"The Talk"

Trading RJ Barrett? Shut your mouth.

Good morning! Is it possible we’re just about a month away from the opening of training camps across the league? Believe it. This being the NBA though, there’s always something to talk about, and this weekend was no exception. Welcome back, Marc.

“The Talk”

Do you remember when your parents decided to have the talk?

You know the one I’m referring to. It’s the most uncomfortable moments that a young man or woman is ever likely to experience - one in which a mom or dad is discussing things that a mom or dad should never, ever speak aloud, let alone in the presence of one of their own children.

I don’t remember my talk very well. I tuned it out and immediately tried to pretend I was literally anywhere else, nodding every few seconds and hoping my dad was none the wiser. I recall something about how men and woman could do the same things but how their reputations would change in different ways after doing those things. I’m fairly certain he mistakenly checked out “How to Talk to Your Daughter About Sex,” but I appreciate the effort nonetheless in retrospect.

Now, a quarter century later, I have a daughter of my own, and sadly, the book my pops used is almost certainly out of circulation. I have a few years to go before it will be required, but I’m already resigned to the fact that delivering it will be even worse than getting it. Any way you cut, there is no conversation that holds a candle to being on either end of the talk.

But broaching the topic of an RJ Barrett trade sure does come close.

How could anyone not like him?

Consider it my way of working myself up to the talk with my daughters.

Want to get into a fight on Knicks Twitter and fast? Suggest that you’re even considering the possibility that trading RJ might make sense. The context doesn’t even matter. Mere mention of the thought is enough.

It’s why, much like the talk, attempting to have a coherent discussion about the wisdom of including Barrett in any trade, even (and perhaps especially) in one for Donovan Mitchell, is a one-way ticket to pitchfork city.

Alas, if I hope to one day utter the word “condom” to my first born without completely imploding, attempting to write a coherent column about RJ’s potential involvement in a Mitchell trade is nothing if not important preparation.

Step One in that endeavor: making the case that even having this talk is worthwhile.

I know what you’re thinking…the same thing my grandma would have said if she knew the debauchery that went through my 8th grade brain when I saw members of the opposite sex: Just say NO! Indeed, in the present landscape, only criticism of Mike Breen’s announcing or of Clyde’s outfits rank higher on the hedonism scale than entertaining the notion of RJ wearing a non-Knick uniform. RJ’s place on the current and future core of this team is sacrosanct. Any notion otherwise is met with the same stern glances I’d get from the nuns if I violated social distancing guidelines at a school dance.

But just like I’ll need to wade into unpleasant waters with my daughter someday, I feel like this topic is at least worthy of a discussion, not because I think it’s the right thing to do - I don’t, and I’ll get to why that is eventually - but because it can often be instructive to explore topics that are otherwise dismissed out of hand, if for no other reason than to see where the premise takes you, however absurd it might seem at first.

We should start by simply acknowledging the reasons why trading RJ for Donovan Mitchell (or, frankly, for just about anyone in the NBA) is so off-putting to begin with. Barrett is, in no uncertain terms, the face of the franchise. More than any stats or projections or conjecture about what level banana he is or may someday grow to be, his status as the face of the Knicks is at the core of how he is perceived. Every franchise in the league with the exception of one - the Spurs, after dealing Dejounte Murray to Atlanta - has a singular face associated with their logo. You could argue that the Kings and Pacers - each of whom ironically supplied the other with their new “face” at the deadline - are on the borderline, but they’re close enough.

And why does that matter? Because even when a star becomes available, every team should have someone they keep behind the velvet rope. We’ve seen this play out this summer. Kevin Durant, still arguably one of the three best players alive when healthy, has been demanding out of Brooklyn for months and we’ve yet to get any indication that another team is willing to put up its top dog to obtain him.

There are, obviously, numerous reasons for this, starting with the fact that no one would trade for Durant unless they’re reasonably confident he wants to be a part of their team, and by the same token, feels that he’s capable of winning there. Even with that necessary grain of salt though, it feels notable that the best KD package we’ve heard of tops out with one of the premier second bananas in the game, Jaylen Brown.

Which brings us back to RJ. From New Year’s Eve on, he was undoubtedly the number one guy on this roster. Since the arrival of Jalen Brunson though, that pecking order may have already shifted. If the Knicks trade for Donovan Mitchell and RJ remains in New York, it would certainly shift, and maybe even revert back to how things were in the 2020-21 season. That year, Barrett’s usage rate was 4th on the team, in a cluster of five players all between 20.8 and 24.6, and well behind Randle’s team-leading number.

If that were to occur, it would be a sign that Barrett’s position as the face of the franchise is far more tenuous than it might currently seem. Should that necessarily change New York’s approach though? That depends on none other than one Danny Ainge.

Ainge, it has been widely reported throughout most of this process, isn’t interested in Barrett because he wants players who have more years remaining on their rookie deals. At the same time, there have been murmurs that Ainge’s dismissal of RJ as a possible key piece in a deal has been overstated. Ian Begley initially reported that Utah’s first inquiries included Barrett’s name, and more recently, Stephen A. Smith stated the same. Then on Saturday night, Marc Berman reported that while Utah is “hot” for Quentin Grimes, “there is belief around the league Thibodeau would prefer to give up Barrett” instead.

Cue Mitch:

This last bit of conjecture naturally lit the internet on fire, because of course it did.

The pearl-clutching over whether this is true and what effect it might have on Barrett’s attitude towards the franchise isn’t all that interesting to me though. For one, every player who has ever been on the roster has had something similar written about them by Berman. More importantly, I’m quite certain RJ cares far more about the love his team expresses for him with their checkbook than he does about any rumor. To that end, he remains un-extended after having watched three of his draft classmates get the max mere hours after they were eligible to do so. Whether the lack of an extension is tied to the ongoing Mitchell trade negotiations, as Berman intimates, is anyone’s guess, but it certainly can’t be ignored.

The more interesting part of Saturday’s story, to me at least, is the timing. Both this and the Smith soundbite come less than a week after reports emerged that Utah and New York had re-engaged on trade discussions after reportedly hitting a stalemate over a month ago. As I wrote last week, someone had to be the one to pick up the phone. Could it have been New York, and might they have been more willing to discuss Barrett than they were previously inclined to do?

If this possibility comes as a shock, it probably shouldn’t. Zach Lowe suggested over a month ago that RJ’s inclusion in a trade “might not be the deal-breaker people think it is,” but we also don’t need Zach to report as much. If a 3rd year player doesn’t get a rookie max within the first 72 hours of free agency, he is not a deal-breaker in a trade of this magnitude. That’s simply the reality of the league.

Suggesting Barrett is a deal-breaker also ignores another segment of reporting from multiple sources, which is that Barrett’s contract isn’t the only reason his name wasn’t mentioned much in most of the early trade reports. As Andy Larsen of the Salt Lake Tribune wrote last month, Barrett “was considered more valuable to the Knicks than the Jazz.” This, notably, is very different than “Utah doesn’t want RJ” or “New York is unwilling to give him up.” The implication was clear: if RJ is going to be included in the deal, he’d have to represent the lion’s share of the value heading back to Utah. The Jazz, meanwhile, didn’t seem to view Barrett as that sort of prize, especially given his impending payday, which Bleacher Report’s Jake Fischer reported over a month ago could be a max.

Perhaps that thinking has changed. Or maybe there’s a third team looking to get involved here who values RJ more than the Jazz and maybe even more than the Knicks. Or maybe nothing has changed, and this is all a product of a never-ending summer with nothing else going on.

The point is this: this whole discussion underscores why the conversation surrounding RJ’s inclusion in a Mitchell trade has been flawed from the start. The question, since the moment the rumors first hit, has been whether the Knicks can get Donovan Mitchell without including RJ Barrett, whereas the question should have been how much less will New York have to pay if they put Barrett on the table.

This, I suspect, is why we’re getting all this smoke recently. It’s also why I’m writing this newsletter: because I suspect the Knicks are asking themselves the very same questions. If every package they’ve offered Utah gets them nowhere, and they’re unwilling to bend in the key areas Ainge has prioritized (the quantity and quality of picks, I’d guess), might there be a better path that includes Barrett?

To say this is a hot button issue would be an understatement. I have no doubt that there’s a segment of the fan base who would rather keep Barrett than give up any package of picks and other young players (or, more likely, would rather simply not trade for Mitchell at all). This is the sort of fervor the 22-year-old inspires. Others may be slightly more accommodating - say, Barrett can go, but in that case the Knicks would only give up one of their own draft picks and send all four protected selections to Utah as the remaining draft equity, with no other young players inlcuded.

And down the slippery slope we go. There are dozens of different machinations of Barrett-centered trades and what else they would or would not entail. My somewhat informed guess is that it would knock two of New York’s own first round picks off the price tag and that no other young players, save a Cam or a Deuce, would need to be included in the transaction. Even this leaves questions though. Would the Knicks still need to send out multiple firsts of their own? And when would those picks convey? If it were Barrett plus three or four protected firsts and only one of New York’s own picks, would that first rounder convey in 2023 or 2024? Or 2028 or 2029? If it were the former, do swaps need to be included to make up the difference? And on and on we go.

And then there’s a whole ‘nother part of this conversation: the cap ramifications of Barrett’s inclusion. Primarily, if this really did come down to Barrett plus less draft equity vs Grimes plus more draft equity, that would give the Knicks something between $20 million and $25 million more in spending power in each of the next two summers. That could be the difference between having or not having a max slot depending on what else they do over the next two years.

Which brings us to one final point that hasn’t been made but which may also be of some relevance: if the Jazz are taking a hard line stance against the remaining two guaranteed years and $37 million owed to Evan Fournier and are instead insisting that Derrick Rose’s potentially expiring contract be the returning salary in the deal, there is no way to complete that trade under the cap without including either Cam Reddish or Obi Toppin and one of Quentin Grimes or Immanuel Quickley. If, as we’ve heard, the Jazz also have no interest in Reddish, this creates something of an issue where the young core is concerned.

Of course, to many fans, there is no young core without Barrett. Even if the “Grimes vs RJ” conversation is missing the necessary context of what else the Knicks would be able to save by sending out Barrett instead of Quentin, we’re talking about the face of the franchise here. If 27 or 28 other teams would scoff at trading the face of their franchise, why, then, shouldn’t the Knicks?

An important point before we finish up today: if you are someone who thinks the very fact that the head coach isn’t all in on RJ or that the front office might be considering his inclusion in a Mitchell deal are both fireable offenses, there’s not a thing wrong with that. Fans can and should vociferously defend their own players and expect 80th or 90th percentile outcomes for their development. If you root for this team and you can’t be sold on this kid, with how hard he seems to work and how much he seems to love being a Knick, then what the fuck is the point?

Unfortunately, the coach and front office don’t have the same luxury. They also possess insight and information we do not.

It’s why they can’t simply consider RJ’s 90th and 80th percentile outcomes, but his 50th, 30th and 10th percentile outcomes as well, in addition to the cost - both in dollars and opportunity - of finding out the answer. Lastly, they can’t just forecast what the roster will look like both with and without RJ next season, but two, three, four and five years out.

It’s why, as uncomfortable as it may be, having the talk about RJ Barrett is a necessary unpleasantness.

And we haven’t even gotten to the hard part yet.

Check back tomorrow for Part II of “The Talk”

🏀

That’s it for today! If you enjoy this newsletter and like the Mets, don’t forget to subscribe to JB’s Metropolitan, or his hockey newsletter, Isles Fix. See y’all soon! #BlackLivesMatter