EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:TheGame wrote:VDesai wrote:All things considered, the price was reasonable. Per ESPN's Bobby Marks, the Hornets' first-rounder will be top-18 protected next year, top-16 protected in 2023 and then lottery-protected in 2024 and 2025 before converting into a pair of future second-rounders if not conveyed by that point. So the highest this pick can be (No. 15) is just four spots better -- not much compared to the usual premium teams pay when trading future picks for current ones.
I probably would have pushed for it to be only top-16 protected first year, top-10 protected in second year and then top-7 protected. The Hornets are on the rise but they have been on the rise before and fallen flat. There is a decent chance we only get two second round picks out of this. Jones was a very good prospect. He needs 2-3 years, but in 3 years the kid could a better shooting Mitch.
My problem is this was a DEEP draft. By all accounts one that happens once every 10 years or so (but time will tell.)
You don't sell low on that. You get a premium.
That said, I'm very happy with getting two of our apparent targets in Grimes and Mcbride.
It is pretty clear that Thibs wasn't (and isn't) going to play any young guys much and he wanted 2 way players for the most part.
We have SO MUCH cap space, I would have preferred rolling the dice in a deep draft on a high upside guy, much like the Spurs did at 12 with Primo.
Again, that said, let's see what happens but with trades and what not. If not much,... then we've done it again by blowing a good pick. It will be years before we get another draft this good imo.
You know we are all gonna be watching those guys selected at 19 to 24 or so.
Canitgetanyworse? We'll see...
If Kai Jones, Keon Johnsom, Jalen Johnson become stars, you still have to wonder whether that would have happened in NY. Would Jalen Johnson have the mental fortitude to handle NY? Just because a player does well doesn't mean they would have done well here. Would Knox have been better in Orlando? Probably. I think the Knicks picked tough players with strong mentality.
You bring up a very fair point - Can these guys play in N.Y.? It is always something to consider.
But do you really think the lotto talent sitting (potentially) at picks 19-23 all couldn't? It just seems like we didn't prepare for this (judging by the return on pick 19.) Seems like a last minute thing.
Re Knox, I like the kid. He is a great shooter imo but can't do a whole lot else. Never crossed my mind that he couldn't play defense or drive and score regularly because of N.Y. (LOL /jk)
Like I said, I'm happy with our picks, but letting 19 go like that (in this very strong draft) is inexcusable (unless of course we need every bit of the cap space but that would mean deals are done.) You don't hope on that and relatively
speaking we have a whole lot of cap space, so do you let 19 go so easily over around 2 million in salary when we have so much projected cap space? Doesn't make sense to me (barring deals already arranged.)
Projection for 2021-22 ($112,414,000 cap): Up to $70.2 million in cap space, $52.7 million with Julius Randle’s partially-guaranteed $19.8 million.
I'm not giving the team a pass on #19 because of doing well with our other picks.
Who did you love at 19 that is unforgivable to pass on? I assumed we were getting one of Duarte or Trey Murphy. I’d guess Grimes was third on our board for that role. I liked the possibility of Keon Johnson and his insane vertical. But his fundamentals are deeply flawed.
No one loves when you get a push except when it looks like you are going to lose the hand. We lost out on Murphy and Duarte. Better luck next year.
Knicks may not have gotten the best draws here, but they did pretty damn well with what they had and made some pretty solid moves to create asset value while getting the players at the range that they valued them.
People bitched about Quickley being picked too early. Unclear where Toppin ends up in the grand scheme. Gotta give these moves a chance based solely on track record.
I wasn't set on any one guy at 19 that was there. I was with the board for the most part and wanted guys already taken.
My point is that any of the guys taken at 19-23 have higher value in the next few drafts (barring another historical draft.)
You DON'T trade out of strength (unless again, that they have deals on the table and need the space, but I 99% doubt that is true.
You don't equate a top 18 protection next year on a player from this year taken at 19-23; Because most likely a player worthy of 19-23 this year would be quite easily top 10 next year (or the years after.)
You just don't trade at 1:1 for a player taken from a historically rich draft class. You don't trade out of that for less value. You grab the player and develop them (at least as an asset.)
You can put them in the G league on display at the very least.
In closing, I think top 10 protection AT THE MAX would have been reasonable. And if the draft this year was weak, then sure, give them top 18 protection or close.
So, the value to us this year was established by the time our turn on the clock arrived. The Knicks FO knew at that moment that they preferred a future pick to what they saw available after predicting where they could still get the players they wanted. You cannot insinuate further value this year as a class than our opportunities at that moment regardless of how good this class is. Those 5 picks from 19-24 are really your only argument over Grimes -- if you thought one of them would have been better than the optionality and uncertainty of a future draft pick.
Will Kai Jones at the trade deadline have more value than the Charlotte pick in a proposed trade for Zach Lavine? How can you know? The trade created optionality where the present pick had limited value to us where the FO had a plan in place for the remaining players. We drafted 4 players and signed a Euroleague played (Vildoza), 3 of which will be vying for roster spots for certain. What is the marginal benefit of one more regardless how stacked the class is?
The stacked class argument also must fail. If this pick turns into #17 in the 2023 draft, you could be entirely wrong about the strength of the class. Drafting a 6th rookie for this team this year is not guaranteed to be better value than a 2nd 1st round pick in one of 2022-2025.
The only way I can understand that objection is if there is a specific player you wanted that is better than the picks the FO wanted (e.g. guys who wanted Sharife Cooper, Usman Garuba, Keon Johnson, Jalen Johnson).
I could have seen Usman Garuba, but after seeing what the FO picked, it was clear they had their board well understood as to placement and value.
I probably would have gotten a better backup for Mitch at 19 (instead of who we got at 58.) Perhaps Isaiah Jackson. But regardless, it seems like management got low return on our pick. Didn't another team not far under us trade their first for two protected firsts? I forget the team and when I heard that I thought - bad deal as I thought we had no protection on the pick from CHA.
We are going to find out in due time how this trade goes down. I'm happy with the rest of our draft and I am not going to conflate the two. You seem to be doing that, at least you are bringing the other picks up. I only have a problem with trading 19 in a historically strong draft for something that most likely has less value. Looking at others reactions (e.g. Youtube, other forums) I am not alone in thinking it was a bad trade, or at the very least we sold ourselves short. But again, I'm quite happy with the rest of the draft, in particular Grimes and McBride.
But there is still hope, as Martin posted. CHA might have to lower the protections if they want to trade a first.
Not to be right or wrong as I don't care, but I'll bookmark this topic of the trade for 19 as many of us will. I'm curious how it turns out.
7/30/2021 2:35 PM