That's an amazing analysis coming from someone who wasn't born yet ---- spot on. Since I was already old enough to drink beer when that trade happened (kidding; maybe not), it wasn't until '73 that the trade's full impact came to light. Dave D. was a monster that season, and without him, the Knicks don't win it all. (People forget he only played one more season before his body broke down and he retired at 33. Battling Dave Cowens and the best of the beasts will do that) He was the true OG before OG became, well, OG. Terrific insight as always
I have been thinking about this parallel since the trade went down. Like Ray, I've been around a while. The 1972-73 season was my first as a Knicks fan, and Dave D.'s contribution was massive. He did fit better than Bellamy would have, but I wouldn't want to imply that Dave was less talented than Bellamy, nor that OG is less talented than RJ and IQ.
There are many kinds of talent and many characteristics besides talent that contribute to winning teams. Dave D.'s defending, rebounding, and shot making were rooted in talents as well as hard work. He also had extraordinary practical intelligence, which explains why he had experience as a player-coach before he came here (a point nicely made by Ranparts). He could take in what was going on around him on the court and respond immediately with a wise choice, a trait Clyde also had in abundance and Brunson is developing.
OG's defensive talents are absolutely off the charts. As a tweet by Benji demonstrated a day or two ago, OG's ability to cover ground between the rim and the corner (and vice versa) is stunning. It requires rare athleticism, but not the same kind IQ displays. Both have something like Dave D.'s ability to take in what the other team is trying to accomplish on attack and know at once how to compensate. And OG's combination of quickness and strength amazes me.
He doesn't merely fit. He fits because his qualities--including his talents--are needed here. Those qualities are also exceptional in ways that neither RJ's nor IQ's are. He might be in the top three at what he does best. None of RJ's qualities are close to that level. There is a chance IQ's best qualities will improve significantly, but I find it hard imagining him as one of the top three PGs. I'm not putting those guys down; I'm trying to give OG his due. He plays a role we need taken care of. He isn't what I would call a role player. And he isn't less talented than the guys he was traded for.
Jeffrey, your last paragraph put together many thoughts I had better than I've been able to. I keep coming back to the term "scarcity of resources." IQ might be "better" by the overused sense of the word as it pertains to NBA players, but there's a reason every team in the title race would take OG over IQ on their roster every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Thanks for saying that. The problem with the overused sense of “better” is that it’s too abstract. To build a contender, you need each position in the rotation filled at a high enough level to give you a chance of winning against other contenders. The more of those you fill with a top player at his position, the better your chances. In each case, the relevant sense of “better” is quite specific: what matters is whether the player is better than others who play the same essential role. On a given night, the winning team is, other things being equal, the one that wins most of those individual battles.
We now have 2 top centers (when healthy), an All-NBA power forward, with OG able to step in behind him, a top-3 wing defender who shoots well enough to space the floor, a top backup wing who defends extremely well and energizes the team, a top 3-point shooter and off-ball defender starting at shooting guard, and a top starting point guard who can penetrate, hit floaters and 3s, dish, take charges, close games, and lead (unlike some PGs thought to “better” than he is). By “top” here, I mean excellent as compared to others at the same rotational position or in the same role (such as spark plug, creator, stopper, or closer).
It amazes me that the front office has achieved so much strength at the positions I have just reviewed. Three positions are covered with top starters AND top backups. The other two starting positions are occupied by top players (at those positions). That leaves two backup positions or roles to strengthen on the bench. Both of those are far easier to strengthen than big wing or backup power forward (OG’s positions). To acquire OG, we sacrificed a low ranking starting wing and a decent (perhaps top 20, but certainly not top 5) starting point guard for whom we had little use.
I am beginning to wonder what adding a so-called superstar would mean, given what it would cost. Seems increasingly like a fantasy. Replacing Donte with Booker? Mitch with Embiid? Randle with Towns? Take all of Brunson’s stats (while counting his drawn charges as blocks) and consider his qualities as a closer and leader. Now pretend that all of this came from a 6’7” guy who soars above the rim. That guy would already qualify as a superstar. Jalen is already there. He just doesn’t look the part.
It's funny...we've thought at times during the Rose regime that they've lacked direction or have flown by the seat of their pants, but whatever their process has been, they've assembled an awfully well rounded roster. Re: Brunson, him being his height and not 6'7" *does* matter, just from the sense that length can still bother him and he can't always pass/see over/around defenses, but he makes up for that in so many ways. I do believe he is a superstar, which is why I'm starting to question whether they need to acquire a traditional "so-called superstar" as you put it is as necessary as we may have thought
Brunson’s height does matter, for precisely the reasons you give, which explain why many opposing coaches defend him with a sizable wing. But it doesn’t matter any more than a tall, springy player’s lack of world-class footwork and leadership ability. Many fans and talking heads fixate on size, length, and vertical athleticism—the things anyone can notice at first sight. Brunson acquired other strengths BECAUSE he didn’t have the obvious advantages. His footwork is unique because he couldn’t rely on height and leaping to dominate games in high school and college. His leadership qualities are uncommon in part because he couldn’t win at the youth and collegiate levels without, for example, learning HOW to talk to each teammate (as he put it the other day).
Excellent thoughts. Yes everyone has their own strengths. These guys are NBA so even the ones at the end of the bench are the best in the world. Glad we have OG
A weekend newsletter after a 2.5 hour postgame? You the real MVP, Jon!
I've processed a lot of mixed emotions since the trade and they all bubbled over last night. I'll admit I teared up more than once. RJ and IQ being introduced. The video tribute. Julius' postgame interview. It all hit me in the feels because it was so genuine. I will always have a love and appreciation for those two. They helped build something special.
But it's impossible to not be excited watching these post-trade Knicks. I remember last year when we played Portland when Hart was still there, Breen said something about how 29 other teams would love to have Josh Hart. The same thing can be said about OG. We have an elite two-way wing who can guard multiple positions and shoot. Every contender needs a piece like that.
It's all about fit. Leon Rose used his connections to bring a superstar to the Knicks -- his name is Jalen Brunson. He has an All-NBA power forward as a running mate. So many teams would kill to be in this situation. I appreciate the front office being patient and maintaining flexibility, but this window won't be open forever, so take full advantage of it! There's no guarantee one of Embiid/Donovan/Booker becomes available. Keep finding pieces that complement your two top guns. OG does that in spades.
Too kind, Chris, truly! Was an emotional night for sure.
I can promise you that 29 other teams would give up a LOT to get OG on their squad. It's part of why they won't hesitate to pay him. Even at a high cost, he's a fungible asset
Another note worthy thing- DeBusschure and OG were/are arguably the best defensive players in the league (excluding centers) when acquired by the Knicks.
Terrific piece, Jonathan. Of note is how in the '68 article DeBusschere is referred to as "thoroughly professional and experienced." Indeed. At the time of the trade he was 28 and had already pitched in the major leagues and was player-coach for the Pistons.
Interesting take in that DeBusschere and IQ are my favorite Knicks... neither was the best player of their teams, but something about how they played/play the game always resonated.
Great take - the notion of Fit and Talent as two separate (scalar) factors that you can use to evaluate a roster’s potential outcomes (e.g., their vector) is very cool... and it’s making me think in Math, which I was told there wasn’t any on Sunday! OK, will forego the charts for now.
One other thing to chew on, which Ray’s comment alludes to and amazes me when I think of it as a trend, is that while a late-20s player today is comparable in some ways to a late 20s player back in 1970, the reality is a bit different. 30 was pushing it for players - at least there were smaller % of 30+ players playing, there may have been a couple oddballs. We’ve seen the change - think about how Kevin Willis used to be lionized as the leagues oldest player but he never really played at that point. We’d talk about contracts lasting 5 yrs and wonder if we wanted to pay a 34 yr old all that money when he’s bound to break down. Then we got the era of players like Half Man Half Amazing playing off the bench in their mid to late 30s - actually playing meaningful minutes - and it was a thing. Now we have LeBron who may start games at 45. Partly it’s medicine and science, part of it is likely the rule changes, who knows what else - but it completely blows me away when I think about it.
I love this take Ben. I'm extremely curious to see how anomalous LeBron ends up being, even just among other superstar players. I'm also not sure whether we'll be able to accurately judge. Steph is small. Harden treats his body like shit. Kawhi, PG13 and KD all have injury histories. Embiid as well (I know he's quite a bit younger). Like, what will Giannis look like in 10 years?
yes - it really blows me away at how variable it is. Makes the minutes played argument a little tough to take when folks express absolute certainty that too many minutes caused an injury/ruined a player etc. We have no real sense of how many minutes, games or even years to expect from an individual player, let alone why unless it's obvious (e.g., Jay Williams, Rudy T, etc).
"The past is always with us," Knick fans because we feel, because those seasons of joy have been so rare.
The offense with Bells at center and Reed at power forward was a bit too cluttered. Remember, there was no 3 point shot and the paint was always crowded. Willis could play from the top of the key,pass,and hit a consistent jumper, But Bellamy was strictly a back to the basket type player, down in the post. Static. Red wanted a more free flowing offense, Move. Hit the open man. The trade was the catalyst to greatness.
This trade? Neither IQ or RJ could flourish at MSG with the roles they were given by Thibs. JB and JR [by virtue of his game and the space he occupies] were in the way of our departed young phenoms. May the find happiness in the true north. RJ's home. IQ's the 1. Toronto's tough in the Winter, but a great sports town and a world-class city. At MSG, let's hope the early signs of synergy, synchronicity, and success prove true over the long haul.
I remember the trade Dave DeBusschere trade. Not because Of Walt Bellamy leaving, his career as a Knick was anti- climatic. I was upset that the Knicks point guard Howie Komives was traded along with Bellamy. Statically although before 3 point shooting was the equal of IQ. So I understand the loss of IQ. I wonder now if the Pistons would have made the Trade without Komives in the deal. Similar to the present Komives was eventually replaced by Walter "Clyde" Frazier.
He's a player that is somewhat of an unknown to my generation but it's amazing how many comments I get from fans who remember him and appreciate him so much.
Komives was nowhere the player IQ is. Only interesting to me because of his popularity as a shooter and eventually point guard. Not really a point guard or even a good defensive player, but he was a Knick and a "chucker ". I don't know if the Pistons really wanted him or he was a throw in. I only mentioned it because of the similarity to the present. I didn't follow him after he left the Knicks, but I am really interested to see what IQ and RJ are doing. Media has changed so much.
Great piece. Loved the comment about talent and fit. The team is something more or less than the talents of the individual players and the coach. I think for this reason, as you analyzed it on last night's post-game, Burks may indeed be the best option for our backup PG woes. He is, after all, someone whom the coach has a lot of confidence in and, at 6'6" he is bigger than the other options and can play next to Brunson. I think the issue of the salary for next year is a little overblown. Assuming we keep OG and if we can keep iHart, Josh Hart, Mitch or Randle can be the matching salaries. Burks can be resigned to replace Hart.
Great comparison. Another example: Knicks moved out Bill Cartwright, a superfluous center, for a better fit in Charles Oakley.
IDK why everyone (including me) always forgets about that one. Another win win deal.
That's an amazing analysis coming from someone who wasn't born yet ---- spot on. Since I was already old enough to drink beer when that trade happened (kidding; maybe not), it wasn't until '73 that the trade's full impact came to light. Dave D. was a monster that season, and without him, the Knicks don't win it all. (People forget he only played one more season before his body broke down and he retired at 33. Battling Dave Cowens and the best of the beasts will do that) He was the true OG before OG became, well, OG. Terrific insight as always
I have been thinking about this parallel since the trade went down. Like Ray, I've been around a while. The 1972-73 season was my first as a Knicks fan, and Dave D.'s contribution was massive. He did fit better than Bellamy would have, but I wouldn't want to imply that Dave was less talented than Bellamy, nor that OG is less talented than RJ and IQ.
There are many kinds of talent and many characteristics besides talent that contribute to winning teams. Dave D.'s defending, rebounding, and shot making were rooted in talents as well as hard work. He also had extraordinary practical intelligence, which explains why he had experience as a player-coach before he came here (a point nicely made by Ranparts). He could take in what was going on around him on the court and respond immediately with a wise choice, a trait Clyde also had in abundance and Brunson is developing.
OG's defensive talents are absolutely off the charts. As a tweet by Benji demonstrated a day or two ago, OG's ability to cover ground between the rim and the corner (and vice versa) is stunning. It requires rare athleticism, but not the same kind IQ displays. Both have something like Dave D.'s ability to take in what the other team is trying to accomplish on attack and know at once how to compensate. And OG's combination of quickness and strength amazes me.
He doesn't merely fit. He fits because his qualities--including his talents--are needed here. Those qualities are also exceptional in ways that neither RJ's nor IQ's are. He might be in the top three at what he does best. None of RJ's qualities are close to that level. There is a chance IQ's best qualities will improve significantly, but I find it hard imagining him as one of the top three PGs. I'm not putting those guys down; I'm trying to give OG his due. He plays a role we need taken care of. He isn't what I would call a role player. And he isn't less talented than the guys he was traded for.
Jeffrey, your last paragraph put together many thoughts I had better than I've been able to. I keep coming back to the term "scarcity of resources." IQ might be "better" by the overused sense of the word as it pertains to NBA players, but there's a reason every team in the title race would take OG over IQ on their roster every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Thanks for saying that. The problem with the overused sense of “better” is that it’s too abstract. To build a contender, you need each position in the rotation filled at a high enough level to give you a chance of winning against other contenders. The more of those you fill with a top player at his position, the better your chances. In each case, the relevant sense of “better” is quite specific: what matters is whether the player is better than others who play the same essential role. On a given night, the winning team is, other things being equal, the one that wins most of those individual battles.
We now have 2 top centers (when healthy), an All-NBA power forward, with OG able to step in behind him, a top-3 wing defender who shoots well enough to space the floor, a top backup wing who defends extremely well and energizes the team, a top 3-point shooter and off-ball defender starting at shooting guard, and a top starting point guard who can penetrate, hit floaters and 3s, dish, take charges, close games, and lead (unlike some PGs thought to “better” than he is). By “top” here, I mean excellent as compared to others at the same rotational position or in the same role (such as spark plug, creator, stopper, or closer).
It amazes me that the front office has achieved so much strength at the positions I have just reviewed. Three positions are covered with top starters AND top backups. The other two starting positions are occupied by top players (at those positions). That leaves two backup positions or roles to strengthen on the bench. Both of those are far easier to strengthen than big wing or backup power forward (OG’s positions). To acquire OG, we sacrificed a low ranking starting wing and a decent (perhaps top 20, but certainly not top 5) starting point guard for whom we had little use.
I am beginning to wonder what adding a so-called superstar would mean, given what it would cost. Seems increasingly like a fantasy. Replacing Donte with Booker? Mitch with Embiid? Randle with Towns? Take all of Brunson’s stats (while counting his drawn charges as blocks) and consider his qualities as a closer and leader. Now pretend that all of this came from a 6’7” guy who soars above the rim. That guy would already qualify as a superstar. Jalen is already there. He just doesn’t look the part.
It's funny...we've thought at times during the Rose regime that they've lacked direction or have flown by the seat of their pants, but whatever their process has been, they've assembled an awfully well rounded roster. Re: Brunson, him being his height and not 6'7" *does* matter, just from the sense that length can still bother him and he can't always pass/see over/around defenses, but he makes up for that in so many ways. I do believe he is a superstar, which is why I'm starting to question whether they need to acquire a traditional "so-called superstar" as you put it is as necessary as we may have thought
Brunson’s height does matter, for precisely the reasons you give, which explain why many opposing coaches defend him with a sizable wing. But it doesn’t matter any more than a tall, springy player’s lack of world-class footwork and leadership ability. Many fans and talking heads fixate on size, length, and vertical athleticism—the things anyone can notice at first sight. Brunson acquired other strengths BECAUSE he didn’t have the obvious advantages. His footwork is unique because he couldn’t rely on height and leaping to dominate games in high school and college. His leadership qualities are uncommon in part because he couldn’t win at the youth and collegiate levels without, for example, learning HOW to talk to each teammate (as he put it the other day).
Necessity is the mother of invention!
Excellent thoughts. Yes everyone has their own strengths. These guys are NBA so even the ones at the end of the bench are the best in the world. Glad we have OG
https://x.com/jeffrey00487891/status/1741222153264025787?s=12
Your kind words are always appreciated Ray, thank you
A weekend newsletter after a 2.5 hour postgame? You the real MVP, Jon!
I've processed a lot of mixed emotions since the trade and they all bubbled over last night. I'll admit I teared up more than once. RJ and IQ being introduced. The video tribute. Julius' postgame interview. It all hit me in the feels because it was so genuine. I will always have a love and appreciation for those two. They helped build something special.
But it's impossible to not be excited watching these post-trade Knicks. I remember last year when we played Portland when Hart was still there, Breen said something about how 29 other teams would love to have Josh Hart. The same thing can be said about OG. We have an elite two-way wing who can guard multiple positions and shoot. Every contender needs a piece like that.
It's all about fit. Leon Rose used his connections to bring a superstar to the Knicks -- his name is Jalen Brunson. He has an All-NBA power forward as a running mate. So many teams would kill to be in this situation. I appreciate the front office being patient and maintaining flexibility, but this window won't be open forever, so take full advantage of it! There's no guarantee one of Embiid/Donovan/Booker becomes available. Keep finding pieces that complement your two top guns. OG does that in spades.
Too kind, Chris, truly! Was an emotional night for sure.
I can promise you that 29 other teams would give up a LOT to get OG on their squad. It's part of why they won't hesitate to pay him. Even at a high cost, he's a fungible asset
Another note worthy thing- DeBusschure and OG were/are arguably the best defensive players in the league (excluding centers) when acquired by the Knicks.
I don't think modern fans have any concept of how good DDB was defensively because they didn't give out DPOY awards until he retired.
DeBusschure didn't like it if the Knicks doubled the guy he was guarding- he felt like it was an insult to his ability.
Terrific piece, Jonathan. Of note is how in the '68 article DeBusschere is referred to as "thoroughly professional and experienced." Indeed. At the time of the trade he was 28 and had already pitched in the major leagues and was player-coach for the Pistons.
He was definitely a renaissance man!
Interesting take in that DeBusschere and IQ are my favorite Knicks... neither was the best player of their teams, but something about how they played/play the game always resonated.
Great take - the notion of Fit and Talent as two separate (scalar) factors that you can use to evaluate a roster’s potential outcomes (e.g., their vector) is very cool... and it’s making me think in Math, which I was told there wasn’t any on Sunday! OK, will forego the charts for now.
One other thing to chew on, which Ray’s comment alludes to and amazes me when I think of it as a trend, is that while a late-20s player today is comparable in some ways to a late 20s player back in 1970, the reality is a bit different. 30 was pushing it for players - at least there were smaller % of 30+ players playing, there may have been a couple oddballs. We’ve seen the change - think about how Kevin Willis used to be lionized as the leagues oldest player but he never really played at that point. We’d talk about contracts lasting 5 yrs and wonder if we wanted to pay a 34 yr old all that money when he’s bound to break down. Then we got the era of players like Half Man Half Amazing playing off the bench in their mid to late 30s - actually playing meaningful minutes - and it was a thing. Now we have LeBron who may start games at 45. Partly it’s medicine and science, part of it is likely the rule changes, who knows what else - but it completely blows me away when I think about it.
I love this take Ben. I'm extremely curious to see how anomalous LeBron ends up being, even just among other superstar players. I'm also not sure whether we'll be able to accurately judge. Steph is small. Harden treats his body like shit. Kawhi, PG13 and KD all have injury histories. Embiid as well (I know he's quite a bit younger). Like, what will Giannis look like in 10 years?
yes - it really blows me away at how variable it is. Makes the minutes played argument a little tough to take when folks express absolute certainty that too many minutes caused an injury/ruined a player etc. We have no real sense of how many minutes, games or even years to expect from an individual player, let alone why unless it's obvious (e.g., Jay Williams, Rudy T, etc).
Great piece . Glad game is behind us RJ can focus on getting his 20 a night IQ gets to starting role and we can focus on playing with the big boys .
"The past is always with us," Knick fans because we feel, because those seasons of joy have been so rare.
The offense with Bells at center and Reed at power forward was a bit too cluttered. Remember, there was no 3 point shot and the paint was always crowded. Willis could play from the top of the key,pass,and hit a consistent jumper, But Bellamy was strictly a back to the basket type player, down in the post. Static. Red wanted a more free flowing offense, Move. Hit the open man. The trade was the catalyst to greatness.
This trade? Neither IQ or RJ could flourish at MSG with the roles they were given by Thibs. JB and JR [by virtue of his game and the space he occupies] were in the way of our departed young phenoms. May the find happiness in the true north. RJ's home. IQ's the 1. Toronto's tough in the Winter, but a great sports town and a world-class city. At MSG, let's hope the early signs of synergy, synchronicity, and success prove true over the long haul.
Thanks.
Thank you Jonathan. Here's hoping for the same.
I remember the trade Dave DeBusschere trade. Not because Of Walt Bellamy leaving, his career as a Knick was anti- climatic. I was upset that the Knicks point guard Howie Komives was traded along with Bellamy. Statically although before 3 point shooting was the equal of IQ. So I understand the loss of IQ. I wonder now if the Pistons would have made the Trade without Komives in the deal. Similar to the present Komives was eventually replaced by Walter "Clyde" Frazier.
He's a player that is somewhat of an unknown to my generation but it's amazing how many comments I get from fans who remember him and appreciate him so much.
Komives was nowhere the player IQ is. Only interesting to me because of his popularity as a shooter and eventually point guard. Not really a point guard or even a good defensive player, but he was a Knick and a "chucker ". I don't know if the Pistons really wanted him or he was a throw in. I only mentioned it because of the similarity to the present. I didn't follow him after he left the Knicks, but I am really interested to see what IQ and RJ are doing. Media has changed so much.
Great piece. Loved the comment about talent and fit. The team is something more or less than the talents of the individual players and the coach. I think for this reason, as you analyzed it on last night's post-game, Burks may indeed be the best option for our backup PG woes. He is, after all, someone whom the coach has a lot of confidence in and, at 6'6" he is bigger than the other options and can play next to Brunson. I think the issue of the salary for next year is a little overblown. Assuming we keep OG and if we can keep iHart, Josh Hart, Mitch or Randle can be the matching salaries. Burks can be resigned to replace Hart.
Thank you Andrew! Like you, I'm not as worried about matching salaries as others, although I do think it is a priority to some extent.