Nalod wrote:Jalen Johnson a miss after summer league?
“The benchmark of success is accomplishing your goals”………….

If true then we did not want him. Does that mean it was a mistake? Let’s see in a few years. Until then kicks had him available but declined. Thus, it was not a mistake.
He did not check the boxes for those who decide.
Him leaving duke the reason? Or the reasons he left duke that we are not privvy to the reason. I admire Duke for doing what they did when they did it. This was pre-vax.
I don’t have enough intel but the kid dropped and we not the only ones to skip on him.

We could definitely use depth at the wing and he’s an athletic 6’9” 212lb play making youngster with upside that was sitting there at 19bafter sliding out of the lottery. Mitch dropped out of school to prepare for the draft and we still picked him. Calling an 18 y.o. Is not an issue if they will grow out of it.

Nalod wrote:Jalen Johnson a miss after summer league?
“The benchmark of success is accomplishing your goals”………….

If true then we did not want him. Does that mean it was a mistake? Let’s see in a few years. Until then kicks had him available but declined. Thus, it was not a mistake.
He did not check the boxes for those who decide.
Him leaving duke the reason? Or the reasons he left duke that we are not privvy to the reason. I admire Duke for doing what they did when they did it. This was pre-vax.
I don’t have enough intel but the kid dropped and we not the only ones to skip on him.

Growing concerns about Duke basketball signee Jalen Johnson.

Now that a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity has slipped away for the Duke basketball program’s highest-ranked 2020 prize, worrisome speculation is on the rise.

Five-star small forward Jalen Johnson, who ranks No. 6 overall on the 247Sports 2020 Composite, has not played for any prep team this season. The Duke basketball signee left IMG Academy (Fla.) — his third school in three years — several weeks ago for undisclosed reasons.

Unfortunately, as a result, the 6-foot-8, 215-pound Wisconsin native is now ineligible for the McDonald’s All-American Game at the Toyota Center in Houston on April 1...

smackeddog wrote:This is like getting married and instead of spending time with your beautiful new wife, you spend all day checking out other women you used to like on social media, in case you made a mistake

BRIGGS wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:I really wanted us to take Jalen Johnson. It really sux the Hawks got him. Now if he turns out great it will compound the issue more

They have an advantage in size length and athletic ability. Johnson mightve been a counter for us but we also have a filled roster

The Hawks have an army of long athletic wings. Thats a huge hole on our roster. We don't have a true SF on the team

martin wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:I still don't agree with trading out of the 19th spot in such a strong draft. Now, maybe that extra pick is useful in getting a star here (because we all know chance are good a trade for one is coming)
but if I'm another team, I'd rather take a flyer on the 19th pick from this draft (relatively consensus talent) than one from a regular draft. That said, if it conveys in 23' (or whatever year high schoolers can enter, then all bets are off.) We do probably get that CHA pick in the next 2 drafts imo.

I don't get your logic. Let's assume that Grimes WAS their first player target after the 18th pick happened (it's not 100% certain but we can have a good feel for that).

Why was it bad to trade back and get an extra asset while getting the guy you wanted?

I didn't say trading back was bad. I have no problem with that. And as I said, I loved our draft.

I said trading out of 19 was bad because the talent available there is most likely better than what will be available with the CHA pick. (Barring we luck out and get into the high school draft.)

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

martin wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:I still don't agree with trading out of the 19th spot in such a strong draft. Now, maybe that extra pick is useful in getting a star here (because we all know chance are good a trade for one is coming)
but if I'm another team, I'd rather take a flyer on the 19th pick from this draft (relatively consensus talent) than one from a regular draft. That said, if it conveys in 23' (or whatever year high schoolers can enter, then all bets are off.) We do probably get that CHA pick in the next 2 drafts imo.

I don't get your logic. Let's assume that Grimes WAS their first player target after the 18th pick happened (it's not 100% certain but we can have a good feel for that).

Why was it bad to trade back and get an extra asset while getting the guy you wanted?

I didn't say trading back was bad. I have no problem with that. And as I said, I loved our draft.

I said trading out of 19 was bad because the talent available there is most likely better than what will be available with the CHA pick. (Barring we luck out and get into the high school draft.)

What?

Grimes was the target at 19 for the Knicks.

Grimes > Grimes + future pick?

THE KNICKS GOT AN EXTRA ASSET and the player they wanted at 19. End of story. The rest of your logic just don't stand up

Clean wrote:

martin wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

martin wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:I still don't agree with trading out of the 19th spot in such a strong draft. Now, maybe that extra pick is useful in getting a star here (because we all know chance are good a trade for one is coming)
but if I'm another team, I'd rather take a flyer on the 19th pick from this draft (relatively consensus talent) than one from a regular draft. That said, if it conveys in 23' (or whatever year high schoolers can enter, then all bets are off.) We do probably get that CHA pick in the next 2 drafts imo.

I don't get your logic. Let's assume that Grimes WAS their first player target after the 18th pick happened (it's not 100% certain but we can have a good feel for that).

Why was it bad to trade back and get an extra asset while getting the guy you wanted?

I didn't say trading back was bad. I have no problem with that. And as I said, I loved our draft.

I said trading out of 19 was bad because the talent available there is most likely better than what will be available with the CHA pick. (Barring we luck out and get into the high school draft.)

What?

Grimes was the target at 19 for the Knicks.

Grimes > Grimes + future pick?

THE KNICKS GOT AN EXTRA ASSET and the player they wanted at 19. End of story. The rest of your logic just don't stand up

I never understand why this is so hard for people to understand. They drafted the players they wanted and knew they would still be there if they traded back. So they did just that to gain more assets while getting the same players they would have if they kept 19/21. While you might have wanted to draft Jalen or Keon that was never happening because the Knicks did not want those players.

How they would have drafted incase of no trade
19 - Grimes
21 - McBride
32 - Rokas
58 - Sims

They did trade because of trade
25 - Grimes
34 - Rokas
36 - McBride
58 - Sims
- Future 1st
- Future 2nd
- Grimes and McBride signed to smaller deals since they were drafted later thus freeing up more cap space that was used to sign Kemba.

How can anyone say that is anything but good?

martin wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

martin wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:I still don't agree with trading out of the 19th spot in such a strong draft. Now, maybe that extra pick is useful in getting a star here (because we all know chance are good a trade for one is coming)
but if I'm another team, I'd rather take a flyer on the 19th pick from this draft (relatively consensus talent) than one from a regular draft. That said, if it conveys in 23' (or whatever year high schoolers can enter, then all bets are off.) We do probably get that CHA pick in the next 2 drafts imo.

I don't get your logic. Let's assume that Grimes WAS their first player target after the 18th pick happened (it's not 100% certain but we can have a good feel for that).

Why was it bad to trade back and get an extra asset while getting the guy you wanted?

I didn't say trading back was bad. I have no problem with that. And as I said, I loved our draft.

I said trading out of 19 was bad because the talent available there is most likely better than what will be available with the CHA pick. (Barring we luck out and get into the high school draft.)

What?

Grimes was the target at 19 for the Knicks.

Grimes > Grimes + future pick?

THE KNICKS GOT AN EXTRA ASSET and the player they wanted at 19. End of story. The rest of your logic just don't stand up

Grimes wasn't the target at 19, it was Murphy or Mann, judging from reports. If Grimes was the target, do you pass on your target?

My problem is a HEAVILY protected future pick is less valuable than #19 from this draft, strongest draft in last 10 years.
We sold ourselves short and most definitely could have gotten a better pick from another team, but probably they were caught off guard.

Regardless, just bookmark this and let's see how it plays out over the coming years. Looking at other forums, it is clear many fans agree with me.
But it's just a game, no big deal for me.

Who here would trade out of the strongest draft in the last 10 years for a heavily protected future pick, maybe even 2 2nd's?

KnickDanger wrote:I think what we're sort of skirting over is that our FO has a vision, a plan, a formula. Based on philosophy, scouting, the cap. We look at the outcome, or what might of been the outcome, and see it as see it as something set in stone, whereas in reality I am guessing it is a flowing process based on the above. So and so is gone so we go to plan B. Or C etc. Maybe if Johnson were available at #58 we would have taken him, who knows? I'm guessing they had their good reasons to pass on him. I am tickled to have an FO with these qualities -- not like it used to be, eh? And I am certainly going to trust them over clickbait pundits or ADD posters who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.

YES

It's clear they have a type of player they want. And then they do their background checks. They want workers, zero drama, zero distractions. It's the reason they hired guys like Wes and Alex Kline and Zanin and Perrin and Johnnie Bryant.

No way they were taking Johnson with his history.