NardDogNation wrote:jskinny35 wrote:There's no emotional attachment (Uptown) - I don't really care for Knox as he's a chucker (so far) and Frank hasn't shown much. Not sure DSJr will put it all together despite his athleticism... I do value Mitch and think he would be a great fit next to KD (better then AD b/c he doesn't need the ball and focused on defense and rebounding). I actually like AD but he will be a free agent this year so giving up multiple picks, young talent, etc doesn't seem wise to me.As for our depth/bench (NardDogNation) - we lose it if we go all in on 3 max guys - we're basically filling the roster with vet minimums... I'd rather have Knox off the bench and think players like Trier and DSJr will be more likely to pass and play hard b/c there's stars setting and example and playing ahead of them. Also think it's very risky to place so much money into any 3 guys. With 2 max guys you can field a bench and retain some flexibility, not withstanding the possible chemistry issues, injuries that are usually part of the game.
Everything is risk assessment - with 2 max guys you're hoping that one of your young players turns into a very good/all-star player. Right now it looks like RJ may have the most potential, although I do think Mitch is starter-material and Knox could possibly learn/develop from watching KD for the next two years. Your guys plan to go "all in" has no backup plan - what if Kyrie continues to get injured? KD's minor injury is the start of more problems as he's over 30 now? AD is probably the lowest risk of the three - but then I wonder about chemistry issues with 3 guys used to scoring 20-25 points per game.
With the Heat - Bosh and Wade both adjusted/sacrificed significantly to make it work. Maybe they all do here - but if they don't... you've lost multiple 1st round picks, some young players that were high draft picks and are only 1-2 years into the league (could develop), and you're basically stuck until their 4-5 year contract ends... I'm placing my bets on 1 out of 3-4 top 10 picks working out and if I'm wrong at least they don't cost much. And you can continue drafting and developing - something I can't believe (after all the years of suffering through starphucking) we all aren't excited to try a diff approach. No Shortcuts!!
Anthony Davis won't be a free agent until NEXT season at the earliest (if he chooses to exercise his player option). That aside, there is absolutely NO chance the Pelicans allow this situation to get that far without having traded him. Davis has made his intentions clear and they will not risk losing him for nothing after what has happened to CLE with LeBron (2×) and OKC with Durant. Those events have promoted every team since to honor trade requests by their franchise player including the Pacers with PG13, the Cavs with Kyrie Irving, the Bulls/Wolves with Butler, the Spurs with Kawhi and the Kings with Cousins. Needless to say Davis will be moved this summer, so the only way to get him is to trade for him. And I think we should.
I also think your reasoning is flawed when it comes to our youth. They were all lottery picks (save Mitchell), who were drafted for their potential to be franchise cornerstones and not bit-players. Unfortunately, all that and the development it would entail is incongruent with a team that already has their best case scenarios on it i.e. Kevin Durant and Anthony Davis. It's like asking prime-Carmelo Anthony to try to marginalize his skillset to be prime-Kyle Korver; we saw a model of how that worked out in both OKC and HOU. If our aspiration is to shift to a veteran-core of superstars, the best decision we can make is to trade the youth before they are forced into specialist roles they were never intended to be, that will plummet their trade value (and confidence).
Agree that AD will probably be traded, although the GM is planning to meet and try to convince AD to stay in N.O :)
You're right they were drafted to be more then bit players. I also agree that that's all they have been so far. I just don't think we should give up on all of them when most are like 19-20 years old. I'd give them each 3 years which seems to be a decent marker for if a player develops or not. Also remember that many of these players are one and done players so I think it sometimes results in a longer time for full development.
I do think players like Trier, Knox, and even Frank could possibly be good role players (have doubts about DSJr though) around 2 max stars. Rather try with them instead of dumping them and picks and fielding mostly vet minimums around 3 stars.
My philosophy/hopes are that we try to build around youth and retain financial flexibility in our transactions and trades. I think it's too risky to put 3 stars together that comprise most of the salary room, not knowing if they'll mesh, stay healthy, etc... Would still love to hear what the fallback plan is if the 3 star max plan doesn't work? At that point we have lost most of our young assets, first round picks and we'd be left trying to package vet minimums with a Kyrie.
If you viewed the Knicks operations from the past 20 years through a financial metaphor - it looks like a kid who inherited money but doesn't know how to spend or save any money. Every time we get money we spend it and never think ahead. Saving for one year to accumulate assets/picks only to go "all in" for another star player (when we are possibly lucky to have 2 coming without losing any assets) is more of the same. Think of all the quality organizations and ask if they make moves like this? Spurs, Warriors... no, they establish a foundation,long-term plan and build incrementally. When a draft pick turns into a Curry it accelerates things, but it took them 4-5 years of drafting well and making solid moves.
Hoping Perry is an adult man who has some discipline, patience and maturity to build something sustainable so when some moves don't work out - there's a safety net and not a 3-5 year rebuild required.
