if hiring Kidd comes with Giannis demanding his way to NY, go for it
If we end up with Kidd and no Giannis… I’ll be pretty bummed
If we end up with Kidd and no Giannis… I’ll be pretty bummed
Knicks
- Thread starter MainMan
- Start date
Chriscin33
Well-known member
So we are interested in a coach under contract who will require compensation to get. I don’t get it knowing we have minimal draft capital to begin with. This was why we had to fire Thibs so quickly? As others have said, if this will lead to Giannis, maybe I get it but I thought they had a better plan then hoping to get someone else’s coach who is under contract.
Should we have talked to Kidd while Thibs is under contract?
Chriscin33
Well-known member
No and if Kidd was the guy they identified right away, go for it. But are we really in a position to give up draft capital for a coach with no guarantee they will even get him? And is Kidd a slam dunk upgrade over Thibs? These are rhetorical questions of course but giving up assets for a coach when we have minimal draft capital to begin with doesn’t seem the smartest move but what do I know. Rose and his team get paid handsomely to make these decisions so I will sit back and let it play out and hopefully they hit a home run and a year from now, the Knicks are in the Finals.
Yes, but if there is any league that has complicated and convoluted rules for trades and FA signings, it is the NBA.
As it stands, the Knicks do not have many picks to trade. However, would anyone be surprised if Rose is somehow able to recoup a bunch in a trade(s) and then package them for both Kidd and Giannis?
I think this has been brewing for a while now, in particular Giannis. He has been open about being unhappy in Milwaukee. And NBA superstars more often than not, force their current team to trade them to their desired destination.
He can just refuse to sign a new deal with another team, which puts Milwaukee bad spot.
A lot of the reporting point to dysfunction with the team. Players gave negative feedback to the FO/owners. Thibs is notoriously stubborn. Should they have kept him, knowing that the team is having trouble to develop chemistry and they don't like some of his ways? I don't really buy that.
I also think we have more leverage in this particular situation. Is Dallas really going to keep Kidd if he doesn't want to be there? Nico never hired Kidd, and the prior ownership was there when Kidd was hired. He's also losing half of his assistants, potentially losing another, and he is pissed about the Luka deal + losing their Sports Medicine guy to .. the Knicks last offseason.
I don't think there will be leaks about us backchanneling to Kidd's people, but doesn't it seem implausible that this is coming out and the Mavs haven't squashed it yet? I also don't think it will cost much, and if the FO thinks Kidd can get us over the top + make the team develop more chemistry, I'm for it. Also think we may shake up the roster more than we'd think.
Well, there's really only one player who you could look at and say "that's the new piece that soured team chemistry" now isn't there?
And whose idea was it to acquire that player?
Certainly zero chemistry issues with the guys who were on the team last year, quite the opposite.
I’d say two. Bridges and KAT.
I also do think the front office deserves blame, especially with the Bridges trade and how much they gave up. But you know as much as I do that the coach gets fired first
Giannis wouldn’t shock me. I met him like 2 years ago at the stock exchange. He was launching an etf through a fund company and he hung out after the market close. He’s a very nice guy and humble. Had a lot of interest in finance. Asks a lot of questions total down to earth guy