The Knicks can never get out of their own way!!

[taikibansei]

Also, in what world would Brunson and Mitchell be a bad backcourt ?

Brunson and Mitchell are both 6'1" guards--at a time when the league is moving towards taller, yet still quick and athletic, squads 1-5. So they're going to be outsized many nights. Neither can play defense; Brunson at least tries, but I frankly haven't seen Mitchell even try to play defense since his sophomore year. And accordingly, Mitchell, despite his skills on offense, can kill his team when on the court during the playoffs (when teams prepare for you). He doesn't fight through picks, is lazy when switching, often doesn't close out on threes, and generally just gives up too easily overall.

Night after night, opposing guards--including Brunson multiple times--have had career games against Mitchell. For all the "Gobert can't play in the playoffs" criticisms I've seen here, I don't see how any big man can be expected to stay on the court when the star guard is less than a traffic cone on defense. (A traffic cone at least consistently occupies that space.) As Robinson is no Gobert, it's going to get ugly some nights.

Do I think we should get Mitchell? If possible, yes, but he's not a superstar and we accordingly should not gut the team just to bring him on. Still, if we do get Mitchell, at least Brunson then can thank Mitchell--especially his "defense"--personally for his shiny new contract. So there's that!

[cupcakesnake]

It's not a great fit. We'll see what they give up. Some of those picks have limited value as they have substantial protections. If they give anything up out to 2027 or, forbid, 2029 it's scary.

I have so many concerns about the fit. Most people get the defensive side of the equation (Sub-6'3" backcourt with neither player being a tough defender for their size), but offensively there's big problems here too. While I think they will slice up teams with a potent combo of inside-outside scoring, neither of them is a strong interior passer. Mitchell in particular, while he's grown into being a good kickout passer, has yet to show any ability to get the ball to the big. He was absolutely allergic to Gobert, and could never find him for a Gobert. Sometimes he'd miss a wide open under the bucket Gobert. I know he caught some flack for this, but IMO not enough, as it was one of the things that hamstrung the Jazz in the playoffs every year. Brunson has some startlingly bad numbers next to Dwight Powell (one of the league's better rim runners). When Powell received a pass from Luka, he shot 66%. With Brunson (who got to run almost as much pick & roll with Powell as Luka did), Powell's percentages drop to 47% (a whopping 23% below his season average). It can be tough with short playmakers, but these numbers are yikes.

I say this because New York just paid Mitchell Robinson and act like he's a big part of their plan. Thibs' offense already doesn't know what to do with a rim runner (4.8fga for Mitch), and with a Brunson/Donovan backcourt... that number could drop? Is it possible to shoot less than 4 times? Like fricken Ben Wallace, one of the least efficient rim rollers ever, doubled Robinson's FGA! If they trade Donovan Mitchell, I honestly hope Mitchell Robinson is part of the deal. Hartenstein would just be so so so much better of a fit.

Also that strong kick out games of Spida and Brunson feel wasted on a Knicks roster if they still have Randle and RJ. Kicking out to meh shooters does not an elite offense make, and this team would have to be an elite offense to be back in the playoffs.

[CobraCommander]

Donovan Mitchell is 25 years old so if he wants to be a Knick I’d say go for it.

Knicks haven’t had a player/asset of that caliber in literally decades.

Pull the trigger, acquire DMitch and then build from there.

You don’t see RJ being that guy?

I say this because we can count on 1 finger the under 6’5” guard that was the best player on a championship team (Beth Blurry). I don’t think Mitchell is going to be the best player on a contending team so why over pay to rebuild with another small guard?

If they can keep RJ and get Mitchell then yeah do it...but if they gotta give up RJ I would just keep looking for the next guy cause Mitchell won’t make them a contender

[Amare_1_Knicks]

Also, in what world would Brunson and Mitchell be a bad backcourt ?

Brunson and Mitchell are both 6'1" guards--at a time when the league is moving towards taller, yet still quick and athletic, squads 1-5. So they're going to be outsized many nights. Neither can play defense; Brunson at least tries, but I frankly haven't seen Mitchell even try to play defense since his sophomore year. And accordingly, Mitchell, despite his skills on offense, can kill his team when on the court during the playoffs (when teams prepare for you). He doesn't fight through picks, is lazy when switching, often doesn't close out on threes, and generally just gives up too easily overall.

Night after night, opposing guards--including Brunson multiple times--have had career games against Mitchell. For all the "Gobert can't play in the playoffs" criticisms I've seen here, I don't see how any big man can be expected to stay on the court when the star guard is less than a traffic cone on defense. (A traffic cone at least consistently occupies that space.) As Robinson is no Gobert, it's going to get ugly some nights.

Do I think we should get Mitchell? If possible, yes, but he's not a superstar and we accordingly should not gut the team just to bring him on. Still, if we do get Mitchell, at least Brunson then can thank Mitchell--especially his "defense"--personally for his shiny new contract. So there's that!

I’m not necessarily disagreeing on any of the points you made. They’re a diminutive backcourt. Agreed. They leave a lot to be desired defensively (particularly Mitchell — I think Brunson will be fine, personally). But agreed. Size aside, the Knicks starting backcourt this past year was Kemba and Fournier — two absolute turnstiles on that end — that for whatever size advantage they’d have over this duo, were still a worse pair. It’s a major improvement offensively, and something of an improvement defensively.

There’s tremendous upside with this duo offensively, and it’s not like in Utah Mitchell was playing with a 6’5-6’7 PG — Conley was a 6’1 guy himself (although better defensively than anyone else in this convo). Nonetheless, with the shortcomings that that duo presented, they were still far from bad, and I don’t see why Mitch/Brunson would be bad overall, because they have flaws defensively. With the right personnel, that can be covered for while their strengths are highlighted.

[Knightfall]

If I'm the Knicks in going to be careful here. Ainge is a snake. But if he wants 5 picks for Mitchell I'd do the 4 picks this next off season, and 1 2026, or I'm offering 2 2023 pick, 1 24 swap, 25 pick, 26 pick. That locks up the end of Mitchell's 4 years, hope Barrert improves and keep some picks of their own.

[Bob Ross]

Shut up OP

[Capn'O]

It's not a great fit. We'll see what they give up. Some of those picks have limited value as they have substantial protections. If they give anything up out to 2027 or, forbid, 2029 it's scary.

I have so many concerns about the fit. Most people get the defensive side of the equation (Sub-6'3" backcourt with neither player being a tough defender for their size), but offensively there's big problems here too. While I think they will slice up teams with a potent combo of inside-outside scoring, neither of them is a strong interior passer. Mitchell in particular, while he's grown into being a good kickout passer, has yet to show any ability to get the ball to the big. He was absolutely allergic to Gobert, and could never find him for a Gobert. Sometimes he'd miss a wide open under the bucket Gobert. I know he caught some flack for this, but IMO not enough, as it was one of the things that hamstrung the Jazz in the playoffs every year. Brunson has some startlingly bad numbers next to Dwight Powell (one of the league's better rim runners). When Powell received a pass from Luka, he shot 66%. With Brunson (who got to run almost as much pick & roll with Powell as Luka did), Powell's percentages drop to 47% (a whopping 23% below his season average). It can be tough with short playmakers, but these numbers are yikes.

I say this because New York just paid Mitchell Robinson and act like he's a big part of their plan. Thibs' offense already doesn't know what to do with a rim runner (4.8fga for Mitch), and with a Brunson/Donovan backcourt... that number could drop? Is it possible to shoot less than 4 times? Like fricken Ben Wallace, one of the least efficient rim rollers ever, doubled Robinson's FGA! If they trade Donovan Mitchell, I honestly hope Mitchell Robinson is part of the deal. Hartenstein would just be so so so much better of a fit.

Also that strong kick out games of Spida and Brunson feel wasted on a Knicks roster if they still have Randle and RJ. Kicking out to meh shooters does not an elite offense make, and this team would have to be an elite offense to be back in the playoffs.

Can't argue with any of this other than Mitchell viscerally hated Gobert so maybe he looks for Mitch more. They even have a name in common!

But yes, I would have looked for a player in the Klay mold next to Brunson. You know. Like Quentin Grimes. Or a player like IQ who does hit the pocket.

[Scalabrine]

From what I am reading they are prepared to severely overpay for Donovan Mitchell. The problem with the Knicks is that they want the next Knick's superstar instead of getting solid pieces to build around what they have. A Mitchell/Brunson backcourt is going to be horrible but let's worry about that later. Then you have Mitchell, Brunson, Barrett, and Julius Randle who all need the ball to be effective. I understand that moves need to be made but they seem to keep putting together flawed rosters.

Brunson was quite effective playing off ball next to the highest USG% player in the league last year.

Barrett has never been a number 1 option.

If you're not getting Mitchell because you want Randle to be the number 1 guy then what are we even doing here?

I agree that we shouldn't give them 6 picks plus Rose, Toppin, Reddish, Quickley, Grimes, McBride. That'd be insane. If you can give them 2 of our own picks, plus 2 of the Dallas/Washington/Detroit/Milwaukee picks that we have as surplus, then I think we start to get somewhere.

We'd still have 7 first round picks to play with, plus some younger players and tradable contracts for when one more guy comes along. Our teams too good to be bad enough to get a star in the draft at this point and with the history of our franchise this past millennium, I think you'd find quite a few happy Knicks fans if we were a perennial playoff team for the next 5-6 years.

[Onus]

Trading for guards who play in 4 or 5 out systems to play in a not 4 or 5 out system is going to be a wake up call. You’re not getting who you think you’re getting.

[knicksNOTslick]

I thought the Knicks declined Ainge's offer

[Clyde Frazier]

From what I am reading they are prepared to severely overpay for Donovan Mitchell. The problem with the Knicks is that they want the next Knick's superstar instead of getting solid pieces to build around what they have. A Mitchell/Brunson backcourt is going to be horrible but let's worry about that later. Then you have Mitchell, Brunson, Barrett, and Julius Randle who all need the ball to be effective. I understand that moves need to be made but they seem to keep putting together flawed rosters.

How are you creating this thread this morning when a jazz beat writer said the Knicks turned down the Jazz's lofty offer? So no they aren't prepared to severely overpay.

Read on Twitter

[R-DAWG]

Let's see what the Knicks give up before saying they are making a mistake.

If it's unprotected picks in 23 and 25, two of the picks they own from other teams, and 2 out of Grimes, Toppin, IQ, Reddish then it's fine. If it's unprotected picks and swaps stretching to 2029 then it's not.

One thing you can say about Leon Rose is that he has a plan. The plan is the be relevant enough and flexible enough to attract stars, using the blueprint of the 2019 Nets and Clippers - who attracted superstars in free agency in part because they were already low-level playoff teams with a supporting cast that could help them win right away. And whether you agree with the plan or not, at least they have a plan with some logic to it. Sure - every move they made last offseason didn't work out, but they had a relatively inexpensive way to get off of those moves.

With Donnovan Mitchell, he's turning 26 years old and likely has another 5-7 seasons of being a top-20/fringe all-NBA guy. It's hard to get guys like that. That's why the key isn't how much stuff they give up, it's what stuff they give up. They need to be in position to give up 4 picks and 3 swaps going forward if and when a true #1 option becomes available. And because the Knicks have drafted well and stock piled draft capital they can give up the equivalent of 6-7 1st rd picks (including rookie scale players as the value of a 1st rd pick) and still have the chips for a future deal.

Everyone likes to look back at the Carmelo Anthony trade and say the Knicks gave up too much, but the reality is, the mistake was doubling down on Amare Stoudemire's health to land Tyson Chandler. Had NY kept the amnesty, they would have entered the summer of 2013 with a 28 year old Carmelo Anthony on a roster that contained only Iman Shumpert and Tim Hardaway Jr and cap space to sign 2 max free agents (if you recall, both Chris Paul and Dwight Howard were free agents that summer). They also only owed 1 future pick and 1 swap at that time, so plenty of flexibility going forward with a foundational star already in place. I'm also not saying the current version of Donnovan Mitchell is as good as Carmelo was when he got to NY - he isn't and likely never will be.

And to be honest, I'm not sure Jalen Brunson or Julius Randle is on the roster when the Knicks put all the chips in to become a contender. Brunson will help break in the Mitchell/Barrett combination, which is really the foundation of what the Knicks are going to be building. And I think Mitchell-Barrett has the potential to be a very good combination as a 2nd and 3rd option on a contender. RJ can defend, slash and has been effective as a catch and shoot guy in addition to being a secondary playmaker. The concern with Brunson/Mitchell is on the defensive side of the ball - but that's an issue that we can address going forward. Randle is really the odd man out as NY would be much better off having a guy like Harrison Barnes as a stretch 4 - similar to how Portland built around Lillard/McCollum with 2 switchable combo forwards.

The best version of this Knicks team - Bubble Mitchell, continued improvement from RJ Barrett, 2021 Julius Randle, non Luka Brunson - has 50 win potential albeit not a true contender. Having said that, there is a version of that group that misses the play in tournament.

But I come back to, the Knicks need to be in position to package Randle or Brunson, plus 4 picks and 3 swaps, if and when a true franchise caliber player becomes available via trade, otherwise, there is no point in doing the Mitchell trade. And the offer I mentioned above (2 NY unprotected 1s, 2 1's from other teams, 2 rookie scale players) is a very significant offer. And it leaves NY with a pick in every draft going forward (with the 2023 DAL top-10 protected and 2025 MIL top-4 protected in place of their own picks in those years) and the ability to trade unprotected picks in 2027 and 2029 in addition to swaps in 2026 and 2028.

[cupcakesnake]

Also, in what world would Brunson and Mitchell be a bad backcourt ?

Brunson and Mitchell are both 6'1" guards--at a time when the league is moving towards taller, yet still quick and athletic, squads 1-5. So they're going to be outsized many nights. Neither can play defense; Brunson at least tries, but I frankly haven't seen Mitchell even try to play defense since his sophomore year. And accordingly, Mitchell, despite his skills on offense, can kill his team when on the court during the playoffs (when teams prepare for you). He doesn't fight through picks, is lazy when switching, often doesn't close out on threes, and generally just gives up too easily overall.

Night after night, opposing guards--including Brunson multiple times--have had career games against Mitchell. For all the "Gobert can't play in the playoffs" criticisms I've seen here, I don't see how any big man can be expected to stay on the court when the star guard is less than a traffic cone on defense. (A traffic cone at least consistently occupies that space.) As Robinson is no Gobert, it's going to get ugly some nights.

Do I think we should get Mitchell? If possible, yes, but he's not a superstar and we accordingly should not gut the team just to bring him on. Still, if we do get Mitchell, at least Brunson then can thank Mitchell--especially his "defense"--personally for his shiny new contract. So there's that!

I’m not necessarily disagreeing on any of the points you made. They’re a diminutive backcourt. Agreed. They leave a lot to be desired defensively (particularly Mitchell — I think Brunson will be fine, personally). But agreed. Size aside, the Knicks starting backcourt this past year was Kemba and Fournier — two absolute turnstiles on that end — that for whatever size advantage they’d have over this duo, were still a worse pair. It’s a major improvement offensively, and something of an improvement defensively.

There’s tremendous upside with this duo offensively, and it’s not like in Utah Mitchell was playing with a 6’5-6’7 PG — Conley was a 6’1 guy himself (although better defensively than anyone else in this convo). Nonetheless, with the shortcomings that that duo presented, they were still far from bad, and I don’t see why Mitch/Brunson would be bad overall, because they have flaws defensively. With the right personnel, that can be covered for while their strengths are highlighted.

But they're starting backcourt was Burks/Fournier slightly more often than Kemba/Fournier (44 games vs. 37). Brunson/Mitchell is a defensive downgrade from Burks/Fournier, mainly due to the massive dropoff in size (going from 6'6"/6'7" to 6'1"/6'2").

Fournier/Burks on court: 112 drtg
Kemba/Fournier on court: 117 drtg
Burks without Kemba or Burks: 107 drtg

Mitchell with Conley/Gobert: 112 drtg
Conley/Gobert without Mitchell: 102 drtg
Mitchell without Conley/Gobert: 116 drtg

[ShazamDaShiznt]

The problem is that the Knicks are trying to have an undersized backcourt + doing a business with ainge is a bad move. He rarely does a fair trade.

[Dubious Handles]

The Knicks are getting away with highway robbery here. You go from play-in to championship contenders in one off-season with a stacked young roster and 2-3 young stars. If the cost is 5-6 picks, you do it and stack the deck.

[ellobo]

I don't think the Knicks are a franchise that you can expect to tank and build slowly through the draft like most teams do when they're bad. They don't have the patience to do that. So the next best thing to do with draft picks is cash them in for good young players.

I think the Knicks will work out a trade with the Jazz that's more reasonable and get Mitchell.

My sense as a Knicks' fan is that the belief that Knicks' fans won't tolerate a rebuild is overblown. We've been just about as bad as actual rebuilding teams, but without the rebuilding part. The year before last was a fool's gold aberration as evidenced by getting stomped in the first round. I don't think Knicks' fans want low end vets like Walker, Fournier, Noel, Burks, Taj, and Bullock jamming up the roster. We'd rather see some young guys get opportunities, even if they take their lumps and never turn out to be much.

You can only rebuild through the draft if you hit on a pick once in a while, and don't have too many outright misses. The Knicks have picked when Booker, Mitchell, SGA, Darius Garland, and Haliburton were on the board, and out of all those picks basically ended up with Barrett and Obi Toppin. If they had hit on just one, and didn't outright miss (Knox, Ntilikina) on a couple, their prospects would look much different.

I'm not against trading for Mitchell at the right price, but it definitely bothers me to pass on a guy in the draft and then trade the farm for him after he's making max money and failed to lead his team to serious contention.

[Celts17Pride]

This is a no brainer for the Knicks. Grab 25 year old Dovonan Mitchell while you can. Very good chance those draft picks and young players won’t produce 1 player that is as good as Mitchell is right now.

[DrCoach]

Troll post

[Billy Goat]

This is a no brainer for the Knicks. Grab 25 year old Dovonan Mitchell while you can. Very good chance those draft picks and young players won’t produce 1 player that is as good as Mitchell is right now.

Mitchell isn’t that good. Chucker who doesn’t do much else. These are the guys the Knicks usually overpay for though. He doesn’t make the Knicks better

[iLLmatic860]

This is a no brainer for the Knicks. Grab 25 year old Dovonan Mitchell while you can. Very good chance those draft picks and young players won’t produce 1 player that is as good as Mitchell is right now.

Mitchell isn’t that good. Chucker who doesn’t do much else. These are the guys the Knicks usually overpay for though. He doesn’t make the Knicks better

So a 25 year old all star makes the Knicks worse?