The Knicks’ trade deadline buzz has yet to pick up much, with a only few vague stories popping up here and there about their desire to move one of their glut of centers. But Marc Berman did provide fans with an interesting little tidbit Sunday: The front office has inquired about a certain forward from a certain team in Brooklyn.

One NBA source said the Knicks inquired about the Nets’ 23-year-old defensive forward Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, but Brooklyn asked for a first-rounder. That the Knicks’ pick is looking more like a lottery selection makes it virtually untouchable.

Ah, now this is the stuff. I’d much rather hear about guys Steve Mills and Scott Perry are interested in acquiring than guys they’d like to move (They wanna trade Joakim Noah? FOR REALZ?).

Hollis-Jefferson is more than just a defensive wizard—he’s averaging 14.3 points per game on 47.2% shooting. Unfortunately (or fortunately, since he remains a Net) he has yet to learn to shoot from beyond the arc, posting a 27.9 3P% in Kenny Atkinson’s three-happy offense. The Knicks already have spacing problems as it is.

Obviously any request for a first-round pick is a non-starter, but we’re getting a glimpse of what the Knicks’ front office is prioritizing at the trade deadline: namely, defense and athleticism.

He averages 18-8-3-1 per 36mins. Main flaw is 3 pt shot. But if he ever is able to get that down which is possible as we have seen many players do so over the years. He is the type of F this team really needs.

Proven skill set now as well as possible potential with a developed 3pt shot, only 23 (long term core member).
VS
Possible lotto pick with high possible potential for stardom.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knixkik wrote:He would be worth a highly protected first round pick. We can't get rid of this year's pick, but a future lottery protected pick wouldn't be the worst thing for an established starter under the age of 25.

Are there Nets selling? I would do that trade, as long as it's heavily protected, top 12?

I doubt they will trade him. I would be just as happy going after Kidd-Gilchrist, who is a similar player and similar age but won't cost as much.

VCoug wrote:If we trade our 1st for Hollis-Jefferson when I wanted to draft him with our Jerian Grant pick I'd be pretty pissed off. At a minimum, the pick would have to have several years worth of protection.

I think Stanley Johnson could be have without giving up a pick. However RHJ is the same trade with likely a better player coming back. I want to get a multi positional defender in here between Frank and KP. RHJ certainly accomplishes that. A pick is fine... doesnt have to be ours. We could get a #1 back in a KOQ deal and use that for RHJ. We could use the Bulls pick and another player to move up as well.

A think a late #1 for RHJ is fine, I dont think it has to be ours though.. I think we have options to get this done. He's got a team option next year for cheap which makes him even more attractive IMO

fishmike wrote:

VCoug wrote:If we trade our 1st for Hollis-Jefferson when I wanted to draft him with our Jerian Grant pick I'd be pretty pissed off. At a minimum, the pick would have to have several years worth of protection.

whats the difference? Get the guys and pieces you need. Did we have the same needs then? Its new management anyway (again).

I think Stanley Johnson could be have without giving up a pick. However RHJ is the same trade with likely a better player coming back. I want to get a multi positional defender in here between Frank and KP. RHJ certainly accomplishes that. A pick is fine... doesnt have to be ours. We could get a #1 back in a KOQ deal and use that for RHJ. We could use the Bulls pick and another player to move up as well.

A think a late #1 for RHJ is fine, I dont think it has to be ours though.. I think we have options to get this done. He's got a team option next year for cheap which makes him even more attractive IMO

It's about asset allocation. To have wasted one asset on a player eventually traded for Derrick Rose and then using another asset to get the player we should have gotten originally is a bad use of resources.

VCoug wrote:

fishmike wrote:

VCoug wrote:If we trade our 1st for Hollis-Jefferson when I wanted to draft him with our Jerian Grant pick I'd be pretty pissed off. At a minimum, the pick would have to have several years worth of protection.

whats the difference? Get the guys and pieces you need. Did we have the same needs then? Its new management anyway (again).

I think Stanley Johnson could be have without giving up a pick. However RHJ is the same trade with likely a better player coming back. I want to get a multi positional defender in here between Frank and KP. RHJ certainly accomplishes that. A pick is fine... doesnt have to be ours. We could get a #1 back in a KOQ deal and use that for RHJ. We could use the Bulls pick and another player to move up as well.

A think a late #1 for RHJ is fine, I dont think it has to be ours though.. I think we have options to get this done. He's got a team option next year for cheap which makes him even more attractive IMO

It's about asset allocation. To have wasted one asset on a player eventually traded for Derrick Rose and then using another asset to get the player we should have gotten originally is a bad use of resources.

Don't let sunk costs factor into future moves. Can't change the past but that shouldn't play into future decisions with the type of rationale you just posted.

meloshouldgo wrote:

VCoug wrote:

fishmike wrote:

VCoug wrote:If we trade our 1st for Hollis-Jefferson when I wanted to draft him with our Jerian Grant pick I'd be pretty pissed off. At a minimum, the pick would have to have several years worth of protection.

whats the difference? Get the guys and pieces you need. Did we have the same needs then? Its new management anyway (again).

I think Stanley Johnson could be have without giving up a pick. However RHJ is the same trade with likely a better player coming back. I want to get a multi positional defender in here between Frank and KP. RHJ certainly accomplishes that. A pick is fine... doesnt have to be ours. We could get a #1 back in a KOQ deal and use that for RHJ. We could use the Bulls pick and another player to move up as well.

A think a late #1 for RHJ is fine, I dont think it has to be ours though.. I think we have options to get this done. He's got a team option next year for cheap which makes him even more attractive IMO

It's about asset allocation. To have wasted one asset on a player eventually traded for Derrick Rose and then using another asset to get the player we should have gotten originally is a bad use of resources.

Don't let sunk costs factor into future moves. Can't change the past but that shouldn't play into future decisions with the type of rationale you just posted.

Oh, I know. It would just annoy the **** out of me.