Nalod wrote:Fascinating 13 apiece thus far. Was not expecting this.

What were you expecting?

Another worthy poll question:
If you could get Durant for the exact same package as Mitchell, would that be more appealing?

The main downside of a Mitchell is that he's undersized for the position he's best at. Plus we like to argue he's not even a generational talent.

Those criticisms go away with KD. He's taller and longer than the typical competition at any position he plays. He slots in at a position of relative weakness. He can legit play 3-5. And he's about as great a shooter AND scorer as the league has ever seen.
His main downside is that he's relatively old - and with that, a little more fragile/prone to injury.

ramtour420 wrote:One concept that I think has not been brought up is the new rule change on intentional fouls to stop fast breaks. How much more valuable players are going to be who can take advantage of playing a very past pace. Fast break based offences are going to be even stronger now. Defensive schemes will have to adjust. Obi comes to mind as does Brunson and RJ. Is Donovan Mitchell good on the fast break?

That rule is such a major change to the game and I think everyone is underestimating it.

wargames wrote:I don’t like that Brunson/Mitchell Backcourt. How is that suppose to survive the playoffs?

Doncic and Brunson weren’t that much better defensively and they survived with guys around them all the way to WC finals.

You make it work in other ways.

martin wrote:

wargames wrote:I don’t like that Brunson/Mitchell Backcourt. How is that suppose to survive the playoffs?

Doncic and Brunson weren’t that much better defensively and they survived with guys around them all the way to WC finals.

You make it work in other ways.

Yeah but Luka Doncic is in my opinion a future MVP. I think it’s really saying a lot that Brunson toasted Mitchell when Mitchell’s partner was Conley who in my opinion is the player that Brunson closest resembles. I actually like our Bigs more than Rudy because they can switch to the perimeter and hold their own, but still…

I just don’t like it.

I have a theory that if Ainge had announced that he was willing to trade Mitchell before FA, the Knicks would have traded for him and tried to use that Brunson cap space for someone else. It’s just not a good fit with this roster. Brunson was brought in to work with Randle and RJ now they are trying to bring in another ball dominant player like Mitchell.

This is like Amare/Melo when the Knicks got Amare and he and the team they had were playing really well and then they traded for Melo the better player, but the fit was NEVER good.

Everything about trading for Mitchell screams Melo 2.0 where there are a lot of basketball reasons that he isn’t a good fit for this roster. It’s going to take time to fix the roster after trading for him and that’s not accounting for the assets the Knicks have to give up for him to even make the deal.

EwingsGlass wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:It’s pretty telling the vote is not well received
You give up to much and u remove the team hedge against collapse for atleast half a decade.
We got a much better player Carmelo for less than what has been thrown out and the bottom line w that trade is big failure. There’s too much risk w the unknowns here to go all in on an undersized player who takes a ton of shots AFTER getting Brunson. How many basketballs are there? If I paid a mighty price for Kevin Durant. Ok. Even though he’s a diva. I’d pay up. But Mitchell????? When we already have Brunson?

Objectively, why would you argue Melo was a much better player than Mitchell? The issue with Melo was that he was to be a free agent in 5 months when we paid a kings ransom for him. I don’t know how much people were really looking at advanced metrics at that time but he was coming to play at a time when he really belonged in a PF slot in a SSOL offense but remained as SF due to Amare.

Mitchell would also be coming here playing out of position, I think he belongs in the PG slot, but his relationship to Johnny Bryant (heir apparent to the coaching position) is what I am really getting. Bryant has Mitchell. I think that leadership transition is obvious and I would basically build my future team around him, knowing we need to gather more pieces. Maybe Barrett takes that step to be that next piece. Maybe Toppin shows his Amare-like attributes. But I want to clear out the one way players. You need to play defense and have a high eFG in my plan. Not every player meets that criteria. Mitchell even has his criticisms. But I’d rather see the below team then retread Randle/Fournier again.

Brunson
Mitchell
Barrett
Toppin
Robinson/Hart

This squad works for me. And I believe in Johnny Bryant long term.

On the same page with Briggsy here. Despite those who trash him (and I am not a big fan) Carmelo Anthony in his prime was a notch above Donovan Mitchell (a "notch" I said). Essentially their game was/is about scoring. Carmelo the better rebounder and averaged a couple more points a game, Mitchell the better disher. My opinion is based on reputation somewhat and who I believe can more take over a game. But even if we say they are entirely equal, the ideas of trades floating around completely remind me of what we gave up for Anthony. Some good young players, a useful vet or two, and a bunch of firsts. Carmelo Anthony brought the Knicks instant relevance and respectability, but in the long run we were strapped of assets for someone who couldn't put us over the top. Don't do it.

KnickDanger wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:It’s pretty telling the vote is not well received
You give up to much and u remove the team hedge against collapse for atleast half a decade.
We got a much better player Carmelo for less than what has been thrown out and the bottom line w that trade is big failure. There’s too much risk w the unknowns here to go all in on an undersized player who takes a ton of shots AFTER getting Brunson. How many basketballs are there? If I paid a mighty price for Kevin Durant. Ok. Even though he’s a diva. I’d pay up. But Mitchell????? When we already have Brunson?

Objectively, why would you argue Melo was a much better player than Mitchell? The issue with Melo was that he was to be a free agent in 5 months when we paid a kings ransom for him. I don’t know how much people were really looking at advanced metrics at that time but he was coming to play at a time when he really belonged in a PF slot in a SSOL offense but remained as SF due to Amare.

Mitchell would also be coming here playing out of position, I think he belongs in the PG slot, but his relationship to Johnny Bryant (heir apparent to the coaching position) is what I am really getting. Bryant has Mitchell. I think that leadership transition is obvious and I would basically build my future team around him, knowing we need to gather more pieces. Maybe Barrett takes that step to be that next piece. Maybe Toppin shows his Amare-like attributes. But I want to clear out the one way players. You need to play defense and have a high eFG in my plan. Not every player meets that criteria. Mitchell even has his criticisms. But I’d rather see the below team then retread Randle/Fournier again.

Brunson
Mitchell
Barrett
Toppin
Robinson/Hart

This squad works for me. And I believe in Johnny Bryant long term.

On the same page with Briggsy here. Despite those who trash him (and I am not a big fan) Carmelo Anthony in his prime was a notch above Donovan Mitchell (a "notch" I said). Essentially their game was/is about scoring. Carmelo the better rebounder and averaged a couple more points a game, Mitchell the better disher. My opinion is based on reputation somewhat and who I believe can more take over a game. But even if we say they are entirely equal, the ideas of trades floating around completely remind me of what we gave up for Anthony. Some good young players, a useful vet or two, and a bunch of firsts. Carmelo Anthony brought the Knicks instant relevance and respectability, but in the long run we were strapped of assets for someone who couldn't put us over the top. Don't do it.

Comparing Mitchell to Melo is asinine and this is a terrible take.

Melo improved the Nuggets the minute he stepped on the court for the Nuggets (check the stats). ALL THOSE AMAZING PLAYERS that the Knicks traded for Anthony amounted to jack sh1t. Gallanari has had a decent career has a role player in the NBA but that was about it. Would the Knicks have been much better WITH Wilson Chandler and Gallanari playing along side Melo? Hell yeah, but the Knicks became a better team after that trade was made. Where the Knicks messed up (and its been brought up time and time again on this board) were the moves they made AFTER that trade.

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:25 year old proven star with no injury history that grew up local. How can you not want him ? This is what you deal picks for. Those picks have a 99.9% chance of never turning into a Mitchell level player.

Outside of the 4 concussions he has had

Yes I guess that has to count. I am just thinking more so in terms of games missed.

Swishfm3 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:It’s pretty telling the vote is not well received
You give up to much and u remove the team hedge against collapse for atleast half a decade.
We got a much better player Carmelo for less than what has been thrown out and the bottom line w that trade is big failure. There’s too much risk w the unknowns here to go all in on an undersized player who takes a ton of shots AFTER getting Brunson. How many basketballs are there? If I paid a mighty price for Kevin Durant. Ok. Even though he’s a diva. I’d pay up. But Mitchell????? When we already have Brunson?

Objectively, why would you argue Melo was a much better player than Mitchell? The issue with Melo was that he was to be a free agent in 5 months when we paid a kings ransom for him. I don’t know how much people were really looking at advanced metrics at that time but he was coming to play at a time when he really belonged in a PF slot in a SSOL offense but remained as SF due to Amare.

Mitchell would also be coming here playing out of position, I think he belongs in the PG slot, but his relationship to Johnny Bryant (heir apparent to the coaching position) is what I am really getting. Bryant has Mitchell. I think that leadership transition is obvious and I would basically build my future team around him, knowing we need to gather more pieces. Maybe Barrett takes that step to be that next piece. Maybe Toppin shows his Amare-like attributes. But I want to clear out the one way players. You need to play defense and have a high eFG in my plan. Not every player meets that criteria. Mitchell even has his criticisms. But I’d rather see the below team then retread Randle/Fournier again.

Brunson
Mitchell
Barrett
Toppin
Robinson/Hart

This squad works for me. And I believe in Johnny Bryant long term.

On the same page with Briggsy here. Despite those who trash him (and I am not a big fan) Carmelo Anthony in his prime was a notch above Donovan Mitchell (a "notch" I said). Essentially their game was/is about scoring. Carmelo the better rebounder and averaged a couple more points a game, Mitchell the better disher. My opinion is based on reputation somewhat and who I believe can more take over a game. But even if we say they are entirely equal, the ideas of trades floating around completely remind me of what we gave up for Anthony. Some good young players, a useful vet or two, and a bunch of firsts. Carmelo Anthony brought the Knicks instant relevance and respectability, but in the long run we were strapped of assets for someone who couldn't put us over the top. Don't do it.

Comparing Mitchell to Melo is asinine and this is a terrible take.

Melo improved the Nuggets the minute he stepped on the court for the Nuggets (check the stats). ALL THOSE AMAZING PLAYERS that the Knicks traded for Anthony amounted to jack sh1t. Gallanari has had a decent career has a role player in the NBA but that was about it. Would the Knicks have been much better WITH Wilson Chandler and Gallanari playing along side Melo? Hell yeah, but the Knicks became a better team after that trade was made. Where the Knicks messed up (and its been brought up time and time again on this board) were the moves they made AFTER that trade.

Also no one seems to mention that Jamaal Murray was picked by the Nuggets in a pick swap from that trade.