Donovan Mitchell Discussion 4

[Capn'O]

Continue

[Chislic]

Thread 4 of 5.

[3toheadmelo]

[Fury]

Let’s goooooooooo

[robillionaire]

Just got done cutting the grass, is he here yet?

[thebuzzardman]

Got locked while I was in mid ebook:

If grimes is the player everyone here imagines (he isn’t) then surely execs around the league also understand his incredible potential and value so we might as well go ahead and sell high and cash that in now

Yeah, it's getting a little thick in here.
And I like both Grimes and IQ
And, Knicks need to retain some youth, as much as possible, for quality of bench and for some semblance of future flexibility.
There are scenarios where letting IQ go makes sense, there are others where it's Grimes.
I mean, common sense ones, not which player someone likes more.

Right now, with zero trade, /Rose/IQ/Grimes/Cam/McBride represent some level of glut behind Brunson, Fournier, RJ and even Obi.

If somehow just Fournier goes (impossibly) for Mitchell, same glut remains, broadly. Even pretending Mitchell can't see time at PG, which he can.

Start putting in who matches salary with Fournier, try to hold onto a player with some PG skills (maybe) and then there are choices between IQ or Grimes, Grimes or Cam, Cam or Obi, all of which have conditions on if Rose is the other player with Fournier, or Obi, etc.

TL/DR - If Mitchell comes in, Knicks can pretty easily send 3 players out.

It's the combination of picks and players that's the problem for me, if it were one or the other fine, but it's both which makes it hard to restock the cabinet.

That is the point of these kind of trades for the team giving up the star, they want both because it makes it much more difficult to put together a coherent roster the longer the team is together which in turn improves the future picks they traded for. Just look at all the playoffs teams, they had depth that consisted of a lot of guys found later in the draft, it's rare to put together a great team now with these kind of trades. Even the Clippers have found it difficult and they've got two vastly superior players to what we have.


My issue with the Mitchell trade is the redundancy of Brunson and Mitchell, we just saw the Nets fail trying to put together a team simply based on talent, regardless of fit. I like Grimes, he has two way potential, people only think about the scoring someone like Mitchell will bring, and not what he's going to give up on the other end, and what happens in the event some team we're playing has a guy that can go toe to toe with him scoring wise (amplified by his bad defense), but will also negatively impact his efficiency on the other end. The Hawks just made a trade to get bigger & more defensive in their backcourt, at a time teams are upsizing on the perimeter and downsizing in the frontcourt, we're going the opposite direction

I get the potential backcourt issues.
I still think when a team can consolidate talent, it should do it, especially if it's players that can create for themselves and others
Defense has been covered - I know your argument, I get it
I've gone from being adamant Grimes stays for all your reasons, to understanding if they do something else.

Even though Rose is older and everyone (but Guano) wants to jettison Fournier, they create some roster change, even with Brunson in and Mitchell. Rose, that he's an actual legit PG, Fournier with height and shooting at wing (though no defense)

To kind of backfill Fournier, but with less offense (at first - maybe) but more defense, I'd hold onto Grimes
But if Rose is also in the deal, even though IQ is more combo than PG, I'd want to keep IQ also.
Which probably means Obi going, which I don't like either, but some have argued Cam could kind of replace him. Not so sure.

Ideally, I'd like to see Founier/Rose/Cam/McBride but I doubt Ainge goes for that. And yes, it would mean at least 5 picks.

Brunson/Mitchell/IQ
Mitchell/IQ
RJ/Grimes
Randle/Obi
Meetch/Hartenstein/Sims

But I doubt that trade happens.

[Madskillzz024]

Was the Melo trade 12 threads?

[Knox]

[Capn'O]

If Huerter played solid defense he'd be one of the more sought after players in the league.

Congratulations, you played yourselves.

[Chanel Bomber]

Burks is yesterdays news.
Yes I’m aware he was positive as a starter but that has really no bearing on Mitchs weaknesses now or in the future.

Not sure why you think the team ideal spacing . Last years team was DOA so they were behind the 8ball from the get go.

The regression from the center position was Noel having positive play and then now negative play from Mitch so there is every bit of a regression from the position .

You mentioned the line-up as a whole from last season, which Burks was a part of.

I brought him up along with Mitch because you seemed to suggest that Randle and RJ could be excused for their inefficiency because they were part of a "historically bad lineup". Yet both Randle and RJ performed worse than their fellow starters (Fournier, Burks, Mitch) according to the best available impact metrics.

The play of Randle and RJ was the primary reason why the line-up was historically bad to begin with.

The same metrics show that Mitch played better this past season than Noel did the year before. They are both rim protectors/rim-runners, so the change didn't affect the structure of the team or the way they played. The reasons behind the Knicks' regression are found elsewhere: the injury to our best player (Derrick Rose), the team's spectacular regression to the mean in 3-point shooting and the defensive regression (Randle's regression, RJ's regression, the regression from Bullock to Fournier). Those things demonstrably happened. There's no statistical evidence backing your stance that Mitch's play was negative or that there was a regression from the 5 spot that would explain the team's regression.

This stat is going to hurt you.
post allstar break.
julius: positive play
rj: positive play
fournier: positive play
burks even: positive play
Mitch : Negative play
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/randlju01/splits/2022

the well o mitch is never ending my guy. The impact metics got you championing the least effective players on the team and you confusing and disguising efficiency for impact or total value.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robinmi01.html

Advanced metrics like RAPM and RAPTOR are not efficiency-based metrics, so your last sentence is off base.

Besides, while there are outliers, and players play in different roles, there is generally-speaking an obvious correlation between efficiency and impact, which is fairly logical in a game with a finite number of possessions. It still requires interpretation based on role, as role obviously impacts efficiency.

Mitch was the Knicks best starter pre-All-Star break. It's true that he didn't play as well post-All-Star break, when the season was basically over already.

But if you look at the season on the whole, he was our best starter statistically-speaking. That doesn't mean that he's great or anything, it's really an indictment against our starting unit that a rim-runner/rim-protector scored highest in impact. It's pretty embarrassing.

[thebuzzardman]

I guess drawing conclusions between events is what humans do, right and wrong, but Melo meeting with Dolan seems related to the DMitch trade activity.

If nothing, maybe a discussion of if he would come, if it happens that the players out make it make sense.
And it was Dolan meeting him, because the whole thing kind of in the context of it being the farewell tour, and kind of out of respect to Melo's stardom and elder player status.
Maybe not.

[thebuzzardman]

If Huerter played solid defense he'd be one of the more sought after players in the league.

Congratulations, you played yourselves.

It was a joke - an attempt to find an "ok" player, but is that player, as a whole, that great? With the current version of Huerter proven to be better than Grimes - at the moment, just based on the body of work.
Grimes could wind up better as soon as this season.

Point is, we like the young guys, the good news is they are actually decent, but also not get carried away.
And every one of my posts is about how in one trade it might make sense to retain IQ, but in another Grimes.
Generally, I think Grimes staying makes sense in more scenarios, but not all. Not specifically.

Again, it's pretty nice that outside each players hater contingent, most of the board likes Obi or IQ or Grimes or even Cam.
I mean, imagine it's Tony Douglas in these scenarios. There might be like the one weird guy wanting to hold on to him in the trade.*

*edit - probably Chanel, based on some arcane stat

[rammagen]

The only trade I would consider would be Fournier, Grimes, Reddish and Deuce with the picks. Honestly would go with 5 to 6 picks with the package with the 5 and 6 picks being swaps or highly protected.

Everytime Ainge opens his mouth about wanting all the kids plus 7 picks I would start calling about other 2 guards and let it leak out.

That package would get the top pick in neat yrs draft for wannaybe. That is the jazz's end game. We have the keys for that. That kid is supposed to be the surest thing 7ft3 with 7 ft 8in wing spang can play defense and shoot. At 18yrs old.
So for the people.pushing so hard to make a bad trade think about using you assets for a player like that next yr.
Just because the twolves are stupid does not make every team in nba stupid enough to over pay

[Guano]

If Donovan played solid defense he'd be one of the more sought after players in the league.

Congratulations, you played yourselves.

[Fury]

If RJ played solid defense he'd be one of the more sought after players in the league.

Congratulations, you played yourselves.

[Guano]

If RJ played solid offense he'd be one of the more sought after players in the league.

Congratulations, you played yourselves.

[Capn'O]

If Huerter played solid defense he'd be one of the more sought after players in the league.

Congratulations, you played yourselves.

It was a joke - an attempt to find an "ok" player, but is that player, as a whole, that great? With the current version of Huerter proven to be better than Grimes - at the moment, just based on the body of work.
Grimes could wind up better as soon as this season.

Point is, we like the young guys, the good news is they are actually decent, but also not get carried away.
And every one of my posts is about how in one trade it might make sense to retain IQ, but in another Grimes.
Generally, I think Grimes staying makes sense in more scenarios, but not all. Not specifically.

Again, it's pretty nice that outside each players hater contingent, most of the board likes Obi or IQ or Grimes or even Cam.
I mean, imagine it's Tony Douglas in these scenarios. There might be like the one weird guy wanting to hold on to him in the trade.

People get it twisted though when people talk about an archetype of player that they mean a certain caliber of player. Grimes, for example, is a big wing who plays well off ball and plays good defense. He can create from the wings and his drive needs work.

That puts him in the Klay Thompson archetype but nobody in their right mind would say he's the same caliber as Klay. Simply that you'd look for a player with these attributes to augment the team so why not see how much an actual player with those characteristics can bring?

[knicks94]

I haven't felt this excited about a Knicks back court since the Marbury/ Francis duo!

[G_K_F]

Watch on YouTube

[BrOnXKing1]

Price is way to high for Mitchell. Stick with the young players. Grimes could be an all star in 2-3yrs. Obi with Randle traded could be a 20 and 10 player. In hindsight, should of done the Dejounte Murray deal