newyorknewyork wrote:

Uptown wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Uptown wrote:Trae Young is the best scorer in this draft....If he is there at 9 (highly doubt he will be) you have to take him....Most teams do not have 5 all NBA Defensive players in their starting lineup nor does every team have 5 2-way players...There is usually 1-2 weak links that's why you teach and play team defense where everyone is moving on a string...With that said, if Trae is here, its up to the front office to add more 2-way players to the roster to play next to him...We are far from a playoff team, let alone championship contender. One piece at a time.

If Trae falls to 9, is there another player who will still be around that the opposing team would have to game plan for?

Trae Young is just as good as passer as Lonzo Ball but he can shoot it--he will have no trouble adapting to the nba line because thats actually steps in for him. Trae Young can make other players better and hes quick like Tony Parker. He wont have 2-3 guys shading him in the NBA--go look at his highlights playing with Porter Aayton etc.. pre college in the big all star games. Im willing to invest pick 9 in Trae young without question.

Uptown/Briggs - The problem is that while we know that Young won't be a defensive stud and may need coverage there. There are still questions about his offensive game being able to translate at an efficiency level necessary to cover weaknesses. You have to look at worst case scenario. Which is he is inefficient offensively, a minus defensively, and doesn't have the build to stay durable. These are legit question marks. You guys are ready to just pencil him in as a offensive superstar. Is that really a forgone conclusion?

Or are you saying just the possibility that he can become an offensive stud overrides everything else?

I get all of the negatives...and that's why he falls out of the top 3...But at 9, IMO, he would be a good valued pick...Also, I saw a good number of his games and some of his inefficient numbers are a bit misleading.

Not concerned about his efficiency when Young's coach gave him the green light to carry the offense. Had too much on his plate to be asked to do it efficiently. Was bound to be some ugly moments, and its reflected in those numbers.

Not a good enough reason IMO to pass on him. Unless. you're convinced Trae will never get better at defense, or protecting the rock. Not in that camp.

Agreed....I mentioned in another thread that the Kruger has to take some of the blame for Trae Youngs struggles...Cant pass on this type of talent if he is there at 9...

I don't think you can draft Young believing he will ever a plus on defense. If he is it would be a pleasant surprise, but I wouldn't draft him banking on that. If I were to draft him it would be banking on him being an offensive dynamo that can shoot like Curry and pass like Nash. Or at least somewhere around their skill levels.

When I see his 37% usage and the 19 shots per game. 2 trains of thought run through my head. #1 that he was overworked and that may have lead to the drop in efficiency as Gusta has stated. #2 Is it necessary for him to have that level of usage and volume in order to maximize him in the first place?

I dont believe we should pass on a talent like Young because he didnt manage to be a defensive stopper (as a freshman) while leading the NCAA in pts and assists.
Thats not a good reason to pass on him at 9.

A better prospect would be, but we dont know who will be available at 9, until tomorrow.

GustavBahler wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Uptown wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Uptown wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Uptown wrote:Trae Young is the best scorer in this draft....If he is there at 9 (highly doubt he will be) you have to take him....Most teams do not have 5 all NBA Defensive players in their starting lineup nor does every team have 5 2-way players...There is usually 1-2 weak links that's why you teach and play team defense where everyone is moving on a string...With that said, if Trae is here, its up to the front office to add more 2-way players to the roster to play next to him...We are far from a playoff team, let alone championship contender. One piece at a time.

If Trae falls to 9, is there another player who will still be around that the opposing team would have to game plan for?

Trae Young is just as good as passer as Lonzo Ball but he can shoot it--he will have no trouble adapting to the nba line because thats actually steps in for him. Trae Young can make other players better and hes quick like Tony Parker. He wont have 2-3 guys shading him in the NBA--go look at his highlights playing with Porter Aayton etc.. pre college in the big all star games. Im willing to invest pick 9 in Trae young without question.

Uptown/Briggs - The problem is that while we know that Young won't be a defensive stud and may need coverage there. There are still questions about his offensive game being able to translate at an efficiency level necessary to cover weaknesses. You have to look at worst case scenario. Which is he is inefficient offensively, a minus defensively, and doesn't have the build to stay durable. These are legit question marks. You guys are ready to just pencil him in as a offensive superstar. Is that really a forgone conclusion?

Or are you saying just the possibility that he can become an offensive stud overrides everything else?

I get all of the negatives...and that's why he falls out of the top 3...But at 9, IMO, he would be a good valued pick...Also, I saw a good number of his games and some of his inefficient numbers are a bit misleading.

Not concerned about his efficiency when Young's coach gave him the green light to carry the offense. Had too much on his plate to be asked to do it efficiently. Was bound to be some ugly moments, and its reflected in those numbers.

Not a good enough reason IMO to pass on him. Unless. you're convinced Trae will never get better at defense, or protecting the rock. Not in that camp.

Agreed....I mentioned in another thread that the Kruger has to take some of the blame for Trae Youngs struggles...Cant pass on this type of talent if he is there at 9...

I don't think you can draft Young believing he will ever a plus on defense. If he is it would be a pleasant surprise, but I wouldn't draft him banking on that. If I were to draft him it would be banking on him being an offensive dynamo that can shoot like Curry and pass like Nash. Or at least somewhere around their skill levels.

When I see his 37% usage and the 19 shots per game. 2 trains of thought run through my head. #1 that he was overworked and that may have lead to the drop in efficiency as Gusta has stated. #2 Is it necessary for him to have that level of usage and volume in order to maximize him in the first place?

I dont believe we should pass on a talent like Young because he didnt manage to be a defensive stopper (as a freshman) while leading the NCAA in pts and assists.
Thats not a good reason to pass on him at 9.

A better prospect would be, but we dont know who will be available at 9, until tomorrow.

while I agree with what you're saying, I also agree with newyork… I think a big part of the appeal to Trae is that he always had the greenlight. Ten+ turnovers? eff it, shoot another three!! I've never seen a college player always be able to do whatever he wants to do. I saw nothing that led me to believe that he could get those points and those assists within a legitimate system. The knock on Young is basically the same knock on DSJ but times 23254325346356

Markji wrote:Trae Young won't be available at #9. If he is, then we take him.

But since Trae won't be available, then we take a SF, IMHO. 3 pretty good ones are available. Both Bridges and Knox.
My choice is Mikal Bridges. Excellent D; Excellent team/help D; Great energy and work ethic; OH! and Mikal shot 43.5% from 3. That is way higher than Young (36%) or anyone else touted to be a lottery pick.

Bridges could come in on day one and make an impact. But I don't see anyway he ends up being vastly better to THJ or Courtney Lee... and we don't need depth, we need talent

SupremeCommander wrote:

Markji wrote:Trae Young won't be available at #9. If he is, then we take him.

But since Trae won't be available, then we take a SF, IMHO. 3 pretty good ones are available. Both Bridges and Knox.
My choice is Mikal Bridges. Excellent D; Excellent team/help D; Great energy and work ethic; OH! and Mikal shot 43.5% from 3. That is way higher than Young (36%) or anyone else touted to be a lottery pick.

Bridges could come in on day one and make an impact. But I don't see anyway he ends up being vastly better to THJ or Courtney Lee... and we don't need depth, we need talent

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/KnickFilmSchool/status/1009465867829202946

Man I’d have a hard time passing on either of those two esp MPJR

fitzfarm wrote:

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/KnickFilmSchool/status/1009465867829202946

Man I’d have a hard time passing on either of those two esp MPJR

Horford may not be a star, but Carter looks a lot like him doesnt he? And Horford is a hugely valuable player. He proves it year after year.

95% sure we wont touch Young as he makes no sense for this roster or coach or league

fishmike wrote:

fitzfarm wrote:

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/KnickFilmSchool/status/1009465867829202946

Man I’d have a hard time passing on either of those two esp MPJR

Not me. I wouldnt touch either. Porter would be great to take a flier on, but I need a rotation/building block player here and there should be a few on the board for sure. I hate everything about Young, no way we take him.

Horford may not be a star, but Carter looks a lot like him doesnt he? And Horford is a hugely valuable player. He proves it year after year.

95% sure we wont touch Young as he makes no sense for this roster or coach or league

How can you say that about a guy who is compared to the best guard in the league in Steph Curry, also if MPJR is medically cleared he’s clearly the best talent in the draft.

The steal is Knox he has Durant/pg13 written all over him. He is going to be the Donovan Mitchell of this draft.

1. MPJR if medical is approved
2. Young doubt he drops to us
3. Knox without a doubt the steal of the draft.

I like WCJR too but KP is our future Center esp after this knee injury I don’t want to see him guarding little 4s

Markji wrote:

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Markji wrote:Trae Young won't be available at #9. If he is, then we take him.

But since Trae won't be available, then we take a SF, IMHO. 3 pretty good ones are available. Both Bridges and Knox.
My choice is Mikal Bridges. Excellent D; Excellent team/help D; Great energy and work ethic; OH! and Mikal shot 43.5% from 3. That is way higher than Young (36%) or anyone else touted to be a lottery pick.

Bridges could come in on day one and make an impact. But I don't see anyway he ends up being vastly better to THJ or Courtney Lee... and we don't need depth, we need talent

Defensively, Mikal is much better than THJ. Maybe not better than Courtney Lee but Lee will be 33 at the beginning of the season. CLee is 6'5" while Mikal is 6'7" and more suited to SF. THJ and CLee to SG.
I am surprised that no team traded for CLee at the trade deadline last season. CLee was having a very good year and would have helped a number of playoff teams, IMO. Maybe there is a trade for him brewing right now??

2 years left at ~$12.5M and at almost 33 when most guards lose their legs. I'm also just guessing that the Knicks asked if he wanted to be traded (maybe considering they didn't get an offer that knocked them over) and he declined. Also recall that a lot of vets got let go at deadline or got bought out and were there for the pickings for playoff teams.

CLee isn't most guards. He has had 2 of his best years as a Knick these past 2 years. Ray Allen, a similar sized guard played well into his late 30's. In the playoffs, I would love to have CLee come off the bench. Very solid and has hit 40% from 3 these past 2 seasons for the Knicks. But that is neither here nor there. It didn't happen.

If Lee were on an expiring or only had 1 year left there may have been more offers or more offers that the Knicks liked. Also, his stats were nice but you aren't considering it from a financial standpoint, where repeater luxury tax is in play versus a guard who gets cut and you can sign for cheap as well as not giving up a pick.

Markji wrote:I still like Mikal Bridges for the Knicks at #9.

Martin, who would you like to have the Knicks draft at #9?

I like Mikal as a fallback and like Carter and a few others who probably go before 9. I don't pay attention to college enough to really have too much to say on these thing. Knox seems interesting but I've read some that suggests his BBIQ is not up there, which is a red flag for me. Don't like Trae or Sexton.

Would love to take on Parsons for the #4 regardless of who top 3 are.

Markji wrote:

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Markji wrote:Trae Young won't be available at #9. If he is, then we take him.

But since Trae won't be available, then we take a SF, IMHO. 3 pretty good ones are available. Both Bridges and Knox.
My choice is Mikal Bridges. Excellent D; Excellent team/help D; Great energy and work ethic; OH! and Mikal shot 43.5% from 3. That is way higher than Young (36%) or anyone else touted to be a lottery pick.

Bridges could come in on day one and make an impact. But I don't see anyway he ends up being vastly better to THJ or Courtney Lee... and we don't need depth, we need talent

Defensively, Mikal is much better than THJ. Maybe not better than Courtney Lee but Lee will be 33 at the beginning of the season. CLee is 6'5" while Mikal is 6'7" and more suited to SF. THJ and CLee to SG.
I am surprised that no team traded for CLee at the trade deadline last season. CLee was having a very good year and would have helped a number of playoff teams, IMO. Maybe there is a trade for him brewing right now??

2 years left at ~$12.5M and at almost 33 when most guards lose their legs. I'm also just guessing that the Knicks asked if he wanted to be traded (maybe considering they didn't get an offer that knocked them over) and he declined. Also recall that a lot of vets got let go at deadline or got bought out and were there for the pickings for playoff teams.

CLee isn't most guards. He has had 2 of his best years as a Knick these past 2 years. Ray Allen, a similar sized guard played well into his late 30's. In the playoffs, I would love to have CLee come off the bench. Very solid and has hit 40% from 3 these past 2 seasons for the Knicks. But that is neither here nor there. It didn't happen.

If Lee were on an expiring or only had 1 year left there may have been more offers or more offers that the Knicks liked. Also, his stats were nice but you aren't considering it from a financial standpoint, where repeater luxury tax is in play versus a guard who gets cut and you can sign for cheap as well as not giving up a pick.

Markji wrote:I still like Mikal Bridges for the Knicks at #9.

Martin, who would you like to have the Knicks draft at #9?

I like Mikal as a fallback and like Carter and a few others who probably go before 9. I don't pay attention to college enough to really have too much to say on these thing. Knox seems interesting but I've read some that suggests his BBIQ is not up there, which is a red flag for me. Don't like Trae or Sexton.

Would love to take on Parsons for the #4 regardless of who top 3 are.

I agree with you on taking Parsons and the #4 pick if we don't also give up #9 pick. CLee is in the mix for that trade.
I also wouldn't mind giving them Noah + #9 pick for Parsons and #4.

.... trades got to be realistic, your above is not.