Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/IanBegley/status/1215793091866693634

Please fire Mills before he wrecks us even further in an effort to save his job. Does he work exclusively from a document listing all the players who can't shoot, hit free throws or defend in a league that requires both to win, and just pick names off that?! Arrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!! Like the Hawks, I'd rather land Adams than Drummond, but really I'd rather have neither.

However, only in bIzarro world would trading for Drummond make sense.

He's not a clear upgrade over anyone, he doesn't fit (assuming we're keeping Randle) and he gets paid a lot.

And, worst of all, it's not clear Drummond can actually help a team win. Empty stats.

drummond? sure lets clog the middle

Jmpasq wrote:Trade for a center when Mitch is probably the best value in the league at that position. Totally ridiclious move and I'm done if it happens

Yup. Last offseason when there were a lot of talented players after a max, Mills and Perry insisted their plan was not to overpay, and that there were only two or 3 players worthy of a max who they'd sign. Now they want to give up assets to do what they ruled out doing in the offseason and could have done without giving up assets! Absolute jokers!

KnickDanger wrote:Do we criticize what hasn't happened yet? Of course we do. Anyway, if we can get a serious NBA paint presence for reasonable return why not explore?

Depends on the asking price and what the Knicks plan was/is. Which is hard to tell if they even had a solid plan or timeline. Thought it was about developing young assets, taking on young team friendly contracts and building through the draft. If that is the case then NO. Feel we have added a couple of good pieces in Morris, Payton and Randle and can improve on needs(outside Shooting) in the off season with team friendly deals. Drummond is a beast down low but he is making $27M this year and 28M next (player option that I feel he will take). And if he walks, trade is truly useless. How does either situation help us long term? In terms of long term extension, feel that type of salary can be given to a player that has more impact. Although rebounding and down low presence is huge, it is no longer the big game changer in today's NBA. Also wondering what we would need to give up? Obviously its either Randle or Morris to make money/talent work. Don't know if I would rather have Drummond over Morris in terms of playing style. Randle, maybe as Drummond is a freak of a rebounder and they are similar in terms of down low presence but Randle has been playing better and can stretch the floor. And which young asset will we include? Although several of our young guys have had many question marks, still feel it is too early to give up on them, specially if its for a one year rental. Think Frank, Dennis, Dot, Mitch still have a lot more to improve and can get to a much higher level if given the chance and investment. Now if they are trying to dump his salary for expiring and we can dump guys like Portis and Taj, etc., then I am all for it.

wargames wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Different circumstances, but trading Mitch for Drummond in a deal, would feel like the McDyess trade all over again. Feels like something Layden would do. As others have mentioned, we need shooters, not another big man right now. That move doeent get us closer to the playoffs, Probably not a star who will be able to recruit big time FAs IMO.

It’s exactly Camby for McDyess again.