Kris, huzzah! That was a great piece. It put a lot into perspective including why Thibs, despite what was evident to everyone, would not start (or play 30m or more) the third best player on the Knicks. And Phil, you make a very good point, although one that I’m not sure I agree with. Thibs was never going to start Quick or play him more than 25m per game.
However, Thibs is not going to be the Knicks coach forever, in fact, he just turned 65.
While Phil’s point is quite generous and almost holy, a franchise in sports must maximize its assets if it will ever grow to be a championship-contending team. Quick might have been doomed to leave the Knicks but if Thibs played him 30m or more a night and/or started him, perhaps the Knicks would have received a lot more back in the trade.
By now, I’m sure anyone reading this can tell I loved watching Quickley play. His terrific shooting, and awesome defense were second and third to his best quality and that’s the exuberance he plays with. The happiness you can feel when he and his teammates are doing well. And the very clear unselfishness he played with.
I know I’m in the minority, at least amongst Knick fans, but I’m not so sure the Knicks made a good trade. OG is a terrific player but nowhere near a star. He will never be more than the fourth or fifth best player on a championship-type team.
Of course, he is a great defender and a pretty good 3pt shooter. But other than that, his offense is tremendously limited.
Quick on the other hand is going to be a superstar or just under in the next couple of years. I am quite sure -- that unless the Knicks win the title over the next 1-2 seasons (unlikely) Knick fans will look back and say “that’s all we could get for Quickley?”
I start with the concept of the "assumption of rational coaching" which I ascribe to Thibs. Coming into last season, I was not necessarily sold on Thibs a coach that could bring the Knicks into Championship contention and after the 1st 20 or so games last year I was thinking that maybe he needed to be replaced based on the uneven performance of the team. Watching how he was able to navigate all of the different pressures he had and get this team to the 2nd round of the playoffs with a legitimate shot of making the ECF changed my perception of him as a coach that could bring a Chip to New York.
I felt I had to start with that premise before responding to your points which I understand and in a vacuum agree with but ascribe a bit more nuance with in IQs situation. You can approach how the Knicks organization is run and coached in a couple of ways. One is that they will stock pile players and assets to build a team with a ton of talent and let the players skill sets dictate to the coach how to strategize and coach the team. The upside of that approach is that you "maximize" players strengths. The downside of that you run the risk of having no north star direction that you are building towards and it takes more than talent to be a winning NBA team, it also takes guidance. Three current examples of teams with supremely talented players struggling with consistency are Phoenix, GS Warriors and the Lakers. A second approach which is the path the Knicks organization has chosen is to hire a Coach whose coaching philosophy and approach the organization can coalesce / synchronize around and build a team around that philosophy. The upside of that approach is that you have a north star approach to build towards and can through the right series of moves (assessment of current players, acquisition of new players, successful drafting) build a winning NBA team. The downside of that approach is that you may not "maximize" the talent of all of the individual players on your roster.
As the Knicks "picked a lane" which is to build around Thibs approach to basketball, IQ was never going to be able to be all that he could be (to quote the Army phrase...LOL) under this head coach and in this organization. I suspect many opinions on the trade are colored in large part by how individuals feel about this coach in particular and the FO / Organization in general. I have no doubt that many Knick fans will look at IQs success (I personally believe he has the opportunity to be for the Raptors what his college teammate Maxey is doing for Philly) and say "that's all we could get for Quickley?" in the same way the same comments were made for Cam and Obi from a vocal slice of Knicks fandom.
The only point(s) that I tried to make (maybe not successfully) are to maybe consider some other aspects of the trade beyond our own desire to see one of our favorite players to have remained on the team and the fact that unlike many trades in sports this transaction appears to be one of the rare ones that makes each team better and is actually also beneficial to most of the players involved. I hope IQ gets to prove his talent level and becomes the perennial All-Star / Superstar most (including myself) believe he can be with the Raptors. I also want my Knicks to keep getting better as a team to move towards Championship contention and in the aggregate the trade absolutely accomplished that.
For those of us that spoke for more consistency from the 3 (where RJ was slotted) with the need for a lock down defender who could consistently hit open threes in order to get to the next level of team building, your assessment of OG as a terrific player that can hit 3's and be a great defender is everything many of us were hoping for. And while it's a very small sample size - the argument that was made for the change is being borne out before our eyes every game. The Knicks don't need OG to be a Superstar, just a superstar in his role. Assuming the Knicks get the additional piece we all believe them to have accumulated all of the assets they have, OG would in fact be the fourth best player on a championship-type team just as you have him slotted. I'm good with that :)
FWIW (and you know where I come from on the trade and on Thibs), I'm not sure how many (if any) coaches in the league would elect to start two small guards in the same backcourt rather than have one of them come off the bench. Cleveland has 2 All-Stars and has come under some significant criticism for their approach in pairing them despite having a high end 3-4-5 defensive back line behind them. The Knicks had Julius Randle and RJ Barrett.
All this is to say, pegging this as a coach not maximizing talent seems a bit fraught to me (and I know that you're arguing in favor of my side here Phil).
We are absolutely in alignment Jon. The goal of any successful coach (or even any person who has to manage any team of people in any facet of life) is to maximize the performance of the team based on the total collection of assets they have to work with. Sometimes that lines up with maximizing the use of individuals as doing so raises the collective floor of the team. Oftentimes it requires sacrifice from individuals on the team who have to play a role that they may be overqualified for in order for the team to be successful. Thibs (and the FO) IMO is rightfully focused on creating a winning team following a set formula (what we call stubbornness), not catering to individual player needs above the needs of the team. IQ's role on the team required him to make sacrifices in playing time in order to make the entire team better. IQ worked his ass off (big ups to him) and grew a skill set that went beyond that role. That didn't change the requirements of the role - it changed IQ's ability to be something more than that role. Whomever ultimately fills the role that IQ has vacated on the 2nd unit will also be required to make sacrifices in playing time and play the required role. It's not mis-management of an asset, it's purposeful management of an asset. Why I continue to say that I am happy for IQ (even though I miss him as a Knick) - he is about to cash in on all of the hard work he's put in to be in a position since being in the league to command the contract he's about to get.
There is an old maxim that you shouldn’t structure your team around a coach’s preference since coaches tend to come and go. Clearly they aren’t following that. Hope it all works out. I always felt IQ was misused, interesting to see how little Thibs wanted to use him unless he had to. I do remember a postgame where Thibs answered a question by saying, “what’s best for IQ isn’t necessarily what is best for the Knicks
I think players like OG, JHart and DDV can play for any coach. As for IQ, he owes his success to Thibs, who made him the 6th man very early on. Over most of the time he was here, he played more minutes than anyone other than the starters, so it's hard to see where you get that Thibs didn't want to use him unless he had to.
What I will agree is that neither Thibs nor the FO saw him as the answer at PG, which is why they didn't promote him to starter in 21-22, when the team lacked a PG when Kemba and Tose went down. But the FO had its eyes set on Brunson and, in retrospect, they were absolutely correct.
From what's been reported, it appears that his people began talking last year about his wanting to start, which Thibs doesn't believe works with Brunson. Knicks signed DDV this summer, who can do much of what IQ does at a greatly reduced cost. At that point, the writing was on the wall and, yes, IQ's minutes this season suffered. But, again, I suspect that's because the FO intended to use him in a trade.
Hate on Thibs all you want. But OG is a piece that most t4eams in the league want and, unlike IQ, or Randle or even Brunson, can fit into any lineup.
Not sure how I hated on Thibs but if you think I did that is fine. I think he is a very good coach, but like every other human being on the planet, has his blind spots. I was commenting on Kris’s article which highlighted all that.
And I was reacting to suggesting Thibs didn't want to use him unless he had to. Simply not true. Just didn't see him as the starting PG for this team and as not big enough to form a starting backcourt with Brunson. Those are legitimate concerns. IQ wanted to be a starter and bet on himself. We will never know what went on behind the scenes, but the reporting suggests that his team made their desires known and I think the FO gave him his desire.
I'd personally rather have OG than IQ because its easier to replace a guard 6th man than it is to find that big wing who can change the game with defense.
Excellent article by Kris. The article should be amended to say that Thibs is a great regular season basketball coach. His rigidity and stubbornness works in the regular season. But, in the playoffs you have to make adjustments. He has coached 3 play off series for us and lost two in which we were the favorite with home court advantage. Maybe we truly lost to better teams as the Hawks and Heat advanced at least to the finals. But, we lost game 1 to the Hawks at the buzzer in large part because he played Elf extended minutes and he lost game 3 to by continuing to start Hart over Grimes. As the roster continues to improve, Thibs needs to be judged on post-season not regular season success.
Shout out to Kris - that was (as is the standard) an excellent piece! The one thing I feel has been lacking in the IQ conversation is being happy for him that he has the opportunity to spread his wings elsewhere. As fans, we can sometimes be very selfish when it comes to our teams and the players on them. IQ was never going to be able to maximize either his on the court play or earnings as a player as long as he was playing for this team. IQ's next contract is super important as it will set the base for his lifetime potential earnings and put him in position to create true generational wealth for himself and family. In his new role, he has the ability to start at the position he believes he should (PG) and demonstrate his full value to an organization so he can be paid based on his full value (not just his value to the Knicks who do not need the full package and were going to be unable to pay what his full package is worth without compromising the make-up of the rest of the team). I loved watching the energy and exuberance IQ brought into every game and miss him as a player on my favorite team but I for one am happy for him and the opportunity he has been provided.
Because IQ is a restricted FA and very much valued across the league, the Knicks could have just held on to IQ through the remainder of the year, gone through some form of an acrimonious contract negotiation and dangled IQs contract to the highest bidder. Instead they appear to have found a win-win for both the Knicks (OG is showing himself to be exactly the player this specific team and coach needs to move closer to contention) and IQ (a team that needs exactly what IQ's full package is, values that package, will pay him the full worth of that package and a young core he can grow with to show his complete skill set). Just saying for those who are upset with the Knicks FO / Thibs for not "maximizing" IQ as an asset - maybe consider the possibility that the Knicks FO actually operated in the best interests of both IQ and themselves in a trade we all thought was damn near impossible before it happened. If I come off as a stan of this FO - I definitely am. They have done in less than 4 years (put this team on the brink of Championship contention and changed the perception of the organization) something that hadn't been accomplished in 20 years prior to Rose and crew taking over.
(As an aside - I absolutely loved the link Kris included in his article to the archived NY Times piece on Thibs and thank him for including that link in his commentary!)
Article links below from SI on IQ's happiness in his new role and NY Post speaking to Tyrese Maxey about IQ:
Love the Bill Musselman reference. Watched him many times at the Armory in Albany coaching the Patroons, roaming courtside in his black leather jacket. Can still see Michael Ray Richardson flying straight down the middle of the court leading fast breaks. Also a young Scotty Brooks, Tony Campbell, among others.
I am afraid I don’t buy the Kris narrative about Thibs stubbornness holding IQ down. Thibs would do anything to win. IQ got as much opportunity as anyone sharing the court with Brunson could expect ( just as Obi got as much run as anyone with his somewhat limited tools and sharing a position with Julius could have expected). IQ turned into a great player under Thibs and was traded for a great player. Win/win.
People talk about Thibs not playing young players, but he has done little else since he has been here. They talk about him not knowing how to adapt to changing times offensively. Their shot profile and stats say otherwise. IQ could certainly be a starter elsewhere (as we will see), but the Knicks best chance at winning while he was here was playing the role he played. The thing Thibs is actually stubborn about is winning.
Ken, I'm with you. I ran the piece a) because it was really well done and contained some solid reporting and b) because I think this is one area where reasonable minds can differ. I'm with you in that Thibs would chew his own arm off if it got him wins, but lots of people think he has blind spots to his detriment. So yeah...to each their own.
I'm glad you ran it Jonathan -- it was exceptionally well done, plus it engendered a ton of great comments on both sides of the "argument." Knick fans are a passionate bunch.
It's interesting that you ran the piece, but did not editorialize about it until after it was out in the ether. I think that was the right and fair thing to do to Kris. Keep writing Kris, you are very talented!
Losing IQ certainly hurts, but I think the reason he’s not here has a lot more to do with Jalen Brunson signing here and turning into an All-Star and perhaps All-NBA caliber player than Thibs having some axe to grind. Thibs coached extra sessions with the young guys - I think he was invested in their success, but in the end he viewed Obi and IQ as AAAA players to use a baseball reference. Too good to be bench players, but not good enough to be his kind of starters. The Knicks were trying to have it both ways for a long time under Rose - trying to be successful on the court but also to develop their young guys. In the end, IQ and RJ were on the verge of not being kids anymore and there wasn’t enough room here - in terms of shots and minutes and cap room. Rose chose to build around Brunson and Randle and try to maximize that window. I think it was the right move. Look, we likely aren’t winning a chip because we don’t have a top five player in the league and historically you need a top five player in the league to win. Historically you need to draft that player - and we would’ve likely been too good to draft that hypothetical player even if we sold Brunson and Randle for picks and went all in on the “youth” movement of 24yr old IQ and 23yr old RJ. I fully believe those guys would win 35-42 games on their own. So the Knicks had to make a choice. I would’ve liked to see IQ start next to Brunson, but I don’t think that’s a championship backcourt. The Knicks put their faith and investment in Brunson. I will miss IQ, but he seemed like he was chafing at being the sixth man here. Something had to give, especially with the new cap rules. Check out the second apron restrictions at some point - they are draconian. I think this situation would’ve happened under a lot of coaches and it’s weird to me so many harp on Thibs. There was a lot more going on than just Thibs not giving in, imho.
IMHO, I don't think this had anything to do with Thibs being stubborn. It never made sense to start IQ alongside RJ. If you have 4 on-ball guys, keep one on the bench. Of the 2, IQ was better, but RJ was the big wing, so in theory it was the better fit. Besides that, politically, RJ was never going to come off the bench as a Knick. On top of all that, as I wrote about a few times, it's impossible to both build consistency with a starting five and stagger them to the point where 2 of the 4 are always on the court. In that sense, Quick was more valuable to this team coming off the bench even if it meant him playing 2-3 fewer minutes a half. And then as a final aside, I always laugh to myself that a cottage industry arose over those 2-3 minutes a half. Coach comes in, rejuvenates and legitimizes the most downtrodden organization in professional sports going back 2 decades, but no no no...those 2-3 minutes. Rings a lot like "But her emails!" to me.
Yes! To me it was always about roster construction. And having Randle and RJ starting together always felt clunky to me. The Brunson / IQ thing felt similar but more for shot distribution and defense at the highest levels. Could Brunson and IQ destroy the Washingtons and Charlottes of the world? Sure. But against Miami or Boston in the playoffs... it was gonna be a struggle. As we’ve both been saying for a while now - OG is like a cheat code on defense for Thibs. Or any coach, but a guy like Thibs can make game plans with Anunoby that will win us games and maybe playoffs series we have no business winning otherwise. For people lamenting that OG is a good defender but his scoring is ho-hum: I think there is tons of room for growth in the scoring department. I also think OG can be a Draymond level defender in the playoffs. That may sound like a bad joke now - but Draymond had the early Warriors dynasty teams near the top of the league in defense. And was better in the playoffs. I think OG can be THAT good. And it’s the perfect roster construction fit between Brunson and Randle. It’s no surprised they’ve been dropping multiple 30 bombs on high efficiency with RJ out of the starting lineup. Our passing numbers have improved, too. Do we miss IQ? Of course. But there are 5 or 6 attainable replacements who can give us 80% or more of what IQ did imho (Brogdon, Clarkson, Rozier, Tyus Jones, Sexton, etc). IQ was great and I loved him, but it’s a far more replaceable archetype. Had IQ outgrown that archetype of sixth man microwave? Yes. But what to do next and what to pay him are the sorts of questions that led us to this trade. The OG archetype is far more rare and valuable in the playoffs. Looking around the league, the only name I can see that might realistically replace him is Mikal Bridges. And the Nets supposedly turned down an offer of four firsts for him. Not to mention they’d never trade us their best player (or anyone else that helped us). The roster isn’t done yet - but OG’s presence on it has raised our playoffs ceiling higher than it ever would’ve been with Brunson and IQ both making $25M or more imho. I think Knicks fans (myself included) are scarred by not developing young players for so long and losing IQ hurts. But to me, it’s always about roster construction and trying to make the best of the window you’ve got. We will see what the big trade is and where that ultimately takes us - but I think this move made sense and will pay major dividends in the big games to come. Sorry to ramble lol.
Roster construction, but also use of assets and allotment of limited financial resources. And to your point, the notion that IQ would give us a better chance than OG to beat Boston (who isn't going anywhere anytime soon) is somewhat laughable to me. They're huge and have become incredible at hunting mismatches. I kinda like having the most switchable defender in the league for that matchup.
I don't know ball (history), but is OG the best defensive chess piece Thibs has ever had? Could we be seeing a new "Thibs guy" to the extent of Taj and D-Rose being born right before our very eyes?
Sorry last thought: for years the D’Antoni Suns, Curry Warriors, and Morey Rockets looked to exploit inefficiencies on offense throughout the league - mainly on pace and volume (and quality) of 3s (aka pace and space). The league followed them and has basically caught up to the point where 10 teams this season are in the top 12 ALL-TIME in offensive efficiency ratings. The other two in the top 12 are from the past few seasons as well. The Knicks of this season are on that list of top 12 offenses all time. But I wonder if Thibs and Rose have looked at having a behemoth defense as exploiting a new inefficiency in the league. Like building a team that can really, truly defend is an inefficiency now. Having guys like OG and Mitch and Hart and IHart basically allows us to get into rock fights with teams that aren’t used to rock fights. And we still have two all-star level scorers to lean on. I look around the league and maybe the only other team that can do that is our big brother (evil twin?) down in Miami. Have a feeling we will see them in May.
Them signing Hart to the extension they did, and already playing him decent minutes at the 2 alongside OG and Julius, would seem to support your theory. Also look at the success Minny is having.
I think you see it play out in the rebounding, among other things. Thibs wants to hammer teams on the boards. And the death lineup with Hart and OG at the wings seems specifically designed to deal with tight games in May.
Kris, huzzah! That was a great piece. It put a lot into perspective including why Thibs, despite what was evident to everyone, would not start (or play 30m or more) the third best player on the Knicks. And Phil, you make a very good point, although one that I’m not sure I agree with. Thibs was never going to start Quick or play him more than 25m per game.
However, Thibs is not going to be the Knicks coach forever, in fact, he just turned 65.
While Phil’s point is quite generous and almost holy, a franchise in sports must maximize its assets if it will ever grow to be a championship-contending team. Quick might have been doomed to leave the Knicks but if Thibs played him 30m or more a night and/or started him, perhaps the Knicks would have received a lot more back in the trade.
By now, I’m sure anyone reading this can tell I loved watching Quickley play. His terrific shooting, and awesome defense were second and third to his best quality and that’s the exuberance he plays with. The happiness you can feel when he and his teammates are doing well. And the very clear unselfishness he played with.
I know I’m in the minority, at least amongst Knick fans, but I’m not so sure the Knicks made a good trade. OG is a terrific player but nowhere near a star. He will never be more than the fourth or fifth best player on a championship-type team.
Of course, he is a great defender and a pretty good 3pt shooter. But other than that, his offense is tremendously limited.
Quick on the other hand is going to be a superstar or just under in the next couple of years. I am quite sure -- that unless the Knicks win the title over the next 1-2 seasons (unlikely) Knick fans will look back and say “that’s all we could get for Quickley?”
I start with the concept of the "assumption of rational coaching" which I ascribe to Thibs. Coming into last season, I was not necessarily sold on Thibs a coach that could bring the Knicks into Championship contention and after the 1st 20 or so games last year I was thinking that maybe he needed to be replaced based on the uneven performance of the team. Watching how he was able to navigate all of the different pressures he had and get this team to the 2nd round of the playoffs with a legitimate shot of making the ECF changed my perception of him as a coach that could bring a Chip to New York.
I felt I had to start with that premise before responding to your points which I understand and in a vacuum agree with but ascribe a bit more nuance with in IQs situation. You can approach how the Knicks organization is run and coached in a couple of ways. One is that they will stock pile players and assets to build a team with a ton of talent and let the players skill sets dictate to the coach how to strategize and coach the team. The upside of that approach is that you "maximize" players strengths. The downside of that you run the risk of having no north star direction that you are building towards and it takes more than talent to be a winning NBA team, it also takes guidance. Three current examples of teams with supremely talented players struggling with consistency are Phoenix, GS Warriors and the Lakers. A second approach which is the path the Knicks organization has chosen is to hire a Coach whose coaching philosophy and approach the organization can coalesce / synchronize around and build a team around that philosophy. The upside of that approach is that you have a north star approach to build towards and can through the right series of moves (assessment of current players, acquisition of new players, successful drafting) build a winning NBA team. The downside of that approach is that you may not "maximize" the talent of all of the individual players on your roster.
As the Knicks "picked a lane" which is to build around Thibs approach to basketball, IQ was never going to be able to be all that he could be (to quote the Army phrase...LOL) under this head coach and in this organization. I suspect many opinions on the trade are colored in large part by how individuals feel about this coach in particular and the FO / Organization in general. I have no doubt that many Knick fans will look at IQs success (I personally believe he has the opportunity to be for the Raptors what his college teammate Maxey is doing for Philly) and say "that's all we could get for Quickley?" in the same way the same comments were made for Cam and Obi from a vocal slice of Knicks fandom.
The only point(s) that I tried to make (maybe not successfully) are to maybe consider some other aspects of the trade beyond our own desire to see one of our favorite players to have remained on the team and the fact that unlike many trades in sports this transaction appears to be one of the rare ones that makes each team better and is actually also beneficial to most of the players involved. I hope IQ gets to prove his talent level and becomes the perennial All-Star / Superstar most (including myself) believe he can be with the Raptors. I also want my Knicks to keep getting better as a team to move towards Championship contention and in the aggregate the trade absolutely accomplished that.
For those of us that spoke for more consistency from the 3 (where RJ was slotted) with the need for a lock down defender who could consistently hit open threes in order to get to the next level of team building, your assessment of OG as a terrific player that can hit 3's and be a great defender is everything many of us were hoping for. And while it's a very small sample size - the argument that was made for the change is being borne out before our eyes every game. The Knicks don't need OG to be a Superstar, just a superstar in his role. Assuming the Knicks get the additional piece we all believe them to have accumulated all of the assets they have, OG would in fact be the fourth best player on a championship-type team just as you have him slotted. I'm good with that :)
FWIW (and you know where I come from on the trade and on Thibs), I'm not sure how many (if any) coaches in the league would elect to start two small guards in the same backcourt rather than have one of them come off the bench. Cleveland has 2 All-Stars and has come under some significant criticism for their approach in pairing them despite having a high end 3-4-5 defensive back line behind them. The Knicks had Julius Randle and RJ Barrett.
All this is to say, pegging this as a coach not maximizing talent seems a bit fraught to me (and I know that you're arguing in favor of my side here Phil).
We are absolutely in alignment Jon. The goal of any successful coach (or even any person who has to manage any team of people in any facet of life) is to maximize the performance of the team based on the total collection of assets they have to work with. Sometimes that lines up with maximizing the use of individuals as doing so raises the collective floor of the team. Oftentimes it requires sacrifice from individuals on the team who have to play a role that they may be overqualified for in order for the team to be successful. Thibs (and the FO) IMO is rightfully focused on creating a winning team following a set formula (what we call stubbornness), not catering to individual player needs above the needs of the team. IQ's role on the team required him to make sacrifices in playing time in order to make the entire team better. IQ worked his ass off (big ups to him) and grew a skill set that went beyond that role. That didn't change the requirements of the role - it changed IQ's ability to be something more than that role. Whomever ultimately fills the role that IQ has vacated on the 2nd unit will also be required to make sacrifices in playing time and play the required role. It's not mis-management of an asset, it's purposeful management of an asset. Why I continue to say that I am happy for IQ (even though I miss him as a Knick) - he is about to cash in on all of the hard work he's put in to be in a position since being in the league to command the contract he's about to get.
Amen to ALL of that.
Solid Johnathan. Article by your guest outstanding.
There is an old maxim that you shouldn’t structure your team around a coach’s preference since coaches tend to come and go. Clearly they aren’t following that. Hope it all works out. I always felt IQ was misused, interesting to see how little Thibs wanted to use him unless he had to. I do remember a postgame where Thibs answered a question by saying, “what’s best for IQ isn’t necessarily what is best for the Knicks
I think players like OG, JHart and DDV can play for any coach. As for IQ, he owes his success to Thibs, who made him the 6th man very early on. Over most of the time he was here, he played more minutes than anyone other than the starters, so it's hard to see where you get that Thibs didn't want to use him unless he had to.
What I will agree is that neither Thibs nor the FO saw him as the answer at PG, which is why they didn't promote him to starter in 21-22, when the team lacked a PG when Kemba and Tose went down. But the FO had its eyes set on Brunson and, in retrospect, they were absolutely correct.
From what's been reported, it appears that his people began talking last year about his wanting to start, which Thibs doesn't believe works with Brunson. Knicks signed DDV this summer, who can do much of what IQ does at a greatly reduced cost. At that point, the writing was on the wall and, yes, IQ's minutes this season suffered. But, again, I suspect that's because the FO intended to use him in a trade.
Hate on Thibs all you want. But OG is a piece that most t4eams in the league want and, unlike IQ, or Randle or even Brunson, can fit into any lineup.
Not sure how I hated on Thibs but if you think I did that is fine. I think he is a very good coach, but like every other human being on the planet, has his blind spots. I was commenting on Kris’s article which highlighted all that.
And I was reacting to suggesting Thibs didn't want to use him unless he had to. Simply not true. Just didn't see him as the starting PG for this team and as not big enough to form a starting backcourt with Brunson. Those are legitimate concerns. IQ wanted to be a starter and bet on himself. We will never know what went on behind the scenes, but the reporting suggests that his team made their desires known and I think the FO gave him his desire.
I'd personally rather have OG than IQ because its easier to replace a guard 6th man than it is to find that big wing who can change the game with defense.
Excellent article by Kris. The article should be amended to say that Thibs is a great regular season basketball coach. His rigidity and stubbornness works in the regular season. But, in the playoffs you have to make adjustments. He has coached 3 play off series for us and lost two in which we were the favorite with home court advantage. Maybe we truly lost to better teams as the Hawks and Heat advanced at least to the finals. But, we lost game 1 to the Hawks at the buzzer in large part because he played Elf extended minutes and he lost game 3 to by continuing to start Hart over Grimes. As the roster continues to improve, Thibs needs to be judged on post-season not regular season success.
Shout out to Kris - that was (as is the standard) an excellent piece! The one thing I feel has been lacking in the IQ conversation is being happy for him that he has the opportunity to spread his wings elsewhere. As fans, we can sometimes be very selfish when it comes to our teams and the players on them. IQ was never going to be able to maximize either his on the court play or earnings as a player as long as he was playing for this team. IQ's next contract is super important as it will set the base for his lifetime potential earnings and put him in position to create true generational wealth for himself and family. In his new role, he has the ability to start at the position he believes he should (PG) and demonstrate his full value to an organization so he can be paid based on his full value (not just his value to the Knicks who do not need the full package and were going to be unable to pay what his full package is worth without compromising the make-up of the rest of the team). I loved watching the energy and exuberance IQ brought into every game and miss him as a player on my favorite team but I for one am happy for him and the opportunity he has been provided.
Because IQ is a restricted FA and very much valued across the league, the Knicks could have just held on to IQ through the remainder of the year, gone through some form of an acrimonious contract negotiation and dangled IQs contract to the highest bidder. Instead they appear to have found a win-win for both the Knicks (OG is showing himself to be exactly the player this specific team and coach needs to move closer to contention) and IQ (a team that needs exactly what IQ's full package is, values that package, will pay him the full worth of that package and a young core he can grow with to show his complete skill set). Just saying for those who are upset with the Knicks FO / Thibs for not "maximizing" IQ as an asset - maybe consider the possibility that the Knicks FO actually operated in the best interests of both IQ and themselves in a trade we all thought was damn near impossible before it happened. If I come off as a stan of this FO - I definitely am. They have done in less than 4 years (put this team on the brink of Championship contention and changed the perception of the organization) something that hadn't been accomplished in 20 years prior to Rose and crew taking over.
(As an aside - I absolutely loved the link Kris included in his article to the archived NY Times piece on Thibs and thank him for including that link in his commentary!)
Article links below from SI on IQ's happiness in his new role and NY Post speaking to Tyrese Maxey about IQ:
https://www.si.com/nba/raptors/news/toronto-raptors-darko-rajakovic-praised-by-immanuel-quickley
https://nypost.com/2024/01/06/sports/76ers-tyrese-maxey-happy-knicks-dealt-pal-immanuel-quickley/
Love the Bill Musselman reference. Watched him many times at the Armory in Albany coaching the Patroons, roaming courtside in his black leather jacket. Can still see Michael Ray Richardson flying straight down the middle of the court leading fast breaks. Also a young Scotty Brooks, Tony Campbell, among others.
I am afraid I don’t buy the Kris narrative about Thibs stubbornness holding IQ down. Thibs would do anything to win. IQ got as much opportunity as anyone sharing the court with Brunson could expect ( just as Obi got as much run as anyone with his somewhat limited tools and sharing a position with Julius could have expected). IQ turned into a great player under Thibs and was traded for a great player. Win/win.
People talk about Thibs not playing young players, but he has done little else since he has been here. They talk about him not knowing how to adapt to changing times offensively. Their shot profile and stats say otherwise. IQ could certainly be a starter elsewhere (as we will see), but the Knicks best chance at winning while he was here was playing the role he played. The thing Thibs is actually stubborn about is winning.
Ken, I'm with you. I ran the piece a) because it was really well done and contained some solid reporting and b) because I think this is one area where reasonable minds can differ. I'm with you in that Thibs would chew his own arm off if it got him wins, but lots of people think he has blind spots to his detriment. So yeah...to each their own.
I'm glad you ran it Jonathan -- it was exceptionally well done, plus it engendered a ton of great comments on both sides of the "argument." Knick fans are a passionate bunch.
It's interesting that you ran the piece, but did not editorialize about it until after it was out in the ether. I think that was the right and fair thing to do to Kris. Keep writing Kris, you are very talented!
I will pass along the sentiments to him!
Losing IQ certainly hurts, but I think the reason he’s not here has a lot more to do with Jalen Brunson signing here and turning into an All-Star and perhaps All-NBA caliber player than Thibs having some axe to grind. Thibs coached extra sessions with the young guys - I think he was invested in their success, but in the end he viewed Obi and IQ as AAAA players to use a baseball reference. Too good to be bench players, but not good enough to be his kind of starters. The Knicks were trying to have it both ways for a long time under Rose - trying to be successful on the court but also to develop their young guys. In the end, IQ and RJ were on the verge of not being kids anymore and there wasn’t enough room here - in terms of shots and minutes and cap room. Rose chose to build around Brunson and Randle and try to maximize that window. I think it was the right move. Look, we likely aren’t winning a chip because we don’t have a top five player in the league and historically you need a top five player in the league to win. Historically you need to draft that player - and we would’ve likely been too good to draft that hypothetical player even if we sold Brunson and Randle for picks and went all in on the “youth” movement of 24yr old IQ and 23yr old RJ. I fully believe those guys would win 35-42 games on their own. So the Knicks had to make a choice. I would’ve liked to see IQ start next to Brunson, but I don’t think that’s a championship backcourt. The Knicks put their faith and investment in Brunson. I will miss IQ, but he seemed like he was chafing at being the sixth man here. Something had to give, especially with the new cap rules. Check out the second apron restrictions at some point - they are draconian. I think this situation would’ve happened under a lot of coaches and it’s weird to me so many harp on Thibs. There was a lot more going on than just Thibs not giving in, imho.
IMHO, I don't think this had anything to do with Thibs being stubborn. It never made sense to start IQ alongside RJ. If you have 4 on-ball guys, keep one on the bench. Of the 2, IQ was better, but RJ was the big wing, so in theory it was the better fit. Besides that, politically, RJ was never going to come off the bench as a Knick. On top of all that, as I wrote about a few times, it's impossible to both build consistency with a starting five and stagger them to the point where 2 of the 4 are always on the court. In that sense, Quick was more valuable to this team coming off the bench even if it meant him playing 2-3 fewer minutes a half. And then as a final aside, I always laugh to myself that a cottage industry arose over those 2-3 minutes a half. Coach comes in, rejuvenates and legitimizes the most downtrodden organization in professional sports going back 2 decades, but no no no...those 2-3 minutes. Rings a lot like "But her emails!" to me.
Yes! To me it was always about roster construction. And having Randle and RJ starting together always felt clunky to me. The Brunson / IQ thing felt similar but more for shot distribution and defense at the highest levels. Could Brunson and IQ destroy the Washingtons and Charlottes of the world? Sure. But against Miami or Boston in the playoffs... it was gonna be a struggle. As we’ve both been saying for a while now - OG is like a cheat code on defense for Thibs. Or any coach, but a guy like Thibs can make game plans with Anunoby that will win us games and maybe playoffs series we have no business winning otherwise. For people lamenting that OG is a good defender but his scoring is ho-hum: I think there is tons of room for growth in the scoring department. I also think OG can be a Draymond level defender in the playoffs. That may sound like a bad joke now - but Draymond had the early Warriors dynasty teams near the top of the league in defense. And was better in the playoffs. I think OG can be THAT good. And it’s the perfect roster construction fit between Brunson and Randle. It’s no surprised they’ve been dropping multiple 30 bombs on high efficiency with RJ out of the starting lineup. Our passing numbers have improved, too. Do we miss IQ? Of course. But there are 5 or 6 attainable replacements who can give us 80% or more of what IQ did imho (Brogdon, Clarkson, Rozier, Tyus Jones, Sexton, etc). IQ was great and I loved him, but it’s a far more replaceable archetype. Had IQ outgrown that archetype of sixth man microwave? Yes. But what to do next and what to pay him are the sorts of questions that led us to this trade. The OG archetype is far more rare and valuable in the playoffs. Looking around the league, the only name I can see that might realistically replace him is Mikal Bridges. And the Nets supposedly turned down an offer of four firsts for him. Not to mention they’d never trade us their best player (or anyone else that helped us). The roster isn’t done yet - but OG’s presence on it has raised our playoffs ceiling higher than it ever would’ve been with Brunson and IQ both making $25M or more imho. I think Knicks fans (myself included) are scarred by not developing young players for so long and losing IQ hurts. But to me, it’s always about roster construction and trying to make the best of the window you’ve got. We will see what the big trade is and where that ultimately takes us - but I think this move made sense and will pay major dividends in the big games to come. Sorry to ramble lol.
Roster construction, but also use of assets and allotment of limited financial resources. And to your point, the notion that IQ would give us a better chance than OG to beat Boston (who isn't going anywhere anytime soon) is somewhat laughable to me. They're huge and have become incredible at hunting mismatches. I kinda like having the most switchable defender in the league for that matchup.
Great article!
I don't know ball (history), but is OG the best defensive chess piece Thibs has ever had? Could we be seeing a new "Thibs guy" to the extent of Taj and D-Rose being born right before our very eyes?
Butler was pretty damn good. But in terms of versatility, yeah.
Sorry last thought: for years the D’Antoni Suns, Curry Warriors, and Morey Rockets looked to exploit inefficiencies on offense throughout the league - mainly on pace and volume (and quality) of 3s (aka pace and space). The league followed them and has basically caught up to the point where 10 teams this season are in the top 12 ALL-TIME in offensive efficiency ratings. The other two in the top 12 are from the past few seasons as well. The Knicks of this season are on that list of top 12 offenses all time. But I wonder if Thibs and Rose have looked at having a behemoth defense as exploiting a new inefficiency in the league. Like building a team that can really, truly defend is an inefficiency now. Having guys like OG and Mitch and Hart and IHart basically allows us to get into rock fights with teams that aren’t used to rock fights. And we still have two all-star level scorers to lean on. I look around the league and maybe the only other team that can do that is our big brother (evil twin?) down in Miami. Have a feeling we will see them in May.
Them signing Hart to the extension they did, and already playing him decent minutes at the 2 alongside OG and Julius, would seem to support your theory. Also look at the success Minny is having.
I think you see it play out in the rebounding, among other things. Thibs wants to hammer teams on the boards. And the death lineup with Hart and OG at the wings seems specifically designed to deal with tight games in May.
Posted before finished. In any case that comment by the HC stuck with me.