Speaker 1: What is up, fellow Sikos.
Speaker 2: I am Dan Favali coming at you with my certified
fantabulous co host, mister Grant Hughes, and we're here to
talk about a semi emergency pod because we didn't jump
on right away.
Speaker 3: But hey, what are you?
Speaker 1: What are you gonna do?
Speaker 2: H carl A Fetwons to the New York Knicks, Julius
Randall and Dante DiVincenzo to the Minnesota Timberwolves. And look,
here's the thing. This trade still is in finalize, So
the Knicks are sending as I'm stumbling through my words
here because it's I'm still thinking about it. I just
don't it's just a fascinating trade. But the Knicks as
sending Dante DiVincenzo, Julius Randall Detroit twenty twenty five first
round pick, which is protected top thirteen this year, I believe,
and it'll leak into protections through twenty twenty seven, so
there's a chance it conveyed, but it might not. And
in return they are getting Karl Anthony Towns. However, there
has to be more teams involved. We know one of
them is the Charlotte Hornets because both of these teams
are over the first apron and Minnesota of courses inside
the second apron. Neither can take back more money than
they send out in a trade, so it's obviously not
gonna be a dollar for dollar match. And part of
the appeal here for Minnesota I assume is they're shaving
some payroll off of this year too. De Kwon Jeffries
is going to be signed and traded to Charlotte along
with draft compensation. That's pretty ambiguous at this point. However,
I just given the gap that needs to be made up,
which is about grant like eight point eight million, so
closer to nine I don't like with base year compensation
and stuff, I don't think the Kwon Jeffries alone is
going to do it. So I am wondering if I
tried to figure out the different permutations, but I ultimately
think it's not going to be worth it because it's
gonna happen and it'll date whatever theories I have. I
would just keep an eye on the Mitchell Robinson stuff
at this point because that would be a salary that
could be folded into part of a larger deal. So
this is a trade that per ESPN was being worked
on for a while, and once the Knicks relented on
I guess the Dante DiVincenzo of it all, that's when
it picked up steam. I do wonder if, well, we'll
get into the Mitchell Robinson injury how that impacted it.
But there was also the report esp excuse me s
ny dot TV's Ian Begley that Donte Devincenzo wasn't thrilled
at the idea of having a reduced role following the
mckill Bridges trade.
Speaker 3: He probably would have been coming off the bench.
Speaker 2: That likely made it easier for the Knicks than to
break up the the Villanova crew.
Speaker 3: That was the biggest surprise to me of all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so Grant, let's which side do you want to Well,
let's let's start here first. Given how this off season unfolded,
where it was like free agency transaction was over very quickly,
we had the fake Larry market and stuff for like
a couple of weeks. This is one of the ones
I very rarely get taken aback by transactions anymore.
Speaker 3: This one got me.
Speaker 2: And before I throw it to my final part of
the preamble, I had taken an edible and on Friday
night and this trade comes in after that. So I'm
like doing all these things and thinking about it while
I'm just stoned out of my mind, not out of
my mind, but so that made it even more of
just a little bit of a trip for me. So
what were what was your reaction to the to the
news coming through.
Speaker 1: Knowing that that's new information to me, knowing that I
really wish we had just done a true emergency pod
right away on Friday night, just to really get out there.
Speaker 2: Do you know I was actually high because I asked
you if you would podcast today, wouldn't I normally be
HESITANTD I don't want to buy.
Speaker 1: You're feeling uninhibited. I think, so this is the we
have to get into it. And I want to start
with the towns for trades at this point of the
off season really one. But this is so this is
the type of trade that is going to make me
never like give up on the where there's smoke there's
fire thing again because I was wrong on the Donovan
Mitchell stuff. It's like, oh, he's gonna he's not gonna resign,
he's gonna be gone. There's all this, all these murmurings
and whatever, and like, I mean, how many different times
over the last couple of years. Did we discuss or
see rumored or hear whispered about towns to the Knicks, right,
and then it goes away because the Wolves are good
town seems to be an integral part of that. The
Knicks are just like, how could that ever work?
Speaker 3: Why?
Speaker 1: And then it happens, right, like there's this weird lull
and then it happens. So it's gonna make me just
buy all the whispers and rumors again. I'm never gonna
I'm always gonna be like just not a conspiracy theorist,
but like, I'm not gonna dismiss that stuff again. It's
just as refueled that tank.
Speaker 3: We got it.
Speaker 1: I think let's to the extent possible. I think we
got to kind of take an organized approach to this. So,
starting with the Knicks, I think the biggest question has
to be because this is a somewhat by necessity because
you don't have a healthy center, but it's a win
now move, obviously for a team that fancies itself a
title contender, like just top down, Does this make the
Knicks a bigger threat to win the East and win
a championship this year?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: That's my honest answer is they are. Karlnthy Towns, I
think is a talent upgrade in a vacuum from Julius Randall,
who has made to all NBA teams. He's he's made
All Star teams. I think that he's probably the better
when he's healthy on ball offensive player, Karl Anthony Towns
stretches the floor in a way that, yes, I think
you could actually look at it. Carl town didn't take
a ton of threes last year. Julius Randall attempted five
point three per game before he was injured. Klnthon Town's
also attempted five point three per game. And so I
do think there's this misconception that karlnthy Town's just like
launches a ton of threes. It's the threat level that respect,
which is why.
Speaker 3: He's so interesting.
Speaker 2: And I would argue that because he's better as an
off ball player. Offensively, just the idea of running this
Jallen brunts and focused offense where a lot of the
times you're gonna be even with Josh Hart that's five out,
like that could count as five out or at.
Speaker 3: Least close to it. I think that's appealing.
Speaker 2: What I don't. It's not that I don't understand. I mean,
on long term, we'll have to get a me implication
to that. But like paying Karl Anthony Towns, like the
balance of the four years of his contracts a lot
of money, and I'm sure this leads me to believe
that McHale Bridges is going to sign a cheap extension
because Jalen Brunson already signed one, and like that's just
in my head.
Speaker 3: So there's that part of it.
Speaker 2: I the depth of it all makes me a little
concerned now because you can look at this roster and say, Okay,
Josh hart og Anaobi, Karl Anthony Towns, Jalen Brunson, and
McHale Bridges, that is what the second no worse than
the third best starting five in basketball right now behind
Boston and perhaps Denver if you still want to throw
them in there. So that is just like that is huge,
But after that, it's okay, Mitchell Robinson's already injured and
at this point, look, he's dealt with so many stuff,
so much stuff, like you kind of just have to
write it off as gravy if he gives you anything
like that's just an added bonus, but still so if
you're healthy of Mitchell Robinson and maybe look, Town's just
played with Gobert, so maybe you can play those two together.
Then you have Deuce McBride and then it's kind of like, okay,
like what is yeah.
Speaker 3: You are?
Speaker 2: You are very susceptible to injuries. And I would argue
we're that way before. And my final point, because I'm
ramdling here before I throw it to you, is I
do just wonder. I think that Carl Anthony Towns, he
can do a lot of stuff on ball. When he
gets going downhill, you can funnel things through him in
the post, and I think from a fit perspective, he's
better because he's easier. Where's Julius Randall? Even as he
got better at the accessory work that wasn't his natural state.
But I do wonder now I still believe, and maybe
I am wrong, that Julius Randall has the higher ceiling
as even if you want to say a hub a
secondary frum scratch creator and you really need to buy
into the idea that, okay, especially with Dante DiVincenzo not
there either, that McHale Bridges and Karl Anthony Towns are
enough to fill that pocket behind Jalen bruns It.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think. I think I echo basically everything you
said as far as the sort of Teeter todd or like,
well this is good, but then also not this, and
then this raises this problem, but it solves this other one.
I think the two things that are most interesting to
me are the burden that this puts on Jalen Brunson,
who was already carrying a really heavy one, because all
we talked about and I think all just one of
the main storylines for the Knicks was like, Julius Randall's
really important. You've been saying this forever just because like
he's the other guy, right that can make a play
in that offense. And if you don't want to have
Brunson be the be all end All just constantly and
need him to be now, maybe Bridges alleviates a little
bit of that, sure, but like losing Randall as a playmaker,
which like, I don't think there's a conversation to be
had about always town like Towns has been a four
ish assist guy per per game like in the past,
but certainly not recently. Randal just was the other guy
that was gonna make plays and generate offense, so he's
not there. The trade off though, is, like you said, Towns,
And this is where the kind of the most intriguing
aspect of this for me arises is Towns is that
spacing threat and is a five. He will be the
five at least as a starter here. And I view
this through the prism of how do we beat the Celtics.
And I think one of the key elements here is
if you have Towns at center, and let's presume Kristaps
Porzingis is healthy, he's got to come out of the
lane because you can't leave Towns out there. Now, maybe
you switch, maybe you put him on somebody in the
short corner, but basically, anyone else the Knicks have out
there is going to be a huge threat to hit threes.
Maybe Josh Hart's the guy you stashed Porzingis on. But
I think those are the sorts of high level like
concerns and tactical issues you have to think about with
a move like this, because like whether it's intentional or not,
the bridges and anonobe pieces are like, well that's for
Jalen Brown and Jason Tatum, like those are okay, got
that covered? What do we do about porzingis just lurking
in the lane if we're playing Mitchell Robinson, even if
we're playing Julius Randall at the five, like he's just
gonna hang out in there and we're not. Brunson's gonna
have a hell of a time of getting anything done
where he likes to work, which is near the basket.
So I think that the theory of Towns as like
a major offensive upgrade over Randall while losing the playmaking side,
is that he's just can't you can't leave him out there.
And if the goal, if you're trying to beat Boston,
I think a key to that is getting porzingis away
from the bucket as much as possible. So I think
that's really fascinating. I do wonder though, like Towns has
been a decent offensive rebounder years ago, but the more
stretch he's providing on offense, the less he's gonna offensive rebound.
And he's been bad at that in the past. And
the Knicks live and die with offensive boards, or at
least they have it previously. So like it's just a
trade off, right, Like you're getting some new elements that
you didn't have before. You join Boston and actually, to
kind of a weird extent, the Sixers and that you
have a center that's gonna be a spacing shooting threat
because thenbid can do that stuff. It's so like maybe
that's just a prerequisite to contending in the East. Now
you just have to have that piece in your offense.
But man, the defensive stuff's it's it's iffy to me
if you just assume Robinson is a backup now or
is not healthy or whatever. I just there's so much
apparently so much give and take, right, That's why I'm
with you in that, Like I'm not sure. I just
there's so I'm so I guess the takeaway ultimately is
like I'm fascinated to see sort of how this looks
on the floor.
Speaker 3: The other aspect of it.
Speaker 2: And you mentioned the offensive rebounded, which was great, and
now I guess they it's not that it was independent
of that, but they were kind of getting forced out
of that identity to but get not forced out. We'll
see how they still do with it. But Hartenstein's gone,
Mitchellton's not.
Speaker 1: Gonna be ready to we're going to get that anyway.
Speaker 3: So it's tough to look at it.
Speaker 2: Through that lens and if you really want to, you
could play Towns and Mitchell Robinson together and I would say, look,
what's very interesting is the other thing too, is defensively
now and again that always Mitchell Robinson injured, Hartenstein gone, that.
Speaker 3: Was something that was always going to be an issue.
Speaker 2: I will say this, I've been very hard on Karl
Anthony Towns in the past, but we were also both
pretty adamant that he got a lot better defensively last year.
And I'm just curious though, if that holds up when
now you are back to being the primary big and
I will say I'm not pessimistic on it holding up.
So the Wolves, when Town's played at center without naseried
or Rudy Gobert on the court, the offense was awful,
but I think he saw a lot of those minutes
did not come with Anthony Edwards on the court. A
one oh three point one defensive rating, that's the ninety
nine percentile. And you can say, well, like, look, you
don't have Anthony Edwards and Jane McDaniels here and or
Niki Alexander Walker. That is very true. The knicksav McHale Bridges,
O G. Ananobi Josh Hart. So it's not it's not
a perfect analog, But I look at this and say,
what the concern would be is can Krlnky towns.
Speaker 3: Do the base rim protection stuff.
Speaker 2: I actually thought he did a lot better kind of
on the ball in space and making reads in space.
But when you are the back line guy, can he
handle that? And if he can, can he handle it
for extended stretches now, And that's going to be the
big question for me. I'm a little bit more optimate
if you would if they made this trade last summer,
let's just say, I would have been so pessivemit saying
obviously Mchael Bridges ogn Oobe would have been on the
roster then. But just knowing what we know about towns,
I do think however, that's going to be a concern.
Maybe it does help that, okay, ogn Andobi. I think
people have kind of when we were talking about Randall
and Og is kind of like your hybrid four or
five switching on either end of the court. Og has
never been like a cap slock. I can be the
big man guy, but he can do it. But now
you do have towns, so like we've seen him kind
of defend Jokic pretty well in the past, and in
so far as you can defend Yokich, well, I want
to make that clear. Kakole Yoak is the best player
in the world, and now ojob like he can do
like the low man like help rim protection stuff and
so my but my first thought is what does this
look like defensively?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: However, I do think we're seeing a lot more. Look
at New Orleans, look at Houston where doesn't it feel
like teams maybe even Boston to some extent, where they're
building their defense when you look at the personnel from
the outside in.
Speaker 3: And that's also what this feels like a.
Speaker 2: Little bit of a bet on. And again I don't
know how much it matters because Mitchell Robinson wasn't going
to be healthy anyway, and Harmstead was not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so one of the things I started to think
about is like, well, have you just given opponents, particularly
in the playoffs, a Brunson Towns duo to attack just
with pick and rolls? Because Brunson's size is an issue,
like and he's just going to be you can't expect
him to make a major defensive impact because of the
offensive load that he carries. So okay, now is there
just did you just make it easy? Mort's popping in,
yes we should Mort, oh man, I think so. But
then it's it's kind of what you alluded to. It's like, okay, yeah,
the town's Brunson picking like maybe you have to hide
town somewhere else now and Anonobe mitigates some of that issue.
But like that was going to be an issue with
Randall and and Brunson, right, like you just have you
keep you keep having to think, like at least for
a couple months, probably more. Mitchell Robinson wasn't going to
be involved. So when you're talking about is this a
defensive issue? Is this an upgrade a downgrade, it's like
you're weighing that against Julius Randall at center in a
lot of cases, right, and so like, yeah, Towns is
not known as a defender, but he's a lot bigger
than Randall, and he has anchored defenses for Thibodeaux before
I use anchored almost making you know what anchors do?
They sink? And like he's saying that, like I was
looking back hoping to see like all those sixteen seventeen
and seventeen eighteen wolves when you know, TIB's two full years.
They're just hoping to see, like, you know, what Towns
actually was pretty Nope, their defenses were bad. Uh, they
looked okay. The on off stuff looks okay with Towns
in there, but in seventeen eighteen, But that's because Gorgie
Jang was the backup center and the Wolves got housed
whenever he was the center on defense. So there's not
a lot of evidence to say like Towns is objectively
going to be a very good back line guy. You're
weighing this against what Julius Randall probably would have done,
or what some sub replacement level center would have done,
or you know, and maybe the fifteen minutes of Mitchell
Robinson in there per game when he's healthy will be better.
But like the bar's low, that Towns will have to
clear to not be like a defensive downgrade, if that
makes sense.
Speaker 2: So you mentioned Tibbs, who I guess has been complimentary
of him recently but didn't feel like he was when
they were in Minnesota the first time around. So that
is another element of that that's fascinating, And it's also from.
Speaker 3: The Tibbs perspective. We have pushed backed.
Speaker 2: Against this, So anyone who is gonna be listening to
this after the fact of a couple people that are
in here right now, he's still married to the way
that he views Biggs. Like he's been a lot more
flexible over the past couple seasons that we've acknowledged, this
is just an absurd departure from what he likes to
do at center. And again, Hartenstein was gone, Robinson was injured.
It was going to be that way anyway, but now
you've said, well, it's never basically not going to be
this way, because look, maybe Mitchell Robinson confee Town's play together,
or Mitchell Robinson comes back and you can at least
go to the backup role with that. There could be
other moves where they get another big But like, if
we're being honest, the way that you're built and how
your other foremost important players are, Like, well, why wouldn't
we Like, are you just gonna bring Josh Hard off
the bench to start Mesroell Robinson or another center. I
don't know why you would do that, because I think
that'd be a downgrade for your offense. It's like, this
is a really stark departure from what Timms likes to
see from his bigs, and I'm just I will be
interested to see how the Knicks defend because I think
he's gonna need to show I mean at both ends too,
Like a Hartenstein is someone who yeah, okay, we saw
him break out the floater every now and then, but
like that's someone who could do more from the perimeter
on offense that just didn't with the Knicks. And now
you just I'm just so fascinated this from the Thibodeau
of it all. But like this is just not what
he likes to do, how he likes to run his
teams when you're looking at like not five out but
like having that big man in Towns being a floor
space or more than like a traditional conventional center.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if he figures out, I mean figures out, Like
if this goes fairly smoothly and we really do see
very little of Robinson and Towns together, I think we
probably need to retire the idea that Tibbs is like
not malleable tactically anymore. Like this is going to be
a real departure, real challenge, I think, just based on
like what you said about his track record exaggerated as
some of that like inflexibility maybe now versus like five
years ago. Before we get to the I don't know
if you have any other like major Knicks thoughts. We
do need to discuss the wolf side of this, because
I think, if anything, it might be even more interesting.
But before we do that, what did you just think
of just just the package that it cost or what
the Knicks had to give up to get Towns, Because
you know, I guess depending on when you might have
had this hypothetical discussion, one kind of first that probably
probably is going to turn into a second if it
doesn't convey in the next three drafts, which is I
don't know.
Speaker 2: Top top nine protection in twenty sevens Allee, right, maybe.
Speaker 1: But then just DiVincenzo, who you know would have been
a bench player probably but phenomenal contract, great value. And
Randall who kind of like didn't seem to fit literally anywhere,
Like that was a real topic in NBA discourse of like,
he doesn't fit anywhere, there's no way to trade this guy.
And then when it happened, I was kind of like, oh, yeah,
Minnesota does sort of make sense if you had to
like really pick a team. I mean, none of them
make great sense. But what did you think of the pack, Like,
were you surprised that that was the cost for Towns
or that that's what the Wolves were willing to take
back to give up Towns.
Speaker 2: No, because just the deal extends so far out, and
I think that we knew they were gonna reconcile with
the Second Apron at some point. I just didn't expect
it to be when they came off probably the best
season in franchise history and had a real And so
before we get to them, it's this is part of
the package talk with the Knicks. The implications here are
a little bit fascinating. So as of right now, Grant,
they projected me about nine point seven million below the
Second Apron.
Speaker 3: This is next year.
Speaker 2: And so that's with kat Og, Jalen Brunson, McHale, Bridges,
Josh Hart, Mitchell Robinson, Deuce McBride, Pacoma Dottie, and Tyler.
Speaker 3: Kollak on the books.
Speaker 2: So nine guys, So there is some wiggle room there.
You just you look at those players. I guess Mitchell
Robinson is the only one that makes real money, and
I guess you could view as expendable, But like that
is something I think having Towns on the books, because
if let's just say Julius Randad picked up his player
option and then you still Dante DiVincenzo. You to me,
I've viewed it through the lens of you've decided that
paying Karl Anthony Towns, let's say, between seven and ten
million more than those two put together is worth it. Now,
the other thing you could have said is Julius Randall's
gonna decline his player option and wants more money.
Speaker 3: I want to know.
Speaker 2: Where he's getting that more money from, quite frankly, especially
after we saw how the trademark hat unfolded for him.
But they could have also viewed it through well, he's
gonna make at least thirty five million, and then plus
Dante Divincenzo's bit, let's call it a wash. So the
Towns is making about the same with those players. That's fine,
But I do think because towns of salary is so
massive moving forward, this is something you're gonna have to reconcile.
Speaker 3: One.
Speaker 2: I give an it front off his credit because they've
now this is like this third or second the second
time this offseason they've used the kind of sign and
trade these guys that aren't rotation players use these extra
roster spots. Going after Landry Shammitt, by the way, now
makes a whole lot more sense that Dante Divincenzo's out
of town. So there's creativity. But they're gonna have to
be even more creative moving forward sooner, I think than
we were expecting, because I do think part of us
thought that if they traded Randall might just be for
a cheaper player or cheaper collection of players, rather than
another consolidation move. I think that's not the cost what
it was for towns that felt about right okay, But
and that might be a good segue into the Timberwolves,
if you want to head in the Timberwolves. But for
the Nick specifically, I think, and I don't know this
will maybe it's the last part of the X. Were
you surprised they went the consolidation route in a Julius
Randall trade?
Speaker 1: Yes, and no, I guess those are the two answers. Well,
what's strange is like I guess I had been thinking
of Randal as someone that you I don't know, not
a distressed asset. But it's like the fit was just
so hard, So like I guess my thinking would maybe
mostly No, I'm not surprised it was a consolidation move
because I think if you're trying to move Randall and
before the Wolves, the Wolves just weren't on my radar
frankly as a Randall destination, but generally speaking, because he's
such a weird fit. I thought maybe you were going
to have to attach something else, and maybe that something
else was another player, which I guess technically makes it
a consolidation trade to move him. So I didn't ever
think there'd be the Knicks trade Randal someplace and get
back like two or three guys. Like I didn't. I
didn't think that that was realistic, unless it was just
like bad salary or whatever. I really want to get
your opinion on the Wolf side of this, because we
have praised them. First of all, we said, like, you've
got forever to figure out the second apron stuff. The
town's trade doesn't need to happen, now, do you what?
It's not a yes or no. How much of this
was financial from the Wolf side and how much of
it was We think this makes us better because the
latter concern. I think we thought we thought they cared
about the latter, you know, like we thought they didn't.
They weren't worried about the money. That's why they weren't
going to trade Towns. So do you think this is
a financial move or do you think they sat down
and said, like with Randall and Devincenzo, here's the path
to us being better this season than we were with Towns.
Speaker 3: I so that's going to be a matter of course
in the sense that.
Speaker 2: If you want to this spin is already started, and
I'm just here to tell you stop the spin, like
because I'm sorry. Through the lens of a playoff series,
the Wolves just got to me a lot worse. Okay,
and we'll get to that.
Speaker 3: But the financial if you believe.
Speaker 2: That you're better, then Julius Randa will still be there
after next season. And if he's not, then this was
and you just let him walk or you're like he
picked maybe he picks up his player option and that's
the end result. But if this wasn't purely financially motivated,
Julius Randa will still be in Minnesota next season. Ok
And I think they looked at this and said from
I Doantin Devincenzo had a great year, the most dangerous
three point shooters in the league, so that helps your
floor spacing, can give you a little bit of on
ball creativity. And I already said I think Randall's the
better on ball offensive player, and this does insulate Rob
Dillingham against a ton of pressure to be the second
or third best creator on the team right away. But
Julius Randall hit thirty five percent of his spot up
threes last year and didn't take a ton of them,
and so like that's going to be a downgrade.
Speaker 3: And when he's used.
Speaker 2: To working with the ball, if you want to play
him with Gobert like and then Edwards is on the court,
that it does create what I think could be an
awkward dynamic there and they'll be fine defensively, Like I'm
not I'm not too worried about that. And if anything,
I've I've kind of thought like, do you start nas
Reed and bring Julius Randall.
Speaker 3: Off the bench.
Speaker 2: But is that that would even be more financially motivated
to me? Because well, then clearly Julius Randall's not going
to stick around there if he's only going to guarantee
to be a sixth or seventh man. I think they
looked at this as they did. We'll see look By
the way, they're as we're recording this, I think like
thirteen and about thirteen million away from ducking the second
Apron entirely. It was that next season that I have
the mark down for. They're inside fourteen million of ducking
the second Apron entirely, and so like, I don't know
how much how important that is to them, but if
they wind up, they could get out of the second
Apron if they wanted to. Now, however, I think they
looked at it moving forward and said, forget about ruegal
Bert for a minute, because he has that player option,
maybe picks up. Maybe there's an extension. You have a
Niki Alexander Walker entering free agency. Nas Reed has a
player option that I expect him to decline. I think
they looked at it and said, does it make more
sense for us to pay Dante DiVincenzo, nas Reed and
Nikil Alexander Walker fifty million total or does it make
more sense to have Karl Anthony Towns on the books
for fifty million total. I By the way, it doesn't
need to be in either or a proposition. These people
could just pay. You could have kept the Kile Alexander Walker,
Nazried and Karl Anthony Towns. So I think and I
don't what do you think about that? Like, I think
that's the calculus they made because I don't know. Dante
DiVincenzo is an upgrade. And again I think you get
more on ball creativity from Julius Random. We talked about
the need for more shot creation from them, but when
that shot creation comes in the form of someone who
isn't quite plug and play, I don't want to say
it's problematic, but it definitely introduces question.
Speaker 1: So I guess to answer my own question, I'm not ready.
I think the most logical sort of take on the
deal is that there there is a financial component, like
that is some percentage of the motivating of the motivating
force behind doing a deal like this. That said, I
do think, now maybe this is kind of Devil's Advocate,
But the case you would make as the Wolves, if
you're saying, no, this was a basketball move, is we
think that the added shooting of Devincenzo, who made almost
what was like two hundred and ninety eight threes or
something like just made a million threes last year, the
addition of that to our offense, skiing up nas Reed,
who like does a pretty good cat impression, and like
there was a lot of talk like, oh my god,
if you just gave him Cat's minutes last year, Like
he's pretty close to to like what you get from
that position, right, He's like a four who can't really
be a five? Space is the floor. It's like you
get a lot of cat stuff there. And then the
Randall piece of it is like, so just imagine, you know,
you're not getting play making from Gobert, You're not getting
play making from Jade McDaniels. Mike Conley is thirty eight
or will turn thirty eight, I forget which it is,
but like that's not a guy you can rely on,
you know, for seventy five games playing thirty minutes, Like
Edwards is getting there as a playmaker still kind of
a like passing case of emergency kind of thinker as
far as when he's on the ball. And then Dillingham's
a rookie. So like the Randall playmaking side of it,
paired with the shooting you will get from more nas
Reed and the addition of Devincenzo, it's like, maybe that
is better than the seventeenth ranked offense, which is what
the Wolves were last year, So like that's the case
you'd make. I'm kind of making it tongue in cheek
because like, if you just step a little bit ways
back from it, you say, you gave up one of
the best shooting bigs of all time and you sort
of need that guy because you play a center who
can't leave the paint, Like does any of the like,
oh no, this was a basketball move justification I gave
resonate with you.
Speaker 2: I think you outlined like that you've made the case
like there there is a scenario on which the Wolves
come out better balanced and deeper from this. I just
the Randal fit is and the way that the reporting
is framed is that Dante DiVincenzo needed to be included
in the deal for this to work. And so that
just makes me question how much Minnesota actually believes in
the Randall fit and like having Nas read here, and look,
this is a fair question. I said, you could have
paid kat Nas and Naw beyond next season. But if
we're being realistic about it, would you rather have Karl
Anthony Towns or Nas read Dante DiVincenzo and nekil Alexander.
Speaker 1: Walker probably Cat I guess, oh really, I mean, like
I just if you're it's it's a close question. I
just like Ali, I love Alexander Walker, I like Read
and Devincenzo's the third guy. I like all those guys.
Speaker 3: I just.
Speaker 1: It's I don't know, because if you're trying to win
at the absolute highest level, don't you need a Don't
the guys with like absolute premium skills matter more than
three other guys who are I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe Devincenzo is a premium skill guy. Now, like maybe
that three point shooting really is premium.
Speaker 2: Well that's the I think that's the case that Knicks fans,
can you because look, by the way this is, I
think this is also applied to the timberlves like conthey
Towns like needed that three point volume to come up,
and that's still the truth, Like it's a this is
someone who should be in this day, this age should
be at like ten threes a game. I'm like, I
don't mean to you know, I hate oversimplifying things, but
that's just the fact of the matter here. So if
you appreciate Dante Devincenzo's volume, but I think Knicks fans
could look at it and say, I mean some other fans.
Bucks fans could certainly says no, the regression is coming,
and so it's just like.
Speaker 3: I I don't know.
Speaker 2: I think I'm I would rather have those three in
a vacuum than Cat. Okay, if I'm the Timberwolves. But again,
none of those three can create Nasried. You've already said
he does a good Coronathy Town's approximation. He is a
great floor game. He's not as physical as Cat, and
so I think that's where it's coming to play. But look,
Cats had these erratic stretches in the playoffs, and it
does I hate to make everything about money, but.
Speaker 3: At the end of the day, it does come down
to like, is.
Speaker 2: This player worth thirty plus percent of the salary cap?
And if you're not gonna I thought Cornthae Town showed
a lot last year. I thought he had some really
good playoff moments. I know there are and we'll get
to some chats at the end when we wrap this up.
I know there are some people in the chat who
think that this is addition by subtraction.
Speaker 1: For the Wolves.
Speaker 2: I just he's an imperfect player, and so I understand
the logic from Minnesota, but I find it very hard
to believe that this is a move you make after
the season you just had if it wasn't purely financially motivated.
Speaker 3: Because then it's what is that?
Speaker 2: And if you are, let's say it's not financially motivated,
So you're buying into what does it say about your
view of I guess Rob Dillingham being ready, in which case, well,
then why did you give up so much to get him?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: I know that was a future play, and now it
looks like even more like a future play. I think
that's what Randall might help them the most, at least
this year, where it's okay, we didn't think Rob Dillingham
was gonna be playable in the playoffs, Julius Randall's kind
of proven unplayable in the playoffs at first, but it's
you have better talent around him. He's not gonna be
the first option as he was in one of those
two Knicks playoff runs. So I still remain intrigued by this.
From a wolve's perspective, I just find it. And I
know you outlined the ideal scenario, but do you think
that there's a world in which they made this trade
without it being like not immediately so far, but definitely
long term financially motivated, in which case it was motivated
that way, Like why did it happen now?
Speaker 1: I just yeah, I was actually gonna ask, So I
think the financial component is like indivisible from this. I
think it was a factor. I think it's just easier
from the Wolves side of things to minimize it if
you're trying to spin it, because because of the case
I made that, I don't wholly believe that, like there's
a way, there's there's a world where this works, where
the offense is better with what they have now talking
about the Wolves than what they had before. I don't
know if i'd say that's likely, it's definitely possible, and
in fact, like if the offense is better, it might
just mean Anthony Edwards is better and like that's actually
the reason. So it's not like we can conclude this
season and say, oh, the Wolves were twelfth in offensive efficiency,
therefore the cat trade made sense, Like well, no, there
could be some other factors that had something to do
with that. Maybe Dillingham even is the guy that has
has a hand in that, but the bench just works better.
I don't know. I think it's a combo It's just
fascinating though, because like, actually, what was my very very
first thought when I saw that this trade went down
was like, I kind of like it for both sides,
and I still am like in a place where I
can I still feel that way. So what was your
very first We'll get to the chat in a second.
What was your first reaction and has that changed in
the like intervening fourteen hours or whatever.
Speaker 3: I my first.
Speaker 2: Round was I didn't like it for either side, and
then I thought about it, and now I'm at a
point where it's I understand it for both sides. I
just think that, And I mean that's to some extent
this is always the case. But like, the stakes are
so high for both of these teams that I think,
as both of these teams, you would want a little
bit more certainty than you're gleaning. And by the way,
the one thing we haven't mentioned from the Wolves perspective
is they do if they want to do something else,
is now.
Speaker 3: They have a first round pick they could trade in
that well a first round pick.
Speaker 2: It quotes that they could trade, So there is that
element to it, But I don't I didn't come away
from this.
Speaker 3: Here's how I'll frame it.
Speaker 2: I don't come away from the saying team X won
this deal clearly, and that's where I'm still at. I
understand it from both sides, and I see a world
in which you outlaid it from the Timberwolves perspective, and
we both out mapped it out from the Nick's perspective.
I think I see the scenarios in which it winds
up working out immensely well for both teams. But this
isn't one of those trades where, at least for me,
did you do you have a clear not even a
win or loser. But you kind of said you already
liked it for both sides. But if you come away thinking, oh,
like Minnesota or like, yeah, they really like they hit
a home run.
Speaker 1: Here, No, I can't get there with either side. I again, yeah,
I'll just would be repeating what you said, like I
can see how it could work out for both. I
could see how it doesn't move the needle at all
for both, like relative to last year, and I could
see how it makes them both worse. Like That's that's
a mark of a good trait. I think one of
my favorite aspects, though, is like, this is a deal
between two teams that could win their respective conferences, and
it's like a big deal with major names and money
moving back and forth, like this isn't my I think
my preferred finals, well, my number one preferred finals matchup
features the Warriors, which we will not see. Number two
is probably anything involving the Thunder. But now I want
to see nix Wolves in the finals. Like the Now,
I just want to see these two teams play each other.
So I do think we should at least like sort
of mark the rarity of two teams like at this level,
making like it like basically it's not a challenge trade
because those are like one for ones, but it's like
it's pretty close, like they're just saying, like give us
your guy, we'll give you a couple of ours. We'll
just see you know, Like that's that's because there's not
like a million picks going back and forth. There's like
one shitty first, it's just players.
Speaker 2: But there's also the element of do you come away
thinking one of these teams got like confidently better, it's not.
Speaker 3: Again, it could be that both of them got a
lot better, but there is downside for both of these teams.
Speaker 1: I'm more confident that the I think the Knicks upside
is probably like their potential gains are greater, and that
has as much to do with the fact that, like
Mitchell Robinson just wasn't going to contribute for probably a
third to half of the season. Uh So, like we
just met, you know, measuring where they were to where
they could get with Cat, I think that GAP's bigger
than where the Wolves could get because, by the way,
the Wolves were the better regular season team last year anyway,
right like they're They went fifty six, so they were
already really good. This could make them good in a
different way. I don't think this adds like five wins
to their total or anything, whereas I think Cap might
do that for the Knicks might Honestly.
Speaker 2: You know who might be the biggest winner of this
trade for the Wolves, I honestly think it's Rob Dillingham
to where.
Speaker 1: Reed's roles getting bigger ahead of that's.
Speaker 2: A great right in a contract here too, good timing.
I did the last element I wanted to ask you about,
and we don't have to spend too much time on
it at all, But like, how does this trade get
fleshed out? But I'm just I'm trying I'm struggling to
come up with the money of it all. And if
it is Mitchell Robinson, that's aknot It's like what happens?
Speaker 3: The Knicks better be getting back a.
Speaker 2: Big from Charlotte and I think Grant Williams doesn't he
make more than Mitchell Robinson's, Like, it's not gonna be that.
Speaker 3: I've thought. The thing that I thought was.
Speaker 2: Like, can you rope in Portland to get RW three back?
Speaker 1: Like the guy that's just got to go somewhere, And yeah,
that would be. I mean, like if it is Robinson
that goes from the Knicks again, like the health questions
make it so that like you might just be trading
someone that was gonna give you zero or close to it.
But if he's not, if you're gonna get a healthy
ish Mitchell Robinson for a chunk of the year, like
you can't just give that up. That's he's still like
he would allow the Knicks to kind of be what
they were last year, except you know, better in some
aspects because he would bring back the offensive rebounding. He's
not gonna do the Hertenstein stuff, but like you could
sort of have it both ways, where we have the
cat version, and then we have the Mitchell Robinson version,
and both of those are good versions of the Knicks.
So if you do include Robinson to make the money work,
I mean, I guess you'd better be confident that you
weren't gonna get much at all from him this season
because of the injury stuff, because otherwise, like Towns, Towns
is a better player to have if you're gonna say
he's our center than Randall. But like a lot of
the same problems arise. So I think you either you
either better have Robinson and he's gonna give you something,
or you figure out how to get like a conventional
center in there somehow, but roping that into this trader
doing something else, I don't know.
Speaker 3: Let's get to some of the chats.
Speaker 2: If Grant has to scadata like hear and answer questions,
we'd like questions too, so throw them in. But we'll
go through some of the chats that have stacked up
sixteen colon A so Bummeda's a Wolves fan. Randall does
everything worse than Cat, I do think. I don't know
if you agree Grant that Randall is the better on
ball creator thank Ca.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, I think that's a given and again that
is potentially something that Minnesota needs. Losing the shooting sucks.
But like you said, five a game, you can replace
that with Reed and Stevencenzo.
Speaker 2: Joe says, a playoff series lost to the Luca Donches
lead matters led to four NBA teams to make major
trade immediately there after breaking up a core of all
star all NBA players Utah, Phoenix and the Clippers. That
is a great comment, Joe, and a fact too. And
now Minnesota, so that becond part of it. One time
has happenstance, while four times means the benchmark that forces front.
Speaker 1: Of I mean, Luca Doncha is just out here wrecking
I don't know, a sixth.
Speaker 2: Of the league, pretty good league, Henry, as a Minnesota fan,
this is auditioned by subtraction. I mean if anything is
additioned by addition. Because you and just get rid of
cat for nothing and you have Henry got a lot
of comments here. I would like to know, Henry, do
you work for the Timberwolves in any capacity based off
let's see that some of Henry's greatest hits here?
Speaker 3: What do we got? Oh? This? Oh? Here we go?
Speaker 2: Well, yes, this is a would you do this, yes,
start nos. This isn't a do you work for a
timber Wolves question. I think it's a if I politically,
I would just do it.
Speaker 1: Well you you mentioned like well maybe that and just
kind of in passing like maybe this means Randall comes
off the bench, Like politically that is tough. You're right,
but like maybe you know, if if one of our
biggest concerns, and like it's almost to the point it
is to the point where we get shipped for talking
about it all the time. But like, oh my god,
Rob Dillingham's role is going to be so important. That's
such a huge amount of pressure for a rookie. It's like, well,
it's a lot less playmaking pressure if Julius Randall spends
a lot of second unit minutes with him, you know.
So like again from a basketball.
Speaker 2: Could play off the ball too, So that dynamic I
don't know what to look like defensively, but that dynamic
currently work.
Speaker 1: I get it. I think like if you could get
everybody on board, that makes some sense because then you
just have Reid b cat right, You're like u space
you do all the stuff that he did last year
next to Gobert and then we just have a dramatically
upgraded second unit that has de Vincenzo. I guess you know,
Devincenzo probably won't No, he won't start. So then you
have Dillingham, de Vincenzo and Julius Randall against backups like
you're gonna score. Like that group is gonna score, and
maybe that's how you get the offense up to where
it needs to be. I mean, I kind of love
that idea, honestly.
Speaker 2: DC DC eight minutes behind, but the next team's short
on playmaking. I really like, mindis side if Randall can
be on the floor with Rudy and Nas Holy, I mean,
what is I mean they did the cat Nas Rudy
thing for small stretches. I really think that comes down
to is Rando willing to fully embrace the access rework
and that it's not just a matter of working off
the ball, but it's when he catches the ball, Like
the decisions when he's at his best need to be quicker.
I think the issue here and look, the Knicks found
ways around it with Mitchell Robinson. But like, if you
have Rudy Gobert on the court, like you're never gonna
be the primary screener, and so then you're going to
be relegated to buy standard duty to some of the
second units. You were just talking about it. If you
want another big and still continue to play huge, him
and Nas can work because Nas can space the floor
while Julius screens or vice versa. Honestly, you could run
dual big pick and rolls with those two because of
Julius Randall's ball handling. So I do agree. How did
you feel about the Knicks being short on playmaking?
Speaker 3: Part?
Speaker 2: Because I made this point to Andrew Claudio of Knicks
Film School, who disagreed. At the time Randall was still
on the team, I would now argue that it feels
a little bit more salient at the moment.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I think they Well, if we were gonna
if we spent the whole offseason talking about how important
Julius Randall's playmaking was, we have to concede now that
they have less of it, and so, and that's not
great because it wasn't a position to strength before. We
haven't really talked about Deduce McBride, who, like, what's his
role now? Like is he just is he playing a ton?
Speaker 2: What's interesting is that I had their read like going
out and getting McHale Bridges and having Julius. I was
just like, okay, they clearly and then they signed Campaign.
Speaker 3: I was like, they don't.
Speaker 2: View a Duce McBride is like an actual backup point guard.
They view him as just someone who's either an off
guard or wing type. Maybe they still feel that way,
but we just talked about they they lost honestly, Like,
do you think Dante DiVincenzo.
Speaker 3: Is a better playmaker than Karl Anthony Towns.
Speaker 1: Donege Evincenzo is not a good playmaker, Like he's not
He's not a good ball handler, Like that's just not
what what he is.
Speaker 2: So I think you might be telling about the little
short but I would agree in that matter. But like you,
I think the playmaking overall is an even larger concern
after this trade. And so you would think Deuce's role
gets bigger or just like Campaign's role get big Or
are they gonna try out Tyler Kohlik, who's just a.
Speaker 1: Phenomenal passer Maybe yeah, yeah, I think we have we again,
should have mentioned him by now if we're talking about
the playmaking issue.
Speaker 2: Uh oh, this is I think one of my barbers
is in the chest up, Bro, did you see Did
you see my tweet? Barber slast DJH. I did not
see your tweet because I'm not on Twitter enough anymore.
But thank you for coming in and watching a bunch
of stuff from the Henry the financial decisions for future
flexibility which will.
Speaker 3: Make them better.
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe this is my issue with the way
that people view rookies playing big roles right away, is
that they just assume that they're gonna be good when
rookies have was we saw it when we did the
Timberwolves Look Ahead, which is now a little dated. I
would think, uh, with Tarren Shannon Jr. And like Rob Dillingham,
they're everything the Wolves need, it's gonna work out. Oh
maybe is it gonna work out right away? I don't know,
and I would I would argue that you if you
thought it was gonna work out right away, maybe this
trade doesn't happen. But the financial element definitely does mean
a ton mel less cat more NAS.
Speaker 3: I mean, certainly now it's gonna be less cat and
or not.
Speaker 1: And again, like, I don't know if I'm over selling
the idea that NAS can just do all the cat stuff.
I hope I haven't made it seem like I really
think like he's just as good as Cat, but we
kind of tiptoed around this a little bit, like based
on what he again, so now it's just, oh, it's
a financial move. But it's like if if Nas can
give you eighty percent of what Towns did in like
similar minutes, and he costs I don't have the numbers
in front of me, like a quarter of or you know,
like a twenty person, you know, significantly less than what
Kat does. Like isn't that just a smart move? Isn't
it shouldn't you just like, yeah, this is how we
this is how we offset the crazy money we have
gone to Gobert and and and McDaniels.
Speaker 2: Speaking of vain Stain, that's quite the name. Minnesota ready
to move on from Gobert. Do you think this trade
makes it more or less likely that he's with the
Wolves beyond next season where he could design an extension,
but he also has that massive player option. It is
under fifty million, but I don't it's like forty was
it forty six or something crazy at that point, so
which he's not getting that per year on the other
right now, in the open market, so but do you
I but there, I don't know, does it or does
it not impact your views at all?
Speaker 1: Like can I just say I don't feel like it
impacts it one way or the other.
Speaker 2: Just I guess from the mindset of if they are
clearly worried about these finances, Wow.
Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, No, I think like I guess I don't
view the Cat move specifically as we're also the fire
sales starting or because that really wasn't what this is.
They didn't just dump that money someplace else and get
space back or whatever, like they got back Randall's contract
is like I don't know, it's not bad, but it's
like that's a decent, healthy number, and so it's like
it doesn't feel like that's the way this is headed.
Although now it's like we didn't think they were gonna
trade Cat at all, and they did, so maybe we
need to have our antenna up a little more with
you know, the ownership stuff, like maybe that's a huge
factor here where whoever ends up being in charge of
this thing is kind of like not sure. I like
the idea of our payroll being what it is. I
don't know. I don't think Gobert is like nothing about
this move says that Gobert is imminently gonna follow Kat
out the door, except for the fact that you traded
someone at least partially because you don't want to pay
him sixty million dollars a year or four years from now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, functionally, I don't think he's like any more indispensable
unless you think Nah's reading Julius Randall or the front
court of the future.
Speaker 1: Don't don't love that front court defensively if that's what
you're gonna.
Speaker 2: Do, Mel Dive great and cheap role player out. He's
making less than the mid level for the next three years.
So absolutely, I think what you could say, but this
will tie into it, So Henry, who's more valuable to winning,
Derek White or Kat Gnaw and d d are many
Derek Whites. That is absolutely untrue, Like none of those
like neither of those players. Naw isn't nearly the player
that Derek White is on offense, and then by Dante
de Vincenzo is even close to the player that Derek
White is on defense. What's interesting about the de Vincenzo
side of this, And by the way, that's even though
I think that Randall was like super important the Knicks.
That's like the guy when he was out going, I
was like, oh, I was like, can they afford to
lose his three point voluing gravity? Last year was an
outlier season for him. This is someone who through the
first what was it six seven years of his career,
never averaged six to three point attempts per game, was
under four point seven in total for his career. Then
Jack's up closer to nine and hits him at a
forty percent clip. I think, yes, his role was pretty big.
Speaker 3: But I think if you.
Speaker 2: Wanted to take the Knicks dance and say some regression
could be coming, like like are we sure this is
the new normal, that might be fair. But if he
is just what he is last season, my god, like
that gravity on Minnesota's team is terrifying.
Speaker 1: And he doesn't really have to be what he was
last season to still be a huge value, like just
because of that contract he could be. You know, I
keep using percentages of players like that's the thing, But
like if he's eight, if he shoots thirty eight percent
and gets up like seven or eight a game, that's
still a hugely valuable player, especially considering how little he's
making and you're not going to ask him to do
much more than come off the bench, right, So yeah,
like the Vincenzo's the easy it's like, yeah, I get
I get it. Like the Wolves offense sucks. They add
a bunch of guy at a guy who can shoot
a bunch of threes, and maybe that helps solve it,
and it costs as cheap the random parts. Like this
is where we're doing backflips trying to figure out the
random part.
Speaker 2: Let's get a couple more here off ray Eljohn. This
doesn't look like a Joe question to me.
Speaker 3: You want to take this one grant big question.
Speaker 1: Will the Pistons first convey in twenty six or twenty seven?
So top thirteen, protected in twenty five, top eleven, and
then top nine. I think are the protections in twenty four? Yes?
Speaker 3: Do you think it conveys at all?
Speaker 1: No, I kind of don't. I mean, it's not. I'd
be stunned if it was this year, and then progressively
less stunned, I guess, because at some point the Pistons
will get better just by virtue of being bad forever,
like that's usually how it works. And and by the way,
they've been bad for a very long time. We're going
on like twenty years, you know, more or less of
bad Piston seasons.
Speaker 3: But they haven't won a first.
Speaker 2: Round playoff series since two thousand and eight. Yeah, they've
only made the playoffs like three times since then. So
it's been rough drip flay Knicks fan here from NYC
feeling good. I honestly as a Knicks fan myself, which
I think I do a good job of people who
listen to a loyally know but the way that I
analyze the league, I think people are always mystified as
to when they find that out. I want to feel
that optimistic about. I don't think it's a bad trade.
I want to make that clear. And maybe it's just
coming at it from a Knicks perspective, Grant, do you
think maybe it's just so much movement to digest over
the past like six or eight months, where Okay, they've
turned RJ. Barrett Emmanuel quickly, Julius Randall, Dante DiVincenzo, basically
almost every single first round pick that they could trade
into Clany Towns, McHale, Bridges and og Ananobi.
Speaker 3: And it's just like it's so much to have to process.
Speaker 1: If I had said to the I don't know. Let's
say like the twenty twenty two version of you guess what, Dan,
but going in twenty four to twenty five, Jalen Brunson
will be an MVP contender. He'll be your point guard,
and you'll be like the Mavericks Jalen Brunson, that guy like, yeah,
I know the guy. The Dallas wouldn't pay that guy.
He's gonna be an MVP candidate. You'll also have mckail Bridges.
You'll also have og Anobi, and you also have Cat
Like you would be over the moon. You would be
like that would be what an outcome that would be
If you told that to a Knicks fan, I get it, man,
if you're a Knicks fan, like, have have some fun
with this, Like this is a position that you could
not have imagined being in a couple of years ago.
Speaker 2: I think the biggest compliment you can give the Knicks
their front office, the state that they're in, and by
the way, they are here because of one player, and
that is Jalen Brunson. That is the only reason that
they are here, which is who.
Speaker 1: Took less money? So you could do stuff like this
if you wanted to like that to get overstated.
Speaker 2: His ability to just surprise where it was member. I
think we both are pretty low on the actual signing
because of the steps it took to get there.
Speaker 3: The money we didn't care about.
Speaker 2: We just thought that the Knicks were kind of assigning
themselves to mediocrity. Permanently comes in, blows that out of
the water, turns into one of, if not the best
contract in the league. Then times a below market extension,
finish his top five and MVP voting last year. So
they are here because of him, and I think the
biggest compet that you can give them is that will
this work out? I don't know, but the Knicks were
good enough or have a player who is good enough
to actually view themselves as Yeah, it was time to
go all in. And I also have to give them credit.
This wasn't like we kind of half dipped. We were
done after the og An Andobi trade, Like this is
the Knicks run office, hocket, Oh we're done.
Speaker 3: We want to land Michilbrity. No, we're gonna keep going.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they have gone tapslock all in and I respect it.
I still don't know whether I want to feel as
good as it is, but I do think it's I
think it's a testament to how good they've gotten that
they are at least in a position to where you
can make this argument like no, yeah, it was time.
Like who else were you waiting on at this point
and you outlined it? If you told me in twenty
twenty two, like this is who you're gonna have on
the team, I'd be over the moon.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's hard to believe that they've gotten to
where they've gotten. It feels like it's been quick. I'm
sure it has not that way if you're a Knicks
fan watching every game for the last several years. But like,
just like, how does any team get Og and McHale
bridges together? Like those are the two guys that every
team in the world was like, wouldn't it be great
if we could get them? And they She's like, we'll
do both. How about that? And then we'll go get
like the best stretch one of the best stretch centers
that's ever lived. Like that's just their ability to just go. Now,
are they gonna win the East? I don't know. Are
they gonna be a top four seed? Probably? But maybe not.
Speaker 2: Like there's I mean, they are who is there Do
you have time for another question?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: So is there?
Speaker 2: Like, aside from Jalen Brunson, the nixt depth is shaky.
Who is the next player that they can't lose because
they feel not super shallow, but like you have seven
maybe eight, depending on how you feel about precious of
guys that you trust, and you could really you shoul
rely only say six because can you trust that Mitchell
Robinson's gonna be healthy? So let's just meet in the
middle at seven. But it's like, at the same time,
if you told me Michale has to some time for
the first time in his career, or we know we
know og is going to injure himself doing something, I
don't know that, I feel like, well, not they're fucked
because it's just like it's Jalen br and it's it's
a weird spot to be. But it's also okay, they're
deep at the top, which I think is what you
could say. We're a lot of teams when they have depth,
maybe it's more kind of scattered throughout the roster. It's
no we truncated our depth into the let's say our
top five guys, and it's we can't lose Jalen Brunson.
But could you lose any of the other four for
an extended period of time and still just be really good.
Speaker 3: I'm not wishing it.
Speaker 2: I'm just curious because we have this comment which made
me think of it.
Speaker 3: The Knicks are the better team, but Minnesota is deeper,
which I would probably agree with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, at least in terms of deeper, I think Minnesota
might still be the better team.
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe I would say, like, I think
I take your point. I guess i'd say, Anonobi, just
because the defense matters more now that you're you're gonna
have cat as the center and you will need But
that was true when Randall was gonna play a bunch
of center too, right like it, So again we keep
coming back to that. The other thing you made me
think of talking about the depth is like this is
another Boston parallel. It's like, let's just get five or
six guys and then you know, after that, we'll just
figure it out. And that's kind of how the Knicks
are built now, right, Like that's you've got your ridiculous
starting five, and I don't know, is Deuce McBride that's
six guy? I'm sure maybe I'm finishing. Who am I forgetting?
Because if you just go brunts and heart Bridges, Ananobe Cat,
then you have I guess Robinson and then Deuce.
Speaker 2: Like those are your if you're healthy, those are your
eight and then it's like are we is I do
feel like is Landry Sham Landry Shaman, her campaign is
gonna wind up mattering to this team.
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe, but that's your eighth guy, right, Like that's
Boston has the same issue. It's like, well, I mean
like the Knicks would kill out Sam Hauser or Peyton
Pritchard certainly, but like it's not that different. I really
I don't think teams really do this, maybe with some
exceptions of trying to beat like the the PJ. Tucker
at Center Rockets or the small ball Warriors, but like
the Knicks really do feel like they looked at the
Celtics and kind of decided, we're gonna have to beat you,
Like there's no way to the finals without going through you,
so let's just see what we need.
Speaker 3: Well, that was my actual question.
Speaker 2: Do after this trade forget about the landscape of the East,
do you view the Knicks as a better matchup for
Boston than before this trade like with that was what
it really comes down to, and I think I can't
remember it was Synergy. It was Todd Whitehead on Twitter
had this graph about teams that do the best job
of pulling opposing centers out of the paint, and the
Nicks were basically the worst team in the league.
Speaker 3: Get that.
Speaker 1: No, that's my main The main upsides of this is
if Kat can pull centers out, that makes Brunton better.
That that just makes everything work more sensibly on offense,
particularly against Boston because Porzingis is we talk I talk
all the time about like he's just the cheat code
against switches because you get buckets that way. That doesn't
involve anybody else having to do anything. He just posts
up smalls. But his rim protection is great, but he's
not great in space, Like I would love to be
able to attack Porzingis trying to like recover out to
cat or like all that stuff in a playoff series.
I do think that has to be a huge consideration
here for the Knicks is like what do we do
about Porzingis? And maybe it won't matter because maybe he
won't be healthy either, but like that is you have
to solve for that. If you're trying to beat Boston,
you have to assume you've got to solve for Porzingis
in addition to all the other great players they have.
Speaker 3: I guess I was just more so coming out.
Speaker 2: I guess objectively, they are just a better matchup because
Julius Randall, as you're big in that situation, isn't having
the same complimentary impact, and he's not going to have
this a defensive like or stark defensive impact or necessarily
a good one. But I also kind of look at
it like cat on defense as like kind of a
big like if he has to scramble away from Porzingis,
Like I think you could argue that a fully healthy
Porzingis is going to be way more equipped to do
what the Knicks are going to inflict upon him vice
than vice versa.
Speaker 1: I agree with that. I agree with that for sure.
The defensive questions are there for the Knicks. If kat
is your center, that's just unavoidable. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I don't know if you have any other This
was ziggy. What do we think about the Wolves offense
will look like?
Speaker 3: Right now?
Speaker 2: I'm I'm fascinating, just I don't know what Julius Randall
looks like on this team.
Speaker 3: I think that's kind of where I'm at, where if
you're going to start him and play him with Gobert.
Speaker 2: We do sometimes get caught up in like having ball
handlers is good, and the Wolves needed those ball handlers.
I just it was a question with the Knicks, and
I will preface this. I think he did a better
job of it. But if you're not playing Dante DiVincenzo
for a lot of those minutes, is the floor going
to be open enough to convince or to optimize Julius
Randall doing the accessory work? And that's another like I
think this trade it kind of puts some pressure on
Jade McDaniels where it's if Julius Randall's starting, like hey kid,
like the three point volume needs to come up and
you can't wait till the playoffs to start making them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's true, But it does it pressurizes
a lot of other situations on the roster. For sure.
Let's do I want to do this one last one?
This Anya Joe Pilling has I can't pull these into
the into the video. Maybe you can.
Speaker 3: I don't get grand Da just or any anything I
had to.
Speaker 1: It's Catnip Gatt wanted to go to the Warriors, but
the Doves would not part with Kaminga. I hadn't heard that,
but I did have the thought of, like, if that's
what a cost to get Cat, Like, could New Orleans
have gotten involved? Could could all these other teams like, Like,
wasn't different other teams to get in there?
Speaker 2: So they could have. But I think like New Orleans,
the whole thing is, we don't want to pay Brandon
Ingram because we have.
Speaker 3: To pay Trey Murphy.
Speaker 2: Having Cat isn't gonna make that any easier for you
unless you're getting rid of both McCollum and Ingram in
the same trade. The Warriors is if they, like I
would be curious what the I wouldn't give up. You
wouldn't give up Kaminga for Cat. But it's like, what
did they want? And they got a Pistons. They could
say they wanted Kaminga, but they didn't accept anyone nearly
on the levels what people view Kaminga at. So I
ultimately think the step laddering of the salary to get
there would have been less impressive.
Speaker 3: Because you have Wiggans is not going to go back.
Speaker 2: To Minnesota like, imagine who's taken that contract and that
it's okay, Kevon Looney and GP two like that's and
Moses Moody.
Speaker 3: That's how you're starting to make up.
Speaker 1: The dollars seven other players to get to that salary
based I think.
Speaker 2: That's what made the Knicks an intriguing trade. Partners that
and also Julius Randall could potentially be useful to this team.
Is that, Okay, it took us two players, they're the
ones finding a third team and it's gonna save Look,
they're saving almost nine million in ross salary. That's gonna
save them a shit ton of money. And I haven't
calculated with the luxury tax savings are gonna be. So
whether I'm not gonna celebrate that, I'm still maybe that's
where we end it. I will say I'm disappointed I
think that Minnesota made this trade. If it pans out,
I'll eat my words. I wanted to see this group
come back, and I think part of it was I
was so fascinated by Rob Dillingham and I still am,
but like the concept of that move, and now I
do feel like, well, there's like less of a chance
that he's as integral, which.
Speaker 3: Might be better for them.
Speaker 2: So maybe I'm looking at it too much from a
storyline perspective, but I really thought this group as constructed
could win a title, and they could still.
Speaker 3: I just I was a fan of them running it back.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I because I've lampooned Denver and
the Clippers for doing this themselves, I compliment that the
Wolves celebrated them, like, oh, they are paying the second
apron this season, but they're clearly scared of it moving forward.
So you are no different than every other franchise. So
I have to eat those words.
Speaker 1: I think, my you just really crystallize it for me.
The next side of this is less complicated. It's a
bold move for the next because of the cost right
and the ups and downs of it. For the Wolves,
it's either bold or cowardly, and that depends entirely on
whether you believe this is a basketball move or a
financial move. And I don't know that we ever arrived
at like is it sixty forty fifty to fifty seventy
like it like because it's cowardly if it's just, oh,
we don't want to pay this money and therefore we're
not going to get to see what this team can
be if we give it another year together. It's really bold.
If they sat down and were crunching numbers and like
talking about the analytics numbers, not the money and stuff,
and said like, no, we will be better after trading
Cat for this package, Like and I'm not foreclosing on
that being most of the motivation, but we'll see. Like
I think the cynical and maybe realistic slash practical approach
is like this is money or this is mostly money,
but not sure.
Speaker 2: If I think it just to me if if you
wind up losing like nas read next year and naw,
but if I look at it through the lens of
right now, would you rather have those three with Danta
Evincenzo or Karl Anthony Towns on this team what it's become,
plus that Detroit first round pick and Trey. By the way,
Johnson the comments agrees with you. Granny doesn't think the
pick is going to convey either. I think I prefer that,
but I thought, I don't know. I wanted to see
this Timberld team running back. And maybe it's the the
emotional component of Kat being there his entire career and
living through just so much like just dumpster fire stuff there.
But unless you have anything else, are you ready to
take us out of here?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Thanks everybody for jumping on, Thanks for all the
questions and the comments. Uh thanks Nicks and Wolves for
just for them.
Speaker 2: No, no, they dated some content that we were still
gonna post and now we can't both o. Yeah, double
somewhere to get your ship, your your ducks in a row.
Speaker 1: They ruin content for us, but they also created some.
I already had to edit something that I'd filed. Thanks
a lot, because I said the Knicks are going to
trade for a center and something that's gonna publish next week.
Speaker 3: And honestly they kind of still need to.
Speaker 1: Leave it. Yeah. Thanks everybody. If you have an already
rate review, subscribe, follow us wherever you get your podcast,
comment thumbs up on YouTube here, help the algorithm on
us back. Check out our merch. I'm wearing old merch
which does have e Minchel Robinson's name on it, and
I am sorry new merch. Oh look out love it.
Thanks everybody. I even should apologize it. I'm not gonna
apologize to Mischel Robins shouts Frank Milky apologies. Jared Allen