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.
Aug 22, 2022·edited Aug 22, 2022Liked by Jonathan Macri
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.
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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
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.