Malik Beasley

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

I said this during the season, but I think the best-case scenario is that Beasley re-signs for four-years, $48-million. I think that's a fair evaluation of his talent and the market. Denver offered him $10-million per year before he started off the season very cold. Those 14 games in Minnesota saved his season and the slightly better offer is representative of that.

Offering him $20-million a year would be a grandiose mistake.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

I said this during the season, but I think the best-case scenario is that Beasley re-signs for four-years, $48-million. I think that's a fair evaluation of his talent and the market. Denver offered him $10-million per year before he started off the season very cold. Those 14 games in Minnesota saved his season and the slightly better offer is representative of that.

Offering him $20-million a year would be a grandiose mistake.

Agree, $20M would be pretty ridiculous for a guy Denver had as its 3rd or 4th guard in their rotation.

[Lipoli390]

The fact is that assuming we are keeping Beasley to go along with DLO and KAT, that is easily 65-70 fairly efficient points per game. From a pure roster construction standpoint, Ball is redundant with DLO; Wiseman is redundant with KAT; and Edwards is redundant with Beasley. None of these potential top 3 prospects easily slot into a starting role. I know some of us think a Wiseman/KAT combination could be tantalizing, but the fact remains that opposing teams are going to lick their chops putting these two guys int Pick and Roll situations. Wiseman won't be good defensively for at least a couple years.

The second you get beyond those top 3 and into the next 5-8 prospects, you see all sorts of guys that could be excellent role players at more reasonable prices and won't feel entitled to a starting spot based on draft position. Trading out of this pick never made more sense to me than it does now.

I don't disagree........BUT that makes you wonder how many teams would actually give away assets if this draft is as flat as many think. If no one is convinced they are getting an absolute star at 1, then what does a deal look like? No way do I trade just to save money. If you get the #1 pick, flat draft or not, you do your homework and you take your top guy. In a normal year, where there are 1-2 "perceived" stars, then you can assess trade value. In flat draft, where many think pick 8 is just as likely as pick 1 to get best player in draft, not sure what we can do to generate a deal that betters the Wolves. A while back I was looking at other teams, and I just didn't see many appetizing deals that included a pick and player, which is what I would expect by moving back in draft. I also don't expect teams to be throwing future high draft picks to move up in this particular draft either.

The hope would be that some team absolutely has total man-crush on Edwards, Wiseman or Ball, which is certainly possible as draft nears.

I'm not sure this draft is a substantially different from typical drafts.

There are at least two players in this draft who are widely perceived as potential stars, namely Ball and Edwards, and possibly a third in Wiseman. I know that last year every team in the League perceived Zion as a future NBA star with no hesitation except for some concern about his physical durability. And I think it's fair to say that nearly all 30 teams probably saw Ja Morant as the clear number 2 and a likely NBA all-star. Yet, although Ball, Edwards and Wiseman all have more concerns surrounding them than either Zion or Ja had, they are still widely viewed as having clear star potential based on their combination of skills and physical attributes. I'm sure there were close to 28 teams last year who would have loved to trade up for Zion or Ja, and admittedly there are probably far fewer teams who feel that same way about Ball, Edwards or Wiseman. However, given the talent of those three and the way NBA GMs tend to think, I'm sure there are more than a handful of teams who would love to trade up to get one or more of them. So I have no doubt there will be a decent market of buyers who see those three as the only prospects with star potential and who will be willing to give up significant value to get one of them.

As for what value the Wolves should expect in return for trading down, that depends on your view of the near consensus top three prospects and on what the Wolves would get in return, including the alternative draft pick.

For me, getting Okongwu and the Knicks 2021 top 3 protected 1st round pick and current Knicks' 27th pick this year would be enough. I see a lot of value in what will likely be a pretty high lottery pick next year when we don't have any picks and I also see value in the #27 pick this year as a valuable trade chip for other assets or to move up from #17. However, I don't see me making that deal because I don't see Okongwu lasting to #8. A major premise of that trade for me is my view that Okongwu will develop into a better shot-blocking version of Bam. And even if I'm wrong about Okongwu's upside, everything I've read and seen tells me he has a relatively high floor and will at least become a very good starting big who would complement KAT well with defense and rim-protection. I'm convinced that the Knicks really want Ball and would be inclined to give up a lot to get him.

If the Bulls, Pistons, Pistons or Cavs love one of the top three prospects, then the Wolves should be able to solicit some decent offers to trade down and end up with Okongwu. Heurter from the Hawks and the rights to Okongwu would be a nice and I think realistic return for the #1 pick (and possible Nowell), assuming Okongwu falls that far.

[WildWolf2813]

I just can't see the Knicks going all-in on Ball when all they've been preaching is asset management. With Thibs there now, I don't even know how enthused he'd be to suggest to management that they should get Ball. He'd probably rather want someone like Vassell anyway.

[Lipoli390]

I just can't see the Knicks going all-in on Ball when all they've been preaching is asset management. With Thibs there now, I don't even know how enthused he'd be to suggest to management that they should get Ball. He'd probably rather want someone like Vassell anyway.

Thibs isn't the president of basketball operations in New York. He's not even GM
and he has no front office position. And Dolan is the most meddling owner in the League. So Thibs won't dictate the team's draft strategy. The Knicks have no cornerstone player on the roster and will find it hard to resist the flash, star power and potential of Ball.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

The fact is that assuming we are keeping Beasley to go along with DLO and KAT, that is easily 65-70 fairly efficient points per game. From a pure roster construction standpoint, Ball is redundant with DLO; Wiseman is redundant with KAT; and Edwards is redundant with Beasley. None of these potential top 3 prospects easily slot into a starting role. I know some of us think a Wiseman/KAT combination could be tantalizing, but the fact remains that opposing teams are going to lick their chops putting these two guys int Pick and Roll situations. Wiseman won't be good defensively for at least a couple years.

The second you get beyond those top 3 and into the next 5-8 prospects, you see all sorts of guys that could be excellent role players at more reasonable prices and won't feel entitled to a starting spot based on draft position. Trading out of this pick never made more sense to me than it does now.

I don't disagree........BUT that makes you wonder how many teams would actually give away assets if this draft is as flat as many think. If no one is convinced they are getting an absolute star at 1, then what does a deal look like? No way do I trade just to save money. If you get the #1 pick, flat draft or not, you do your homework and you take your top guy. In a normal year, where there are 1-2 "perceived" stars, then you can assess trade value. In flat draft, where many think pick 8 is just as likely as pick 1 to get best player in draft, not sure what we can do to generate a deal that betters the Wolves. A while back I was looking at other teams, and I just didn't see many appetizing deals that included a pick and player, which is what I would expect by moving back in draft. I also don't expect teams to be throwing future high draft picks to move up in this particular draft either.

The hope would be that some team absolutely has total man-crush on Edwards, Wiseman or Ball, which is certainly possible as draft nears.

I'm not sure this draft is a substantially different from typical drafts.

There are at least two players in this draft who are widely perceived as potential stars, namely Ball and Edwards, and possibly a third in Wiseman. I know that last year every team in the League perceived Zion as a future NBA star with no hesitation except for some concern about his physical durability. And I think it's fair to say that nearly all 30 teams probably saw Ja Morant as the clear number 2 and a likely NBA all-star. Yet, although Ball, Edwards and Wiseman all have more concerns surrounding them than either Zion or Ja had, they are still widely viewed as having clear star potential based on their combination of skills and physical attributes. I'm sure there were close to 28 teams last year who would have loved to trade up for Zion or Ja, and admittedly there are probably far fewer teams who feel that same way about Ball, Edwards or Wiseman. However, given the talent of those three and the way NBA GMs tend to think, I'm sure there are more than a handful of teams who would love to trade up to get one or more of them. So I have no doubt there will be a decent market of buyers who see those three as the only prospects with star potential and who will be willing to give up significant value to get one of them.

As for what value the Wolves should expect in return for trading down, that depends on your view of the near consensus top three prospects and on what the Wolves would get in return, including the alternative draft pick.

For me, getting Okongwu and the Knicks 2021 top 3 protected 1st round pick and current Knicks' 27th pick this year would be enough. I see a lot of value in what will likely be a pretty high lottery pick next year when we don't have any picks and I also see value in the #27 pick this year as a valuable trade chip for other assets or to move up from #17. However, I don't see me making that deal because I don't see Okongwu lasting to #8. A major premise of that trade for me is my view that Okongwu will develop into a better shot-blocking version of Bam. And even if I'm wrong about Okongwu's upside, everything I've read and seen tells me he has a relatively high floor and will at least become a very good starting big who would complement KAT well with defense and rim-protection. I'm convinced that the Knicks really want Ball and would be inclined to give up a lot to get him.

If the Bulls, Pistons, Pistons or Cavs love one of the top three prospects, then the Wolves should be able to solicit some decent offers to trade down and end up with Okongwu. Heurter from the Hawks and the rights to Okongwu would be a nice and I think realistic return for the #1 pick (and possible Nowell), assuming Okongwu falls that far.

On what earth do the Knicks trade the rights to Okongwu, give up a top 3 protected pick in what is considered a much stronger draft than this one and a 3rd first round pick for the 1st overall pick in a weak draft?

[Lipoli390]

The fact is that assuming we are keeping Beasley to go along with DLO and KAT, that is easily 65-70 fairly efficient points per game. From a pure roster construction standpoint, Ball is redundant with DLO; Wiseman is redundant with KAT; and Edwards is redundant with Beasley. None of these potential top 3 prospects easily slot into a starting role. I know some of us think a Wiseman/KAT combination could be tantalizing, but the fact remains that opposing teams are going to lick their chops putting these two guys int Pick and Roll situations. Wiseman won't be good defensively for at least a couple years.

The second you get beyond those top 3 and into the next 5-8 prospects, you see all sorts of guys that could be excellent role players at more reasonable prices and won't feel entitled to a starting spot based on draft position. Trading out of this pick never made more sense to me than it does now.

I don't disagree........BUT that makes you wonder how many teams would actually give away assets if this draft is as flat as many think. If no one is convinced they are getting an absolute star at 1, then what does a deal look like? No way do I trade just to save money. If you get the #1 pick, flat draft or not, you do your homework and you take your top guy. In a normal year, where there are 1-2 "perceived" stars, then you can assess trade value. In flat draft, where many think pick 8 is just as likely as pick 1 to get best player in draft, not sure what we can do to generate a deal that betters the Wolves. A while back I was looking at other teams, and I just didn't see many appetizing deals that included a pick and player, which is what I would expect by moving back in draft. I also don't expect teams to be throwing future high draft picks to move up in this particular draft either.

The hope would be that some team absolutely has total man-crush on Edwards, Wiseman or Ball, which is certainly possible as draft nears.

I'm not sure this draft is a substantially different from typical drafts.

There are at least two players in this draft who are widely perceived as potential stars, namely Ball and Edwards, and possibly a third in Wiseman. I know that last year every team in the League perceived Zion as a future NBA star with no hesitation except for some concern about his physical durability. And I think it's fair to say that nearly all 30 teams probably saw Ja Morant as the clear number 2 and a likely NBA all-star. Yet, although Ball, Edwards and Wiseman all have more concerns surrounding them than either Zion or Ja had, they are still widely viewed as having clear star potential based on their combination of skills and physical attributes. I'm sure there were close to 28 teams last year who would have loved to trade up for Zion or Ja, and admittedly there are probably far fewer teams who feel that same way about Ball, Edwards or Wiseman. However, given the talent of those three and the way NBA GMs tend to think, I'm sure there are more than a handful of teams who would love to trade up to get one or more of them. So I have no doubt there will be a decent market of buyers who see those three as the only prospects with star potential and who will be willing to give up significant value to get one of them.

As for what value the Wolves should expect in return for trading down, that depends on your view of the near consensus top three prospects and on what the Wolves would get in return, including the alternative draft pick.

For me, getting Okongwu and the Knicks 2021 top 3 protected 1st round pick and current Knicks' 27th pick this year would be enough. I see a lot of value in what will likely be a pretty high lottery pick next year when we don't have any picks and I also see value in the #27 pick this year as a valuable trade chip for other assets or to move up from #17. However, I don't see me making that deal because I don't see Okongwu lasting to #8. A major premise of that trade for me is my view that Okongwu will develop into a better shot-blocking version of Bam. And even if I'm wrong about Okongwu's upside, everything I've read and seen tells me he has a relatively high floor and will at least become a very good starting big who would complement KAT well with defense and rim-protection. I'm convinced that the Knicks really want Ball and would be inclined to give up a lot to get him.

If the Bulls, Pistons, Pistons or Cavs love one of the top three prospects, then the Wolves should be able to solicit some decent offers to trade down and end up with Okongwu. Heurter from the Hawks and the rights to Okongwu would be a nice and I think realistic return for the #1 pick (and possible Nowell), assuming Okongwu falls that far.

On what earth do the Knicks trade the rights to Okongwu, give up a top 3 protected pick in what is considered a much stronger draft than this one and a 3rd first round pick for the 1st overall pick in a weak draft?

In a world where they believe Ball is going to be a transcendent star to build around - without knowing for sure where they'll be drafting next year or who will be available when they're on the clock, and also knowing that their pick would be top 3 protected while still having the Mav's unprotected first round pick. I don't know what value the Knicks put on Okongwu. I know their two best players play the same position as Okongwu. Is it likely the Knicks would do this deal? I don't know. Moving from #8 to #1 is a big move up if it lands a guy you see as a star -- and an entertaining flashy star to boot. But you seem totally sure of yourself, Kahns, so I'm not interested in trying to convince you.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

The fact is that assuming we are keeping Beasley to go along with DLO and KAT, that is easily 65-70 fairly efficient points per game. From a pure roster construction standpoint, Ball is redundant with DLO; Wiseman is redundant with KAT; and Edwards is redundant with Beasley. None of these potential top 3 prospects easily slot into a starting role. I know some of us think a Wiseman/KAT combination could be tantalizing, but the fact remains that opposing teams are going to lick their chops putting these two guys int Pick and Roll situations. Wiseman won't be good defensively for at least a couple years.

The second you get beyond those top 3 and into the next 5-8 prospects, you see all sorts of guys that could be excellent role players at more reasonable prices and won't feel entitled to a starting spot based on draft position. Trading out of this pick never made more sense to me than it does now.

I don't disagree........BUT that makes you wonder how many teams would actually give away assets if this draft is as flat as many think. If no one is convinced they are getting an absolute star at 1, then what does a deal look like? No way do I trade just to save money. If you get the #1 pick, flat draft or not, you do your homework and you take your top guy. In a normal year, where there are 1-2 "perceived" stars, then you can assess trade value. In flat draft, where many think pick 8 is just as likely as pick 1 to get best player in draft, not sure what we can do to generate a deal that betters the Wolves. A while back I was looking at other teams, and I just didn't see many appetizing deals that included a pick and player, which is what I would expect by moving back in draft. I also don't expect teams to be throwing future high draft picks to move up in this particular draft either.

The hope would be that some team absolutely has total man-crush on Edwards, Wiseman or Ball, which is certainly possible as draft nears.

I'm not sure this draft is a substantially different from typical drafts.

There are at least two players in this draft who are widely perceived as potential stars, namely Ball and Edwards, and possibly a third in Wiseman. I know that last year every team in the League perceived Zion as a future NBA star with no hesitation except for some concern about his physical durability. And I think it's fair to say that nearly all 30 teams probably saw Ja Morant as the clear number 2 and a likely NBA all-star. Yet, although Ball, Edwards and Wiseman all have more concerns surrounding them than either Zion or Ja had, they are still widely viewed as having clear star potential based on their combination of skills and physical attributes. I'm sure there were close to 28 teams last year who would have loved to trade up for Zion or Ja, and admittedly there are probably far fewer teams who feel that same way about Ball, Edwards or Wiseman. However, given the talent of those three and the way NBA GMs tend to think, I'm sure there are more than a handful of teams who would love to trade up to get one or more of them. So I have no doubt there will be a decent market of buyers who see those three as the only prospects with star potential and who will be willing to give up significant value to get one of them.

As for what value the Wolves should expect in return for trading down, that depends on your view of the near consensus top three prospects and on what the Wolves would get in return, including the alternative draft pick.

For me, getting Okongwu and the Knicks 2021 top 3 protected 1st round pick and current Knicks' 27th pick this year would be enough. I see a lot of value in what will likely be a pretty high lottery pick next year when we don't have any picks and I also see value in the #27 pick this year as a valuable trade chip for other assets or to move up from #17. However, I don't see me making that deal because I don't see Okongwu lasting to #8. A major premise of that trade for me is my view that Okongwu will develop into a better shot-blocking version of Bam. And even if I'm wrong about Okongwu's upside, everything I've read and seen tells me he has a relatively high floor and will at least become a very good starting big who would complement KAT well with defense and rim-protection. I'm convinced that the Knicks really want Ball and would be inclined to give up a lot to get him.

If the Bulls, Pistons, Pistons or Cavs love one of the top three prospects, then the Wolves should be able to solicit some decent offers to trade down and end up with Okongwu. Heurter from the Hawks and the rights to Okongwu would be a nice and I think realistic return for the #1 pick (and possible Nowell), assuming Okongwu falls that far.

On what earth do the Knicks trade the rights to Okongwu, give up a top 3 protected pick in what is considered a much stronger draft than this one and a 3rd first round pick for the 1st overall pick in a weak draft?

In a world where they believe Ball is going to be a transcendent star to build around - without knowing for sure where they'll be drafting next year or who will be available when they're on the clock, and also knowing that their pick would be top 3 protected while still having the Mav's unprotected first round pick. I don't know what value the Knicks put on Okongwu. I know their two best players play the same position as Okongwu. Is it likely the Knicks would do this deal? I don't know. Moving from #8 to #1 is a big move up if it lands a guy you see as a star -- and an entertaining flashy star to boot. But you seem totally sure of yourself, Kahns, so I'm not interested in trying to convince you.

Based on your own previous thoughts regarding player values in trades, if a team values a complete unknown as worth 3 first round picks because they think he is a transcendent player does that not make you pause and wonder why you aren't taking the guy if he's that good? The goal at the end of the day is to end up with the best player so if someone is offering me 3 first round picks for an unknown who's not even the clear cut #1 prospect I would be asking myself what they see and know that I don't because that sounds exactly like someone we should be adding to this team. Keep in mind that we are getting more in return for Ball than the Hawks got for Doncic in this scenario. That basically just means the Knicks have to be complete suckers or geniuses and no in-between to make this offer at all which is why I don't find it realistic because that is insanely risky for a brand new front office to go all in on this particular draft.

[Lipoli390]

The fact is that assuming we are keeping Beasley to go along with DLO and KAT, that is easily 65-70 fairly efficient points per game. From a pure roster construction standpoint, Ball is redundant with DLO; Wiseman is redundant with KAT; and Edwards is redundant with Beasley. None of these potential top 3 prospects easily slot into a starting role. I know some of us think a Wiseman/KAT combination could be tantalizing, but the fact remains that opposing teams are going to lick their chops putting these two guys int Pick and Roll situations. Wiseman won't be good defensively for at least a couple years.

The second you get beyond those top 3 and into the next 5-8 prospects, you see all sorts of guys that could be excellent role players at more reasonable prices and won't feel entitled to a starting spot based on draft position. Trading out of this pick never made more sense to me than it does now.

I don't disagree........BUT that makes you wonder how many teams would actually give away assets if this draft is as flat as many think. If no one is convinced they are getting an absolute star at 1, then what does a deal look like? No way do I trade just to save money. If you get the #1 pick, flat draft or not, you do your homework and you take your top guy. In a normal year, where there are 1-2 "perceived" stars, then you can assess trade value. In flat draft, where many think pick 8 is just as likely as pick 1 to get best player in draft, not sure what we can do to generate a deal that betters the Wolves. A while back I was looking at other teams, and I just didn't see many appetizing deals that included a pick and player, which is what I would expect by moving back in draft. I also don't expect teams to be throwing future high draft picks to move up in this particular draft either.

The hope would be that some team absolutely has total man-crush on Edwards, Wiseman or Ball, which is certainly possible as draft nears.

I'm not sure this draft is a substantially different from typical drafts.

There are at least two players in this draft who are widely perceived as potential stars, namely Ball and Edwards, and possibly a third in Wiseman. I know that last year every team in the League perceived Zion as a future NBA star with no hesitation except for some concern about his physical durability. And I think it's fair to say that nearly all 30 teams probably saw Ja Morant as the clear number 2 and a likely NBA all-star. Yet, although Ball, Edwards and Wiseman all have more concerns surrounding them than either Zion or Ja had, they are still widely viewed as having clear star potential based on their combination of skills and physical attributes. I'm sure there were close to 28 teams last year who would have loved to trade up for Zion or Ja, and admittedly there are probably far fewer teams who feel that same way about Ball, Edwards or Wiseman. However, given the talent of those three and the way NBA GMs tend to think, I'm sure there are more than a handful of teams who would love to trade up to get one or more of them. So I have no doubt there will be a decent market of buyers who see those three as the only prospects with star potential and who will be willing to give up significant value to get one of them.

As for what value the Wolves should expect in return for trading down, that depends on your view of the near consensus top three prospects and on what the Wolves would get in return, including the alternative draft pick.

For me, getting Okongwu and the Knicks 2021 top 3 protected 1st round pick and current Knicks' 27th pick this year would be enough. I see a lot of value in what will likely be a pretty high lottery pick next year when we don't have any picks and I also see value in the #27 pick this year as a valuable trade chip for other assets or to move up from #17. However, I don't see me making that deal because I don't see Okongwu lasting to #8. A major premise of that trade for me is my view that Okongwu will develop into a better shot-blocking version of Bam. And even if I'm wrong about Okongwu's upside, everything I've read and seen tells me he has a relatively high floor and will at least become a very good starting big who would complement KAT well with defense and rim-protection. I'm convinced that the Knicks really want Ball and would be inclined to give up a lot to get him.

If the Bulls, Pistons, Pistons or Cavs love one of the top three prospects, then the Wolves should be able to solicit some decent offers to trade down and end up with Okongwu. Heurter from the Hawks and the rights to Okongwu would be a nice and I think realistic return for the #1 pick (and possible Nowell), assuming Okongwu falls that far.

On what earth do the Knicks trade the rights to Okongwu, give up a top 3 protected pick in what is considered a much stronger draft than this one and a 3rd first round pick for the 1st overall pick in a weak draft?

In a world where they believe Ball is going to be a transcendent star to build around - without knowing for sure where they'll be drafting next year or who will be available when they're on the clock, and also knowing that their pick would be top 3 protected while still having the Mav's unprotected first round pick. I don't know what value the Knicks put on Okongwu. I know their two best players play the same position as Okongwu. Is it likely the Knicks would do this deal? I don't know. Moving from #8 to #1 is a big move up if it lands a guy you see as a star -- and an entertaining flashy star to boot. But you seem totally sure of yourself, Kahns, so I'm not interested in trying to convince you.

Based on your own previous thoughts regarding player values in trades, if a team values a complete unknown as worth 3 first round picks because they think he is a transcendent player does that not make you pause and wonder why you aren't taking the guy if he's that good? The goal at the end of the day is to end up with the best player so if someone is offering me 3 first round picks for an unknown who's not even the clear cut #1 prospect I would be asking myself what they see and know that I don't because that sounds exactly like someone we should be adding to this team. Keep in mind that we are getting more in return for Ball than the Hawks got for Doncic in this scenario. That basically just means the Knicks have to be complete suckers or geniuses and no in-between to make this offer at all which is why I don't find it realistic because that is insanely risky for a brand new front office to go all in on this particular draft.

Yes, it would give me pause. But then again, we're talking about the Knicks. :). The Doncic comparison isn't a good one. In that instance, the Mavs only moved up two slots from #5 to #3. Moreover, at the time Luka and Trae were considered on par with one another and no one (except maybe the Mavs) thought Luka would turn out to be the player he has quickly become. In the hypothetical I'm suggesting, this Knicks are moving up 7 slots from #8 to #1 to get one of only three players who are widely considered to have star potential.

I don't think the Knicks have to be suckers or geniuses to do a deal along the lines I suggested. They just have to really love Ball and feel a sense of urgency to make a splash in this draft. And of course, my scenario assumes the Knicks don't value Okongwu as highly as I do. None of those assumptions is outlandish given the fact that Ball is generally considered one of this year's three draft prospects with star potential and the fact that there seems to be a pretty wide spread of opinions on Okongwu's upside as reflected in the panoply of mock drafts. I do think the Knicks are a bit desperate. Would they be willing to give up their top pick next year with only top 3 protection. I don't know. I'm sure their first response would be no and, if interested at all, they might counter by offering their rights to the Mavs' 2021 first round pick.

Again, I don't think Okongwu will be around at #8, so my scenario is highly unlikely. And I would caution against drafting Ball in the hope that a good deal will materialize. You take Ball only if you want to keep him or you have a deal in place for precisely the players, including draft prospects, you want.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I just can't see the Knicks going all-in on Ball when all they've been preaching is asset management. With Thibs there now, I don't even know how enthused he'd be to suggest to management that they should get Ball. He'd probably rather want someone like Vassell anyway.

Thibs isn't the president of basketball operations in New York. He's not even GM
and he has no front office position. And Dolan is the most meddling owner in the League. So Thibs won't dictate the team's draft strategy. The Knicks have no cornerstone player on the roster and will find it hard to resist the flash, star power and potential of Ball.

I don't believe this is true.

Dolan is a clown in many, many ways. But he hasn't been the one making basketball decisions... other than hiring those who do.