jskinny35 wrote:Justifying trading MRob by referencing a poor decision from the past (pre-NBA) seems a little much. He hasn't shown poor body language, been a locker room distraction or struggled with effort since he joined the NBA/Knicks. He's probably our best valued Knick with such an affordable contract. Yes, everyone can be traded - but why would you consider trading our cheapest talent and our #8 draft pick to move up and select an unproven player that could possibly replace (and maybe exceed him) at the center position? Nobody is suggesting he's a consensus #1 pick or transformational talent anyway. Even Briggs has him top 3 :)

You really think the odds are that everyone else thinks he's a good (but not great) potential player, and the Warriors (smart team) would rather trade the opportunity to draft him to get Mitch and a lower pick instead? This is not withstanding that Mitch seems solid enough and we have holes at pretty much every other position?

As a fan of the game, if you want to say some elements of how players are evaluated for contracts is unfair ( three point percentage is one that's sort of controversial with half court shots at the end of a quarter ), then I would agree with you. I see your point and it's logical, but I'm also telling you that this is how it works.

To be fair, I am only pointing out where I feel Hollinger is going with this.

Let me give some context. During the labor war just after The Decision, owners were upset about guys like Eddy Curry and Baron Davis and Erick Dampier, guys who just stopped giving a ****. Derek Fisher, who was the lead rep for the players in the NBPA, said it was on owners and the front offices to properly vet players and make sure the player was worth the contract. Part of the issue on the table was a hard cap and widespread use of non guaranteed contracts, which comes up in every labor discussion. Fisher took the position, and he had no choice really, that non guaranteed deals would hurt play on the court because players would only play for their own stats and not give a **** about the team or winning. ( It's pretty hollow, but he was stuck in a corner on that one) Fisher then said it's not our job ( the players) to do your job (the front office/the owners) So the owners said OK, but remember those words. You are saying you want us to do a better job of investigating the players as to their worth/fitness for a big contract. Now front office dig into everything. The players trash. His old teammates. His old girlfriends. His old neighbors. His classmates. They break into their email accounts, their social media accounts, their bank accounts, their family medical history. Whereas previous eras had some limits, now there are no rules. Agents are told to "Blame Fisher" and investigators basically take a hand, put on a glove, make a fist, then shove it up the players' poop chutes. In this day and age, you just can't hide.

No matter what is said in public, MRob didn't proceed through the Combine because there were questions he couldn't reasonably answer. Lying ( and teams knew anyway) would only hurt him. Telling the truth would only hurt him. ( In part because there are things you shouldn't do and in part because if you do things you shouldn't do and people can find out, it's a soft IQ test, teams want players who are smart enough to keep their dirt hidden)

Shane Battier was smart in that, while he was talented, he wasn't so talented that he had a massive margin for error to do knucklehead **** and get caught.

As for the Warriors and Wiseman ( that seem what you are alluding to there), as stated some replies above, the Warriors are in a win now situation. Wiseman is very raw and he creates a larger tax problem. They would be OK with the tax problem if he could help immediately, but he doesn't profile that way. Even if they were very high on Wiseman, the Warriors are in situation where if MRob could help them win one ring in the next two seasons, even if they lost him for nothing, that would be worth it to them. The Warriors can afford to and their situation is such where they can move for fit/need over Best Player Available.

I also think it's fair to say that Knicks fans have suffered so long, that MRob and his potential flaws/trade offs might get overlooked at times.

If the Knicks traded up, it would be for LaMelo Ball. The question becomes is LaMelo Ball's floor better than MRob's projected ceiling when you look at positional value and league trends?

Even if the Knicks keep MRob, which they probably will, it's due diligence for Brock Aller to run the numbers on it.

The old adage is if both sides of a trade aren't quite sure if they won the trade and still feel conflicted, then it's probably a fair trade. Hollinger might technically be wrong, but it doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.