Briefing: June 24
We creep closer to free agency. The debate on the News.
Good Morning,
We deviate from our typical format today so Jonathan Macri can cover a few topics in-depth. I promise you won’t be disappointed.
Out of the frying pan we emerge and into the fire we dive.
Free agency starts in a week.
What once seemed like a summer in which anything was on the table has begun its final approach with an odd sense of clarity. It’s odd in the sense that, while there are still literally dozens of scenarios that could unfold between now and the middle of July, we at least have a good idea of what the team’s priorities will be and in which order they’ll be listed.
Things figure to begin with a dual-pronged, guns-blazing assault on the two premier free agents, Kawhi Leonard and Kevin Durant. If and when one of them says yes, they’ll surely be given the option of opining as to how the remaining cap space should be spent (including, theoretically, on each other).
Those dreams are uncertain at best. At this point, the Knicks seem to be among the top three choices for both men, but as Tiger once said, second place is only the first loser. I won’t even wager a guess as to New York’s chances at either one, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if neither is a Knick a few weeks from now.
All season long, we wondered what Plan B would be, and thanks to SNY’s Ian Begley, we got some clarity over the weekend. He reported that if the Knicks strike out on top targets, they’ll neither commit long-term money to non-worthy players nor take on toxic assets for draft picks. The plan instead is to sign good players to short-term deals, and approach next year with the tanking mantra as far in the rear view mirror as possible. He also noted that it isn’t yet known whether one-year salary dumps would be an option.
The report takes away some of the guesswork, but does bring up the question of which (if any) non-Kawhi/KD players the front office deems worthy of giving a long-term contract to. The name here that is on a lot of Knick fans’ minds is D’Angelo Russell. We’ll save that conversation for later in the week.
Putting him aside, it’s tough to see anyone on the Knicks radar that they’d go more than two years on (or three years with the third being a team option). Luckily, with the draft in the books, we can already get a sense of who that player might be.
Right now, barring a superstar arrival, it’s a safe bet that the Knicks opening night starting lineup will feature Dennis Smith Jr. at PG, RJ Barrett at SG, Kevin Knox and SF, and Mitchell Robinson at C. On the bench, Allonzo Trier, Damyean Dotson and Kadeem Allen - who Marc Berman reported earlier this month is a new Fizdale favorite - also figure to get substantial time. Frank Ntilikina, if he’s still here (C’mon, Frankie, only four months to go!), would presumably play as well.
Even if guys like Barrett, Dotson and Knox play up a position occasionally, it’s not hard to see that this roster will have a glaring hole at the four. The Luke Kornet Experience is a trip, but is quite addictive and not recommended for regular consumption (if he’s back, count on him getting backup PF and C minutes). Iggy Brazdeikis is already a popular fellow, but it’s tough to see the team counting on a rookie second rounder for steady production (Mitch Rob’s meteoric rise aside).
So as we look around the marketplace, over the next two days I’ll run through the available power forwards who might make sense for the Knicks. Shooting and defense would be ideal, but only one of the two might be fine as well depending on the player. Note that this list also includes trade candidates who New York should be able to get either for virtually no assets or even with an asset coming back their way in the deal.
(BTW, if you haven’t checked out the four-part series Shwinny Pooh of Posting & Toasting did on possible offseason targets, read that as well. Several names listed here also appear there.)
There are 12 names in total. We’ll run through seven candidates today – guys who either aren’t ideal or aren’t likely for one reason or another. Tomorrow, we’ll go through the top five in terms of fit and likelihood of obtaining.
Let’s get started…
Taj Gibson: He turns 34 today (Happy Birthday Taj!), doesn’t shoot threes, and is probably better suited to play backup five at this point than a starting four (unless he’s next to a shooter like KAT). Still, he’s a pro’s pro, knows how to play defense and he’s from Fort Greene, Brooklyn. They can almost certainly get him on a one-year deal, and he wouldn’t gripe about ceding his starting role to a younger player late in the season, unlike, umm…some people.
James Johnson: The Knicks would only do this if the Heat sent back a future first round pick in the transaction. As I just noted, it sounds like this isn’t the type of deal New York’s brass is looking to make, but I include Johnson here only because David Fizdale will likely be able to get some good intel on what kind of a locker room influence he is from Coach Spo (Fiz was hired by the Grizzlies before JJ arrived in Miami). “Inconsistent” doesn’t begin to describe Johnson’s career, and last season he was flat-out bad. On Miami’s end, they can’t trade a first until 2023, and it will likely be cheaper for them to ship out Ryan Anderson’s expiring than this contract. Unlikely for a lot of reasons, but someone to keep in mind.
JaMychal Green: Another guy who won’t light the world on fire, and like Gibson and Johnson, would certainly be better suited as a backup. The relationship with David Fizdale is the most notable reason why this might happen (remember, Green is the guy who got the starting nod over Zach Randolph when Fiz took over the Memphis job). He can shoot it a little (over 40% from deep last year, albeit on not much volume) and started three playoff games for the Clippers last year following a midseason trade. You probably are going to need to go two years to get him, or a one-year overpay (this will start to become a trend with the names that follow).
Al-Farouq Aminu: He’s been Portland’s starting four for the last two years and they’ve done just fine (albeit with a slight upgrade in NBA-ready talent over what the Knicks will have next season). His shooting is inconsistent and nobody guards him on the perimeter. As Zach Lowe always says, whether he and Moe Harkless make shots has often been a bellwether for the Blazers. He’s not terribly exciting but the Knicks are in dire need of stability and competency in a young lineup that already has two guys in Smith and Barrett who will be the proverbial bucket-getters in times of need. An unsexy player who knows what to do and where to be on both ends of the floor might be the best move. You’ll definitely need to go two years here, and even that might not be enough.
Julius Randle: the polar opposite of Aminu. Randle, is the sexy dude who specializes in getting buckets at an efficient and borderline prolific clip. I wrote about him extensively last week and won’t repeat myself, but let’s just say that while he is almost certainly the highest upside play on this list, it’s unclear that his unique talents are exactly what this particular group needs at this particular time. He’s also going to cost the most, and unless they severely overpay for a two-year contract, will probably need to go three seasons.
Paul Milsap: I put him down here because a) there’s a good chance Denver just exercises his team options and keeps him for next season, especially with the Warriors’ issues and the fact that dispensing of his salary won’t do much to help them cap-wise anyway, and b) were he to enter the open market, it’s almost a certainty that some contender would scoop him up, as they should. The dude is still an absolute beast. I’d pay him anything he wanted on a two-year deal.
Marvin Williams: The Knicks would need to trade for his services, but with Charlotte staring in the luxury tax abyss as they prepare to do what it takes to keep Kemba Walker, my bet is that the Hornets would essentially ship off his expiring contract for cash considerations. Williams will always be known as the guy who went one spot ahead of Deron Williams and Chris Paul in the draft, but he’s quietly carved out a nice NBA career for himself. Most importantly, he can space the floor (although his three-point percentage took a dip last season, albeit on an uptick in volume) and although he won’t help you much on defense, he isn’t going to hurt you on that end either.
The Debate on the News
by Jonathan Macri
And now for the portion of the newsletter where I write about something that I’m quite certain nobody wants to read about, so by all means, if you want to stop now, no offense will be taken…
On Friday, the Knicks held their introductory press conference for their draft picks. Every major local media outlet was invited to attend the presser with the exception of the New York Daily News.
Since this happened, there have been two distinct camps that have formed: media people who feel that, if you can’t see how wrong Dolan’s actions are, you’re an idiot, and Knick fans who feel like, if you are defending an outlet like the New York Daily News, you’re an idiot.
This situation reminds me of why it’s generally impossible to talk politics at the dining room table anymore if there are people from opposing political parties within your family. There is no middle ground anymore; it’s been replaced by a moat filled with gasoline and set ablaze. If you attempt to take a step closer to one side or the other from your designated position, you die, and neither side will have much sympathy for your plight.
(This is not a new concept in American history, FWIW. The idea that we were ever a country where a healthy discourse of views took place is a fallacy propagated in middle school social studies classes. So it’s not like we’re going backwards. Hooray for silver linings!)
So at the risk of not getting a slice of pie for dessert/being burned alive, I enter into this debate without the conviction of thinking either side is completely right or completely wrong.
As I stated on the podcast over the weekend, ultimately, I think Dolan needs to relent and let the News into these things, and the reasoning is simple: it can only hurt their efforts to become a better basketball team, and as a fan, that’s really all I care about.
What has been designed as a punishment instead continues to cause self-inflicted wounds. The reality of not inviting the News to these pressers has galvanized certain members of the local and national press core against the team.
(To those who say that the negative bent which existed before the News stopped being invited to these pressers was equally bad for the team, and that there should be repercussions for these actions, I ask: are things really any better now?)
While there has been some thinking that players might respect an organization who attempts to shield its players from negative press, the fact is that the News’ barbs are directed at the organization far more than any players, and any critique of the men on the roster occurs no more or less than any other outlet. Let’s remember that it was the Post, not the News, who ran the story about anonymous scouts calling Kevin Knox soft. It’s also worth noting that for all of Stefan Bondy’s infuriating digs, as noted Courtney Lee-whisperer Jesus Rodriguez said this weekend, the players genuinely seem to like him.
The downside of the Knicks continuing this stance is what feels much more real. Players may not care what the media says about their team, but the idea that they (or more importantly, their agents) won’t mind the consistently negative press seems more than a bit of wishful thinking. Agents want positive stories about their clients. If the national media is galvanized against the organization, there’s that much less of a chance that these will be written.
More than that though, will players put their trust in an owner who chooses this as the hill he wants to die on? Stability is a key tenet for any organization in any field, and this position reeks of instability. Do players care? Again, I don’t have the answer, but if you’re Kawhi Leonard and you have a choice of playing for Steve Balmer (who has the national media eating out of the palm of his hand) or someone who continues to wage this war, all else being equal, who do you think he’s going to pick?
That, ultimately, is why I stand where I stand. I understand it isn’t the popular stance, because I, like everyone else, feel the same sensation of rage anytime the News mischaracterizes a fact or ignores a perfectly valid positive angle in favor of another. Still, there is no question in my mind it’s the best outcome. What I’m less certain about is who is actually right or wrong.
Let’s start with the primary point of contention between the sides: the media says it’s not their job to be positive, but the fans feel like it is the media’s job to be objective. To this I say simply that I’m not sure true objectivity is ever possible in the media. While there’s a wide chasm between true impartiality and a consistently negative bent, I’m not certain that anyone is in a position to say what objective coverage actually looks like, nor am I sure that it’s the position of the entity being reported on to be the arbiter of whether such coverage is taking place. If it were, the slippery slope some have spoken about in the context of this conversation does, in fact, risk coming into play.
(As an aside, I certainly know that as a fan, I don’t have the ability to make the call about whether coverage is totally objective, just objective enough, or qualitatively unfair. I’m far too emotionally invested.)
Besides, the marketplace inevitably decides whether reporting is worthy of consumption, and this is true of everyone – not just newspapers. If I, as a “fan blogger,” praise the Knicks for maxing out Boogie Cousins and Khris Middleton a week from now, I will inevitably lose followers and subscribers. On that end, make what you will of the fact that the News laid of much of its staff less than a year ago.
Regardless of this aspect of the discussion, my understanding is that the Garden’s stance on the News took hold following a back page in which an unflattering caricature of Dolan was featured under a headline imploring him to sell the team. This leads to the two most interesting parts of this debate:
First, does there come a point when a tabloid news outfit travels too far down the “tabloid” end of that road to cease being a news outlet altogether, thus bypassing the respect our society deems worthy of reporters of fact? In other words: censorship is only dangerous if you’re actually censoring the reporting of news, but just because something calls itself a newspaper, does that still make it so?
While the back page was disgusting and beneath that which we should expect even from a tabloid, and for as much as Stefan Bondy’s tweets or digs seethe the linings of my soul (especially because, as a former attorney, I know the mischaracterization of facts when I see it, if only because I used to mischaracterize facts for a living), he is also a good reporter in the sense that he works hard to mine sources and find out things that aren’t widely known.
Does he look for sources that will help propagate stories with a negative tilt? I can’t say. If it is perceived that he does, does that give the consumer the right to ignore those stories? Absolutely. Does it give the team the right to bar access though? As unfair as it might seem, because that slope gets slippery awfully quick, my stance is no, it does not.
But again, the disallowance of the News from these sessions started after years and years of negative reports and only after that caricature appeared on their back page, which gets us to the final part of this discussion.
There is an incredibly American (and to some extent masculine) idea that people must be allowed to defend themselves against attacks, fair or otherwise. It is this idea that, despite what I obviously feel is a logical stance about ending this stalemate, will have some continuing to believe that Dolan not only can but should maintain his position.
Where you stand on this ultimately comes down to the idea of pride, and when, if ever, is the right time to swallow one’s own. My two cents: when you are in a business where your actions directly impact the lives of others, there comes a time when you need to make a sacrifice for the greater good. If you are reading this then you, like me, probably have an unhealthy amount of emotional investment in this team. While I would never be so bold as to tell another man how to act when he is feeling personally threatened, I also know there have been plenty of times in my life when I swallowed my own pride without having to be told to do so because I knew it was for the betterment of some party that I was ultimately responsible for.
The time for James Dolan to swallow his pride has come.
This needs to end now.
Thanks for reading, talk to you tomorrow!