Rabid Knick fans know that Berman has been about 90% wrong over the years in articles about trades. They tend toward the sensational as well he seems to enjoy messing with the Knick players, fans and front office.
And I am not one of those who say don’t trade RJ for anyone. I would say however, that I would not trade him for Mitchell unless Utah threw in a couple of first round unprotected picks.
Yes, I am serious.
Whether you believe RJ will be a star, we already know what he is and it’s pretty terrific.
RJ is resilient, missing very few games; he is an exceptionally hard worker as he has improved every season; and he is a leader.
Also, he is one of the best in the league at getting into the paint; is a good defender getting better and he has pretty good court vision. The one area he still needs to improve is his three-point shot, but again it he has improved every year so why wouldn’t his distance shooting improve as well?
More importantly, RJ has that Derek Jeter magic. Enjoys and is not phased by playing in NYC. Knows what and what not to say to the media. And he driven really driven to win titles.
Mitchell? He is a very good offensive player but mostly for himself, not others. He is small and a poor defender. And what do we know about his leadership or ability to withstand Berman, and the NYC media?
We know nothing.
I hope the Knicks don’t trade RJ unless it is in a deal (with other assets of course) for one of the leagues true superstars. Mitchell is a star. Not a superstar. RJ is heading in the right direction to be a star.
I acknowledge it is logical and perhaps even wise to discuss RJ, given how it might lower the pick outlay, but it depresses me to do so.
But just from a basketball standpoint - I would say RJ fits alongside Donovan better than maybe any current player on the roster including Brunson. He’s a big, athletic wing who can playmake and slash with an outside shot that has shown a lot of promise. A perfect complement to Donovan. Think of how well Iguodala and Wiggins worked next to Curry - obviously Mitchell is several notches below Curry, but I think the basketball fit is similar. Of course, an optimized at his ceiling Grimes, could be a poor man’s Klay Thompson. But I still think Grimes’s general archetype is easier to draft than RJ’s. In the last few years there have been several guys like Grimes drafted - Desmond Bane comes to mind, as does Gary Trent Jr.
Regarding Thibs’ supposed preference - I’ll just mention that the guy who reported this stuff has in the past reported that Grant Hill was on the verge of signing in NY because his wife wanted to further her recording career. It must be August if we’re freaking out about a Berman column. That said - glad to have him back. The beat just isn’t the same without him.
Personally thought it was intended be a funny comparison...not a way to insult the reader. I've read many takes on the Knicks (mostly bashing them...i.e. Berman)...I find this newsletter one of the best Ive ever read. Not that John needs the defense as I believe many enjoy his work overall but I don't think we are being talked down to like a child.
I get maybe not being a fan of that particular style...though still I didn't take it as insulting..maybe the reader likes his reporting meat and potatoes style!
Nah, I prefer conversational and have no problem with a little direct back and forth, NYC style. I was a blogger (outside of sports) back when blogs were new, and our site got tens of thousands of unique visitors per day, pre twitter times. I'm not into New York Times stuffy style. Quite the opposite.
But there's no world in which someone who was my friend who treated me as an equal would talk to me as if I were a child in need of adult enlightenment. Run that style in any NY barbershop for a few minutes and you'll get yourself checked in a real hurry.
The Talk with your daughter is fraught with worry. I have two daughters who managed quite nicely without my input. I assume my wife had the talk, although I never discussed it with her even. Ignorance on my part. The only danger in the Mitchell trade is giving too much. Did Mitchell lead Utah to the Championship? Utah had a better team than The Knicks. Showing my ignorance again, is any player worth giving everything the other team wants?
Sorry about that! I thought it was funny :) As for the second part, no player is worth Ainge's reported asking price, but DM is worth a ton. 25 year olds with this level of offensive talent don't come on the market often.
I think there was only one consideration missing from the discussion - perhaps you’re saving it for tomorrow - that bears on whether it makes sense to trade RJ: that RJ’s development is being held back by playing him with Randle and that RJ will never achieve his 80 or 90 percent outcome as long as his development continues to be stunted by Randle. One of RJ’s strengths is transition offense, and if I were Thibs I’d stagger RJ’s and Randle’s minute so RJ could spend as much time as possible running (literally) with the bench mob rather than plodding with the starters. Continuing to play RJ in a suboptimal lineup substantially lowers his value now and for the long term. I don’t think one can answer the question how RJ should be viewed as a possible trade asset until you first decide whether Randle remains a Knick or not.
On the “having the talk” analogy, I’m not going to flog you like another commenter, but it was a poor choice. A large portion of kids (and adults, for that matter) have a totally screwed up and unhealthy understanding of sex and sexuality precisely because their parents (and their parent’s parents, and their parent’s parent’s parents) feared talking openly and honestly about it. (In my own case I never even got “the talk” - just a where do babies come from book under my pillow one night.) Volumes have been written about what a poor job we as a society do to prepared our kids, and your otherwise excellent newsletter was not a good venue to wade into that quagmire…
Hey Anthony, sorry the analogy rubbed you the wrong way, and you make a good point. As for RJ, I agree the partnership with Randle hasn't helped at times, but Randle has also sopped up a massive amount of defensive attention, most especially in 20-21, when RJ was the beneficiary of a ton of kick outs that helped raise his overall efficiency. Even this season, defenses geared up more to stop Randle than RJ for much of the year. All that being said, Randle is anything but a perfect compliment to RJ, and we should certainly take this into consideration when looking at historical comps.
I feel that since the Jazz got so much from the Timberwolves pick wise they will just continue to hold out. Is the Knicks offer that much worse? All these picks protected or non protected seem like a crapshoot. If I were the Jazz and secretly knew I had to deal Mitchell wouldn't the real prize result in them gutting their team pretty mush ensuring that their own pick hits in a loaded draft? That's more likely to happen with Mitchell and Gobert gone. All the other picks would be gravy and I'm sure with the Knicks and Wolves luck one or more of those picks will become a solid peace to their franchise. It's wistful thinking but I hope the Jazz would be okay taking a little less from the Knicks because they realized the Wolves already overpayed to begin with.
I think the eventual deal is going to seem like a Knicks win, slightly, to those who have been paying attention, and it's ultimately because of what you explain. They want to move him. They're going to take the best deal. NY will offer it.
Based on the rumors we have heard best case for the Knicks this off season would result in JB and DM on the Knicks, Barrett on the Jazz, and Evan and Julius both on the Lakers. The team would have a hole at SF but as many remaining picks as possible, would have a year to look at Cam, a ton of flexibility to chase a SF in the off season, and years to access Toppin, Q, and Grimes as rotation pieces before paying them.
The most off-putting part of this is being spoken to as if I'm a child, frankly.
patronizing, adjective: apparently kind or helpful but betraying a feeling of superiority; condescending.
That's a talk I would frankly, but reluctantly, have, but it's your newsletter, you're an adult, and I'm not your dad. So this is just subscriber feedback about the underlying and enduring approach to engaging subscribers, as I experience it. There's my .02.
Argue for the merits of moving RJ in whatever circumstances, fine. Just stop infantilizing the reader. We're not a classroom full of junior high kids, and you're not here to teach anybody. My request is you talk and present ideas to adults respectfully as co-equal, intelligent adults, not to be spoken to as children. It's a pervasive style if you look back over your work.
Hey AJ. Sorry you took offense. I'm curious though, was it the intro of the piece, which was intended for comic effect, or something I wrote in particular? If it was the former, sorry about that, I tend to use out of the box intros to topics, and I found this one appropriate not in an "adult talking to a child" way but simply "a discussion no one wants to have" way. If it was the way something within the piece was worded, please let me know.
Meh. I'm not offended. I do find the tone irritating, and unnecessary. The setup to the whole piece was, here I am, like a dad, having to reluctantly have an awkward conversation with you the reader, who in my extended analogy, are in the position of a child. This is a pure and distilled form or patronizing speech, as the root word pater in Latin literally means father.
I don't believe at all you do it on purpose. That said, this is a posture and tone you very frequently strike, in small ways and large, especially when you are feeling exasperated and put upon by fans whose contrary opinions you then characterize or treat, in one way or another, as some form of childish, or immature, or irresponsible, etc.
You then affect a tone akin to scolding, like, finally, impatiently, you've Had It with the class's antics and Mr. Macri Has Had Enough. You don't do it on purpose. Old habits? I would never even respond to this stuff about today's newsletter if it were not something I've seen for a long time.
I disagree with people all the time. I may think they're wrong, nuts even. I may even tell them so. But I don't think of them as childish or speak to them as if they were children who needed me to patiently explain to them how they should be more mature or rational. But that frequently seems to be your posture.
I like you, always have. Offered you resources like audience polling capability from my company in your earlier days. If there's one takeaway here, it just one subscriber's feedback to be wary of unconsciously engaging the audience as if they were children and you are the Level Headed Grown Up Dad in the room. It irritates a portion of your audience that is otherwise rooting for you.
Well, for one, I still teach, so they aren't old habits. Second, thanks for bringing me back to high school Latin...sadly it was my worst class and don't think I remember 5 words from it. Lastly, appreciate the constructive criticism and will certainly keep in mind moving forward. I certainly do get exasperated although I try to keep that tone out of the letter, apparently unsuccessfully so at times. Will try to do better.
It's a great question that has come up a few times in other venues but I have not written about it. If they make the trade, you'll get a deep dive at some point, I promise, but the key here is that DM has a freakishly long wingspan. Between that, his frame and his athleticism, it's why he was touted as a defense first guard coming out of college. He just seemingly hasn't tried much in recent years, perhaps as he's slowly gotten tired of the Utah situation. In any case, there will be more coming your way if a trade happens .
Rabid Knick fans know that Berman has been about 90% wrong over the years in articles about trades. They tend toward the sensational as well he seems to enjoy messing with the Knick players, fans and front office.
And I am not one of those who say don’t trade RJ for anyone. I would say however, that I would not trade him for Mitchell unless Utah threw in a couple of first round unprotected picks.
Yes, I am serious.
Whether you believe RJ will be a star, we already know what he is and it’s pretty terrific.
RJ is resilient, missing very few games; he is an exceptionally hard worker as he has improved every season; and he is a leader.
Also, he is one of the best in the league at getting into the paint; is a good defender getting better and he has pretty good court vision. The one area he still needs to improve is his three-point shot, but again it he has improved every year so why wouldn’t his distance shooting improve as well?
More importantly, RJ has that Derek Jeter magic. Enjoys and is not phased by playing in NYC. Knows what and what not to say to the media. And he driven really driven to win titles.
Mitchell? He is a very good offensive player but mostly for himself, not others. He is small and a poor defender. And what do we know about his leadership or ability to withstand Berman, and the NYC media?
We know nothing.
I hope the Knicks don’t trade RJ unless it is in a deal (with other assets of course) for one of the leagues true superstars. Mitchell is a star. Not a superstar. RJ is heading in the right direction to be a star.
I acknowledge it is logical and perhaps even wise to discuss RJ, given how it might lower the pick outlay, but it depresses me to do so.
But just from a basketball standpoint - I would say RJ fits alongside Donovan better than maybe any current player on the roster including Brunson. He’s a big, athletic wing who can playmake and slash with an outside shot that has shown a lot of promise. A perfect complement to Donovan. Think of how well Iguodala and Wiggins worked next to Curry - obviously Mitchell is several notches below Curry, but I think the basketball fit is similar. Of course, an optimized at his ceiling Grimes, could be a poor man’s Klay Thompson. But I still think Grimes’s general archetype is easier to draft than RJ’s. In the last few years there have been several guys like Grimes drafted - Desmond Bane comes to mind, as does Gary Trent Jr.
Regarding Thibs’ supposed preference - I’ll just mention that the guy who reported this stuff has in the past reported that Grant Hill was on the verge of signing in NY because his wife wanted to further her recording career. It must be August if we’re freaking out about a Berman column. That said - glad to have him back. The beat just isn’t the same without him.
Personally thought it was intended be a funny comparison...not a way to insult the reader. I've read many takes on the Knicks (mostly bashing them...i.e. Berman)...I find this newsletter one of the best Ive ever read. Not that John needs the defense as I believe many enjoy his work overall but I don't think we are being talked down to like a child.
I was very confused by this reply until I saw the other comment! for the record - I like Jon's work a great deal lol
I get maybe not being a fan of that particular style...though still I didn't take it as insulting..maybe the reader likes his reporting meat and potatoes style!
Nah, I prefer conversational and have no problem with a little direct back and forth, NYC style. I was a blogger (outside of sports) back when blogs were new, and our site got tens of thousands of unique visitors per day, pre twitter times. I'm not into New York Times stuffy style. Quite the opposite.
But there's no world in which someone who was my friend who treated me as an equal would talk to me as if I were a child in need of adult enlightenment. Run that style in any NY barbershop for a few minutes and you'll get yourself checked in a real hurry.
I’d be very happy with that.
I know he’s worth a lot. My point is the Utah team was much better. The Knicks would never approach that level if they traded the farm.
we'll see. I think if they got DM, they'd be a 45 win team at least next season, and another move away from 50.
The Talk with your daughter is fraught with worry. I have two daughters who managed quite nicely without my input. I assume my wife had the talk, although I never discussed it with her even. Ignorance on my part. The only danger in the Mitchell trade is giving too much. Did Mitchell lead Utah to the Championship? Utah had a better team than The Knicks. Showing my ignorance again, is any player worth giving everything the other team wants?
Sorry about that! I thought it was funny :) As for the second part, no player is worth Ainge's reported asking price, but DM is worth a ton. 25 year olds with this level of offensive talent don't come on the market often.
I think there was only one consideration missing from the discussion - perhaps you’re saving it for tomorrow - that bears on whether it makes sense to trade RJ: that RJ’s development is being held back by playing him with Randle and that RJ will never achieve his 80 or 90 percent outcome as long as his development continues to be stunted by Randle. One of RJ’s strengths is transition offense, and if I were Thibs I’d stagger RJ’s and Randle’s minute so RJ could spend as much time as possible running (literally) with the bench mob rather than plodding with the starters. Continuing to play RJ in a suboptimal lineup substantially lowers his value now and for the long term. I don’t think one can answer the question how RJ should be viewed as a possible trade asset until you first decide whether Randle remains a Knick or not.
On the “having the talk” analogy, I’m not going to flog you like another commenter, but it was a poor choice. A large portion of kids (and adults, for that matter) have a totally screwed up and unhealthy understanding of sex and sexuality precisely because their parents (and their parent’s parents, and their parent’s parent’s parents) feared talking openly and honestly about it. (In my own case I never even got “the talk” - just a where do babies come from book under my pillow one night.) Volumes have been written about what a poor job we as a society do to prepared our kids, and your otherwise excellent newsletter was not a good venue to wade into that quagmire…
Hey Anthony, sorry the analogy rubbed you the wrong way, and you make a good point. As for RJ, I agree the partnership with Randle hasn't helped at times, but Randle has also sopped up a massive amount of defensive attention, most especially in 20-21, when RJ was the beneficiary of a ton of kick outs that helped raise his overall efficiency. Even this season, defenses geared up more to stop Randle than RJ for much of the year. All that being said, Randle is anything but a perfect compliment to RJ, and we should certainly take this into consideration when looking at historical comps.
I feel that since the Jazz got so much from the Timberwolves pick wise they will just continue to hold out. Is the Knicks offer that much worse? All these picks protected or non protected seem like a crapshoot. If I were the Jazz and secretly knew I had to deal Mitchell wouldn't the real prize result in them gutting their team pretty mush ensuring that their own pick hits in a loaded draft? That's more likely to happen with Mitchell and Gobert gone. All the other picks would be gravy and I'm sure with the Knicks and Wolves luck one or more of those picks will become a solid peace to their franchise. It's wistful thinking but I hope the Jazz would be okay taking a little less from the Knicks because they realized the Wolves already overpayed to begin with.
I think the eventual deal is going to seem like a Knicks win, slightly, to those who have been paying attention, and it's ultimately because of what you explain. They want to move him. They're going to take the best deal. NY will offer it.
Based on the rumors we have heard best case for the Knicks this off season would result in JB and DM on the Knicks, Barrett on the Jazz, and Evan and Julius both on the Lakers. The team would have a hole at SF but as many remaining picks as possible, would have a year to look at Cam, a ton of flexibility to chase a SF in the off season, and years to access Toppin, Q, and Grimes as rotation pieces before paying them.
The most off-putting part of this is being spoken to as if I'm a child, frankly.
patronizing, adjective: apparently kind or helpful but betraying a feeling of superiority; condescending.
That's a talk I would frankly, but reluctantly, have, but it's your newsletter, you're an adult, and I'm not your dad. So this is just subscriber feedback about the underlying and enduring approach to engaging subscribers, as I experience it. There's my .02.
Argue for the merits of moving RJ in whatever circumstances, fine. Just stop infantilizing the reader. We're not a classroom full of junior high kids, and you're not here to teach anybody. My request is you talk and present ideas to adults respectfully as co-equal, intelligent adults, not to be spoken to as children. It's a pervasive style if you look back over your work.
Please give this some consideration.
Hey AJ. Sorry you took offense. I'm curious though, was it the intro of the piece, which was intended for comic effect, or something I wrote in particular? If it was the former, sorry about that, I tend to use out of the box intros to topics, and I found this one appropriate not in an "adult talking to a child" way but simply "a discussion no one wants to have" way. If it was the way something within the piece was worded, please let me know.
Meh. I'm not offended. I do find the tone irritating, and unnecessary. The setup to the whole piece was, here I am, like a dad, having to reluctantly have an awkward conversation with you the reader, who in my extended analogy, are in the position of a child. This is a pure and distilled form or patronizing speech, as the root word pater in Latin literally means father.
I don't believe at all you do it on purpose. That said, this is a posture and tone you very frequently strike, in small ways and large, especially when you are feeling exasperated and put upon by fans whose contrary opinions you then characterize or treat, in one way or another, as some form of childish, or immature, or irresponsible, etc.
You then affect a tone akin to scolding, like, finally, impatiently, you've Had It with the class's antics and Mr. Macri Has Had Enough. You don't do it on purpose. Old habits? I would never even respond to this stuff about today's newsletter if it were not something I've seen for a long time.
I disagree with people all the time. I may think they're wrong, nuts even. I may even tell them so. But I don't think of them as childish or speak to them as if they were children who needed me to patiently explain to them how they should be more mature or rational. But that frequently seems to be your posture.
I like you, always have. Offered you resources like audience polling capability from my company in your earlier days. If there's one takeaway here, it just one subscriber's feedback to be wary of unconsciously engaging the audience as if they were children and you are the Level Headed Grown Up Dad in the room. It irritates a portion of your audience that is otherwise rooting for you.
Well, for one, I still teach, so they aren't old habits. Second, thanks for bringing me back to high school Latin...sadly it was my worst class and don't think I remember 5 words from it. Lastly, appreciate the constructive criticism and will certainly keep in mind moving forward. I certainly do get exasperated although I try to keep that tone out of the letter, apparently unsuccessfully so at times. Will try to do better.
Pater noster, qui es in cœlis; sanctificetur nomen tuum: Adveniat regnum tuum; fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo, et in terra. . .
Something else I haven't done in far too long...
Google text from dead languages?
It's a great question that has come up a few times in other venues but I have not written about it. If they make the trade, you'll get a deep dive at some point, I promise, but the key here is that DM has a freakishly long wingspan. Between that, his frame and his athleticism, it's why he was touted as a defense first guard coming out of college. He just seemingly hasn't tried much in recent years, perhaps as he's slowly gotten tired of the Utah situation. In any case, there will be more coming your way if a trade happens .