get paid in the same ballpark as Brunson, who I believe is the better player. It could impact the way they perceive their roles (particularly Randle). I think it would be naive to think that the hopes of a large extension didn't factor at all in RJ's 20ppg chase. I don't blame him as much as the organization for enabling it. I think it was negligence on their part.

It's just a statistical observation: RJ was the worst volume shooter from the corners in the NBA last year according to Kirk Goldsberry. He was really good from the corners the year before (2020-21) so hopefully this past season was an anomaly and not a regression to the mean.

I agree that Randle should be used as the roll man more often. Hopefully we see more of it with Hartenstein on the court. The Knicks usually got good shots with the Rose-Randle PNR in 2020-21, especially with Taj on the court to give a little more spacing.

PS: Corrected my post as I erroneously said Brunson would get paid more than Randle.

Not sure about the Randle/Brunson money conundrum but it's quite possible. It's all speculation on our part. When the Knicks had their "good year", Randle was clearly paid on one level and everyone else, outside the young guys, was kind of the same. It's fair to point it out because I remember posting about how it may have contributed to team success.

I'm not that worried about RJ - I think he'll be fine, certainly not worst, and I guess he could go to the other elbow and Brunson to the corner in some sets to mitigate it a bit, but RJ will have to at least average from there. Here's where retaining Fournier or Grimes would help. Think it would be a mistake to let both go.

Any stats on the Knicks P&R rate? They certainly use it, but feels like less than other teams.

[thebuzzardman]

Bigmike your reputation is on the line

Is there some new information or you're just prodding him on yesterday?

I don't think the Utah guys think that much of that source, by the way. Or mixed reviews.
Then again, those whitebread re*tards think we think the twitter stuff that gets posted on here is legit, so who knows.

[HighRyzer83]

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I think it's pretty clear we said F U to the jazz despite the fake ass insiders reporting it was done days ago. You ain't getting no record haul from us.

Perhaps during the season when Ainge comes crawling back more reasonable.