Donovan Mitchell Discussion 4

[snadler]

See my post from yesterday with trade comps even for players who not only asked out but demanded which team..basically it didn’t matter they all got a major haul

My fault I missed it, I am upset down on my hours and feel like a zombie. Thanks for the great info

I don't think it matters anyhow because Ainge is going to hold until he gets the farm and Knicks hopefully will not crack as they always do. Ainge has nothing to lose.

Ainge has a lot to lose, he knows Mitchell can’t be on the roster opening night, remember his goal, picks and assure top 3 pick

[Ghetto Gospel]

He came into his own in the finals because the Warriors were dropping like flies and Nurse realized he could play a box and 1 on Curry. Klay was averaging 26ppg against them before he got hurt, you left out that important part where KD got hurt, too. They wouldn't play 2 guards if KD were healthy. Neither Brunson or Mitchell are even close to Lowry/FVV defensively, is one of them going to come off the bench while we start a 6'6" guard?

Opponents had a 105 ORTG when Gasol was on the floor, when he was off the floor they had Serge Ibaka who leads the playoffs in blocks since 2010. Gasol was also a stretch big, so he was literally 3 & D at the 5, shot 38% from three with elite defense What next, Randle is as good a defender as Siakam?

Oh nice, a strawman, nobody has ever said he will be Kawhi on defense, but keep having those arguments based around the boogeyman. RJ has the potential to be a good two way player, Kawhi is arguably the best perimeter defender ever.

he came into his own in the finals because he finally got a lot of minutes in the playoffs. i see that argument made for the kids all the time, so i will make it here too. FVV played 33 minutes in game 1 and 38 minutes in game 2, this is before klay thompson went out. KD was also hurt before the entire series started but, he came back then got hurt pretty quickly right after. either way, it doesn't really matter as KD isn't on the warriors anymore so we don't have to worry about whether we can play 2 midgets against KD on the warriors anymore. Sure, brunson has came off the bench before. I'm sure as long as he still gets his 35 minutes in 1 way or another like FVV did, no sweat.

are those numbers as good as gobert? by the numbers, isaiah hartenstein is one of the best rim protectors in the league, and with mitch that's a pretty deadly 1-2 combo at rim protection.

strawman? i never said you made that argument, other people on this board have. actually, when i see jimmy butler or kawhi leonard comparisons, i assume top-tier defense is a part of it, don't you? if defense wasn't a part of it, why aren't the player comparisons to an offense only player or a good offensive player with some good defense like middleton which i think i saw one of, but there was a lot more jimmy and kawhi

KD was hurt and didn't play until game 5, the Raptors didn't want to play FVV/Lowry against Butler, do you really think they would have been playing that backcourt against KD who spent an entire series targeting Patrick Beverly with KD. Part of why Brunson left Dallas so that he could be featured more in an offense, he's not going to be okay coming off the bench, come on now.

I will say it again, I really like Hartenstein, but he's going to need to overcome his foul issues, and asking these two young guys to cover up for such a small backcourt is putting a lot on them, especially when the other frontcourt players effort comes and goes based on how much he gets the ball.

Top tier is what? For a wing RJ's size he just needs to improve as a team defender, which should come with time and experience. Offensively he's nothing like Middleton, he's a slasher, who is the best wing two way wing slasher? Jimmy. Who is probably the 2nd best? Jaylen. I have never said anything about Kawhi for RJ, that is a once in a generation two way player, guys like Jimmy and Brown come a long often and as good as they are, they're still just complimentary players in the end. I say Jimmy and Brown are his best case scenario's, I have never said RJ is going to be on the same tier as Giannis, Kawhi, Luka etc, because that's ridiculous, all my comps for him are guys who had either slow starts, or took awhile to get going.

if we get mitchell, he won't be featured here either. we can't always get what we want

assuming good health, we really only need those guys to play ~24 minutes each give or take if we never play small. foul issues over say 36 minutes sure, but over 24 minutes? his fouling issues aren't that bad that he can't play half the time

honestly, i have said this before and i'll say it again. i generally agree with you on RJ outside of his defense, and perhaps slightly on offense. i just found it funny when i saw jimmy/kawhi, as i'm sure you found it funny when you saw evan turner/corey maggette (or maybe it was rage, idk).

point still holds that you can play major minutes with midgets and win, add whatever context to it that you like. they both have rings on their fingers, and they're both midgets, those are the facts

[BKlutch]

Is this the real Brock Aller? No check mark but a complete body check even if not...also refers to himself as 'Cap God - Knicks'... this can't be real

Read on Twitter

This just in ... FBI transcript of audio from secret meeting held between Rose and Ainge:

Rose: How you doing, Danny boy?
Ainge: Uh, ok, why do you ask?
Rose: Well, look, little Danny. You don't mind if I call you that, do you?
Ainge: It's ok Mr. Rose.
Rose: So, uh, look little Danny. I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse. Remember, this is all CAA territory, and my guys got this covered. Capiche?
Ainge: Yes, Mr. Rose.
Rose: Good, Little Willy. You don't mind if I call you Little Willie, do you?
Ainge: But it's Danny, Little Danny, Mr. Rose
Rose: Good, Little Willy it is! So this is what you're going to do, ok?

At that point in the conversation, it's believe that Leon Rose installed an anti-bugging device and the audio was lost.

[whocares1]

My fault I missed it, I am upset down on my hours and feel like a zombie. Thanks for the great info

I don't think it matters anyhow because Ainge is going to hold until he gets the farm and Knicks hopefully will not crack as they always do. Ainge has nothing to lose.

Ainge has a lot to lose, he knows Mitchell can’t be on the roster opening night, remember his goal, picks and assure top 3 pick

Also..no one besides OKC has as much assets as the Knicks. He can wait a year and the playoff teams that want Mitchell still wouldn’t be able to match Knicks’ current offer. It’s funny tho to watch people sweat and saying how we should just give Danny everything bc it shows how weak minded most people are.

[Chanel Bomber]

We're about to make the same exact mistake the Jazz made with Donovan to begin with, in not putting him at the 1 with a big guard next to him that can double as a point guard.

I know you don't like him, but if they were going to go after Mitchell, they probably should have gone after DeJounte instead, even with the shooting issues he makes more sense next to Mitchell than Brunson.

Murray can't play off the ball.

I don't think Dejounte makes sense next to anybody as a starting guard, really. Maybe in the Rondo role with elite shooters all around him, or I guess in the Smart role. Outside of that scenario, I'm not convinced he can be a starter on a contender.

I'd much rather test out a Brunson/Mitchell backcourt and pivot if the experiment fails defensively.

Mitchell can play off the ball, he's been developed as a SG after all, that type of backcourt can work because you put Murray on whoever is the more dominant scorer in the backcourt and let Mitchell get the weaker of the two, or hide him on a 3 & D small forward. What you have with Brunson and Mitchell is nowhere to hide one of them, one of them is always going to be in an unfavorable matchup, and we can't realistically ask RJ to guard PGs for 82 games.

You're only thinking about the offense, and not the defense.

I'm thinking of both sides.

Both Mitchell-Brunson and Mitchell-Murray are flawed backcourts. I get your point.

But all things considered, I much prefer a Mitchell-Brunson backcourt. Much smarter on offense, more dynamic, with better shooting all around the court.

Yes it would be open to post-ups on the other end, but it's easier to adjust to post-ups (still the most inefficient play in basketball outside of a few match-ups) by crowding the post for instance, or baiting poor post scorers, than it is to run an efficient offense with a ball-dominant 33% 3-point shooter who can't play off the ball.

One of Mitchell's strengths is his pick-and-roll play and Murray would severely hurt our spacing, let alone with some of the other players we have, as teams already aren't afraid to play zone against us even with a combination of Fournier and Kemba/Burks in the backcourt.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

he came into his own in the finals because he finally got a lot of minutes in the playoffs. i see that argument made for the kids all the time, so i will make it here too. FVV played 33 minutes in game 1 and 38 minutes in game 2, this is before klay thompson went out. KD was also hurt before the entire series started but, he came back then got hurt pretty quickly right after. either way, it doesn't really matter as KD isn't on the warriors anymore so we don't have to worry about whether we can play 2 midgets against KD on the warriors anymore. Sure, brunson has came off the bench before. I'm sure as long as he still gets his 35 minutes in 1 way or another like FVV did, no sweat.

are those numbers as good as gobert? by the numbers, isaiah hartenstein is one of the best rim protectors in the league, and with mitch that's a pretty deadly 1-2 combo at rim protection.

strawman? i never said you made that argument, other people on this board have. actually, when i see jimmy butler or kawhi leonard comparisons, i assume top-tier defense is a part of it, don't you? if defense wasn't a part of it, why aren't the player comparisons to an offense only player or a good offensive player with some good defense like middleton which i think i saw one of, but there was a lot more jimmy and kawhi

KD was hurt and didn't play until game 5, the Raptors didn't want to play FVV/Lowry against Butler, do you really think they would have been playing that backcourt against KD who spent an entire series targeting Patrick Beverly with KD. Part of why Brunson left Dallas so that he could be featured more in an offense, he's not going to be okay coming off the bench, come on now.

I will say it again, I really like Hartenstein, but he's going to need to overcome his foul issues, and asking these two young guys to cover up for such a small backcourt is putting a lot on them, especially when the other frontcourt players effort comes and goes based on how much he gets the ball.

Top tier is what? For a wing RJ's size he just needs to improve as a team defender, which should come with time and experience. Offensively he's nothing like Middleton, he's a slasher, who is the best wing two way wing slasher? Jimmy. Who is probably the 2nd best? Jaylen. I have never said anything about Kawhi for RJ, that is a once in a generation two way player, guys like Jimmy and Brown come a long often and as good as they are, they're still just complimentary players in the end. I say Jimmy and Brown are his best case scenario's, I have never said RJ is going to be on the same tier as Giannis, Kawhi, Luka etc, because that's ridiculous, all my comps for him are guys who had either slow starts, or took awhile to get going.

if we get mitchell, he won't be featured here either. we can't always get what we want

assuming good health, we really only need those guys to play ~24 minutes each give or take if we never play small. foul issues over say 36 minutes sure, but over 24 minutes? his fouling issues aren't that bad that he can't play half the time

honestly, i have said this before and i'll say it again. i generally agree with you on RJ outside of his defense, and perhaps slightly on offense. i just found it funny when i saw jimmy/kawhi, as i'm sure you found it funny when you saw evan turner/corey maggette (or maybe it was rage, idk).

point still holds that you can play major minutes with midgets and win, add whatever context to it that you like. they both have rings on their fingers, and they're both midgets, those are the facts

I have a high opinion of RJ from a character standpoint, guys like that with a work ethic generally don't fail. Is he going to be Kawhi? No, but somewhere between Jimmy and Middleton with a best case scenario of Brown/Jimmy is a lot more likely than the Evan Turner garbage because he's already passed that to begin with.


One of those midgets came off the bench for a 6'6" guy and we don't have a Kawhi, which is the most important ingredient. Donovan Mitchell isn't on Kawhi's level, and RJ isn't either, they are both just complimentary players. If we didn't have Brunson, and instead had a big guard then we'd be cooking, but that small backcourt is going to be an issue, all the same as it was for the other all-offense - weak defense small guard tandems.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Murray can't play off the ball.

I don't think Dejounte makes sense next to anybody as a starting guard, really. Maybe in the Rondo role with elite shooters all around him, or I guess in the Smart role. Outside of that scenario, I'm not convinced he can be a starter on a contender.

I'd much rather test out a Brunson/Mitchell backcourt and pivot if the experiment fails defensively.

Mitchell can play off the ball, he's been developed as a SG after all, that type of backcourt can work because you put Murray on whoever is the more dominant scorer in the backcourt and let Mitchell get the weaker of the two, or hide him on a 3 & D small forward. What you have with Brunson and Mitchell is nowhere to hide one of them, one of them is always going to be in an unfavorable matchup, and we can't realistically ask RJ to guard PGs for 82 games.

You're only thinking about the offense, and not the defense.

I'm thinking of both sides.

Both Mitchell-Brunson and Mitchell-Murray are flawed backcourts. I get your point.

But all things considered, I much prefer a Mitchell-Brunson backcourt. Much smarter on offense, more dynamic, with better shooting all around the court.

Yes it would be open to post-ups on the other end, but it's easier to adjust to post-ups (still the most inefficient play in basketball outside of a few match-ups) by crowding the post for instance, or baiting poor post scorers, than it is to run an efficient offense with a ball-dominant 33% 3-point shooter who can't play off the ball.

One of Mitchell's strengths is his pick-and-roll play and Murray would severely hurt our spacing, let alone with some of the other players we have, as teams already aren't afraid to play zone against us even with a combination of Fournier and Kemba/Burks in the backcourt.

You and I agree on the big guard thing, we disagree on Murray, we're going to find out because Trae is a horrific defender, and has to this point in his career had the ball in his hands more than Brunson or Mitchell.

We agree that Mitchell + Big guard would have been more ideal.

[3toheadmelo]

Donovan Mitchell can be the worst defender of all time and I’ll still want the Knicks to get him

[Chanel Bomber]

Mitchell can play off the ball, he's been developed as a SG after all, that type of backcourt can work because you put Murray on whoever is the more dominant scorer in the backcourt and let Mitchell get the weaker of the two, or hide him on a 3 & D small forward. What you have with Brunson and Mitchell is nowhere to hide one of them, one of them is always going to be in an unfavorable matchup, and we can't realistically ask RJ to guard PGs for 82 games.

You're only thinking about the offense, and not the defense.

I'm thinking of both sides.

Both Mitchell-Brunson and Mitchell-Murray are flawed backcourts. I get your point.

But all things considered, I much prefer a Mitchell-Brunson backcourt. Much smarter on offense, more dynamic, with better shooting all around the court.

Yes it would be open to post-ups on the other end, but it's easier to adjust to post-ups (still the most inefficient play in basketball outside of a few match-ups) by crowding the post for instance, or baiting poor post scorers, than it is to run an efficient offense with a ball-dominant 33% 3-point shooter who can't play off the ball.

One of Mitchell's strengths is his pick-and-roll play and Murray would severely hurt our spacing, let alone with some of the other players we have, as teams already aren't afraid to play zone against us even with a combination of Fournier and Kemba/Burks in the backcourt.

You and I agree on the big guard thing, we disagree on Murray, we're going to find out because Trae is a horrific defender, and has to this point in his career had the ball in his hands more than Brunson or Mitchell.

We agree that Mitchell + Big guard would have been more ideal.

Yes, I share your concerns about the lack of size. It's absolutely a fair point.

But since we didn't move for Haliburton, I'd be fine with a Brunson-Mitchell experiment. I would want to give it a look. If the defensive metrics and the eye test tell me it's a failure, then I wouldn't hesitate to say we should flip either one of them for a better fit. With Haliburton gone, I just don't know who that proven big guard would be (knowing how I feel about other guys).

I would love to see Grimes or IQ start at the 2 if the trade falls apart.

[Zenzibar]

Murray can't play off the ball.

I don't think Dejounte makes sense next to anybody as a starting guard, really. Maybe in the Rondo role with elite shooters all around him, or I guess in the Smart role. Outside of that scenario, I'm not convinced he can be a starter on a contender.

I'd much rather test out a Brunson/Mitchell backcourt and pivot if the experiment fails defensively.

Mitchell can play off the ball, he's been developed as a SG after all, that type of backcourt can work because you put Murray on whoever is the more dominant scorer in the backcourt and let Mitchell get the weaker of the two, or hide him on a 3 & D small forward. What you have with Brunson and Mitchell is nowhere to hide one of them, one of them is always going to be in an unfavorable matchup, and we can't realistically ask RJ to guard PGs for 82 games.

You're only thinking about the offense, and not the defense.

I'm thinking of both sides.

Both Mitchell-Brunson and Mitchell-Murray are flawed backcourts. I get your point.

But all things considered, I much prefer a Mitchell-Brunson backcourt. Much smarter on offense, more dynamic, with better shooting all around the court.

Yes it would be open to post-ups on the other end, but it's easier to adjust to post-ups (still the most inefficient play in basketball outside of a few match-ups) by crowding the post for instance, or baiting poor post scorers, than it is to run an efficient offense with a ball-dominant 33% 3-point shooter who can't play off the ball.

One of Mitchell's strengths is his pick-and-roll play and Murray would severely hurt our spacing, let alone with some of the other players we have, as teams already aren't afraid to play zone against us even with a combination of Fournier and Kemba/Burks in the backcourt.

Reggie Bullock was a below league average defensive rating (110%) for most of his career but flouirshed under Thibs.

In comparison, Donovan Mitchell DRTG was 111.4 and Reggie 111.8 in 2022.

[Ghetto Gospel]

KD was hurt and didn't play until game 5, the Raptors didn't want to play FVV/Lowry against Butler, do you really think they would have been playing that backcourt against KD who spent an entire series targeting Patrick Beverly with KD. Part of why Brunson left Dallas so that he could be featured more in an offense, he's not going to be okay coming off the bench, come on now.

I will say it again, I really like Hartenstein, but he's going to need to overcome his foul issues, and asking these two young guys to cover up for such a small backcourt is putting a lot on them, especially when the other frontcourt players effort comes and goes based on how much he gets the ball.

Top tier is what? For a wing RJ's size he just needs to improve as a team defender, which should come with time and experience. Offensively he's nothing like Middleton, he's a slasher, who is the best wing two way wing slasher? Jimmy. Who is probably the 2nd best? Jaylen. I have never said anything about Kawhi for RJ, that is a once in a generation two way player, guys like Jimmy and Brown come a long often and as good as they are, they're still just complimentary players in the end. I say Jimmy and Brown are his best case scenario's, I have never said RJ is going to be on the same tier as Giannis, Kawhi, Luka etc, because that's ridiculous, all my comps for him are guys who had either slow starts, or took awhile to get going.

if we get mitchell, he won't be featured here either. we can't always get what we want

assuming good health, we really only need those guys to play ~24 minutes each give or take if we never play small. foul issues over say 36 minutes sure, but over 24 minutes? his fouling issues aren't that bad that he can't play half the time

honestly, i have said this before and i'll say it again. i generally agree with you on RJ outside of his defense, and perhaps slightly on offense. i just found it funny when i saw jimmy/kawhi, as i'm sure you found it funny when you saw evan turner/corey maggette (or maybe it was rage, idk).

point still holds that you can play major minutes with midgets and win, add whatever context to it that you like. they both have rings on their fingers, and they're both midgets, those are the facts

I have a high opinion of RJ from a character standpoint, guys like that with a work ethic generally don't fail. Is he going to be Kawhi? No, but somewhere between Jimmy and Middleton with a best case scenario of Brown/Jimmy is a lot more likely than the Evan Turner garbage because he's already passed that to begin with.

One of those midgets came off the bench for a 6'6" guy and we don't have a Kawhi, which is the most important ingredient. Donovan Mitchell isn't on Kawhi's level, and RJ isn't either, they are both just complimentary players. If we didn't have Brunson, and instead had a big guard then we'd be cooking, but that small backcourt is going to be an issue, all the same as it was for the other all-offense - weak defense small guard tandems.

he's almost assuredly going to make $100m+++ in his career, in no way is that a failure. genuinely high character good dudes with work ethic, luol deng and tobias harris come to mind

who knows maybe we can get a rental kawhi. the only reason why kawhi was so "cheap" was because he was on the last year of his deal and he was not willing to give certainty on whether or not he would resign. perhaps we can position ourselves for that. a package of rj + 1 pick might not be so different a package than derozan + 1 pick someday

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Donovan Mitchell can be the worst defender of all time and I’ll still want the Knicks to get him

At least we'll have the summer league title.


But, it'll probably be bittersweet since it'll be our last time seeing Grimes in a Knicks jersey of any kind.

[stuporman]

Ainge wants a historic haul but the only way it gets to that is if there are competing offers that rise to the historic haul. Just because the GM wants it doesn't mean they get it if there are no competing offers to justify it.

If he wants to go into the season possibly letting this situation get messy and actually losing some of the leverage he had he's welcome to do that. Ainge hasn't been the wisest of execs in that regard. His reputation was built on a single trade he duped the Nets with and then the Tatum pick in which he traded down from 1 to still be able to get.

Other than those two moves his track record is pretty meh and some might even say he wasted the opportunity he had. Some justifiably argue his moves apart from those two prevented the Celtics from getting to their team ceiling and it wasn't until he was gone that they did.

So now in his new job Ainge duped another team into giving up way too much in a deal and he has the opportunity to finish the off season with another considerable haul if he isn't greedy and deluded to think he can get what he wants even if there is no competitive market that supports that.

If he can trade Mitchell for 6 picks with a couple of them being unprotected, a blue chip young player, another solid young player, a flyer on another young player and no long term contracts? He'd be silly to hold out for more if there isn't any other offers that come close to that.

I think the Knicks should give the offer of 5 picks, two of their own unprotected and three of the acquired ones, Grimes, Reddish, McBride with Rose for salary matching and tell Ainge to call when he finds an offer equal to that let alone better. Leave the 6th pick in the holster until he does.

Do I like that deal? Not really but if the Knicks don't offer that much it will be perceived as them not doing everything they can to get Mitchell who they have been pining for years to get. If they do that and Ainge doesn't accept it or trades for a lesser package, they did what they could do get him.

[Zenzibar]

I'm thinking of both sides.

Both Mitchell-Brunson and Mitchell-Murray are flawed backcourts. I get your point.

But all things considered, I much prefer a Mitchell-Brunson backcourt. Much smarter on offense, more dynamic, with better shooting all around the court.

Yes it would be open to post-ups on the other end, but it's easier to adjust to post-ups (still the most inefficient play in basketball outside of a few match-ups) by crowding the post for instance, or baiting poor post scorers, than it is to run an efficient offense with a ball-dominant 33% 3-point shooter who can't play off the ball.

One of Mitchell's strengths is his pick-and-roll play and Murray would severely hurt our spacing, let alone with some of the other players we have, as teams already aren't afraid to play zone against us even with a combination of Fournier and Kemba/Burks in the backcourt.

You and I agree on the big guard thing, we disagree on Murray, we're going to find out because Trae is a horrific defender, and has to this point in his career had the ball in his hands more than Brunson or Mitchell.

We agree that Mitchell + Big guard would have been more ideal.

Yes, I share your concerns about the lack of size. It's absolutely a fair point.

But since we didn't move for Haliburton, I'd be fine with a Brunson-Mitchell experiment. I would want to give it a look. If the defensive metrics and the eye test tell me it's a failure, then I wouldn't hesitate to say we should flip either one of them for a better fit. With Haliburton gone, I just don't know who that proven big guard would be (knowing how I feel about other guys).

I would love to see Grimes or IQ start at the 2.

Those 2 will probably be gone in any DMitch deal, so that'll leave Cam and McBride to pair with in the back court and 2nd unit.

[3toheadmelo]

Donovan Mitchell can be the worst defender of all time and I’ll still want the Knicks to get him

At least we'll have the summer league title.


But, it'll probably be bittersweet since it'll be our last time seeing Grimes in a Knicks jersey of any kind.

I'll miss Grimes but I wont let him get in the way of getting Mitchell

[will34]

This blows, rush of news and now nothing. I'll take fake twitter sources at this point just for a little rush.

[Ghetto Gospel]

This blows, rush of news and now nothing. I'll take fake twitter sources at this point just for a little rush.

[Chanel Bomber]

Mitchell can play off the ball, he's been developed as a SG after all, that type of backcourt can work because you put Murray on whoever is the more dominant scorer in the backcourt and let Mitchell get the weaker of the two, or hide him on a 3 & D small forward. What you have with Brunson and Mitchell is nowhere to hide one of them, one of them is always going to be in an unfavorable matchup, and we can't realistically ask RJ to guard PGs for 82 games.

You're only thinking about the offense, and not the defense.

I'm thinking of both sides.

Both Mitchell-Brunson and Mitchell-Murray are flawed backcourts. I get your point.

But all things considered, I much prefer a Mitchell-Brunson backcourt. Much smarter on offense, more dynamic, with better shooting all around the court.

Yes it would be open to post-ups on the other end, but it's easier to adjust to post-ups (still the most inefficient play in basketball outside of a few match-ups) by crowding the post for instance, or baiting poor post scorers, than it is to run an efficient offense with a ball-dominant 33% 3-point shooter who can't play off the ball.

One of Mitchell's strengths is his pick-and-roll play and Murray would severely hurt our spacing, let alone with some of the other players we have, as teams already aren't afraid to play zone against us even with a combination of Fournier and Kemba/Burks in the backcourt.

Reggie Bullock was a below league average defensive rating (110%) for most of his career but flouirshed under Thibs.

In comparison, Donovan Mitchell DRTG was 111.4 and Reggie 111.8 in 2022.

Chanerd time:

Defensive rating is not a stat that measures individual defense, because it's too dependent on the 4 other players on the floor.

Here are Bullock's last 7 seasons according to Defensive RAPM:

2015-16 -1.02
2016-17 +0.66
2017-18 +0.01
2018-19 -0.8
2019-20 +0.16
2020-21 +0.97
2021-22 +1.21

So by that metric, he did have his best defensive seasons under Thibs and then Kidd.

Mitchell's defense has fallen off a cliff through the years. Is it a sign of his declining commitment and motivation to play in Utah, or of the league changing and further exposing his lack of size? I don't know. To your point, it seems that he has the ability, but not necessarily the willingness to defend.

2017-18 +1.68
2018-19 +1.45
2019-20 -0.62
2020-21 -0.34
2021-22 -0.84

[Jimmit79]

If Ainge trades spida to Miami out of spite wouldn't he get ridiculed for getting less then what he got for gobert..

[Zenzibar]

I'm thinking of both sides.

Both Mitchell-Brunson and Mitchell-Murray are flawed backcourts. I get your point.

But all things considered, I much prefer a Mitchell-Brunson backcourt. Much smarter on offense, more dynamic, with better shooting all around the court.

Yes it would be open to post-ups on the other end, but it's easier to adjust to post-ups (still the most inefficient play in basketball outside of a few match-ups) by crowding the post for instance, or baiting poor post scorers, than it is to run an efficient offense with a ball-dominant 33% 3-point shooter who can't play off the ball.

One of Mitchell's strengths is his pick-and-roll play and Murray would severely hurt our spacing, let alone with some of the other players we have, as teams already aren't afraid to play zone against us even with a combination of Fournier and Kemba/Burks in the backcourt.

Reggie Bullock was a below league average defensive rating (110%) for most of his career but flouirshed under Thibs.

In comparison, Donovan Mitchell DRTG was 111.4 and Reggie 111.8 in 2022.

Chanerd time:

Defensive rating is not a stat that measures individual defense, because it's too dependent on the 4 other players on the floor.

Here are Bullock's last 7 seasons according to Defensive RAPM:

2015-16 -1.02
2016-17 +0.66
2017-18 +0.01
2018-19 -0.8
2019-20 +0.16
2020-21 +0.97
2021-22 +1.21

So by that metric, he did have his best defensive seasons under Thibs and then Kidd.

Mitchell's defense has fallen off a cliff through the years. Is it a sign of his declining commitment and motivation to play in Utah, or of the league changing and further exposing his lack of size? I don't know. To your point, it seems that he has the ability, but not necessarily the willingness to defend.

2017-18 +1.68
2018-19 +1.45
2019-20 -0.62
2020-21 -0.34
2021-22 -0.84

Super interesting pairing Donovan with Thibs' defensive schemes.