Brandon Knight

[Bricklayer]

Well now Chad Ford has added/attached his name to us too, although it seems dubious to me that we would be trying to us the #8 to get Kevin Love...or we'll just settle for Brandon Knight.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wireta...-Schröder-Knight-With-No-8-Pick-As-Trade-Chip


Anyway:
1) would come cheap monetarily. Wouldn't have to overpay IT. Knight would only cost $3.8next year, and then be restricted

2) non-impact PG of a 15 win team. Yay

3) before having to do too much last year, always been a good shooter.

4) not very creative as a passer. Very much a young cheap version of the George Hill/Chalmers idea. If that's truly all we need, he fits. But leaves the elephant of Ben being exactly 100% unsuited to PGs of that style. Ben needs CP3.

5) pretty good defender. Thus setting up a 3 and D scenario, and teaming with McCallum to give us 48 min of good/solid PG defense. A defensive step forward.

6)) probably closer to the 13 and 4 guy of his first couple of years than the forced leading scorer 18 and 5 on a terrible team last season

7) IT is a more dynamic player. But possible Knight is a better fit for what Malone wants to do. More in control. of course again this would be a ?? move for a front office who said they wanted us to be passers. But having a less ball dominant PG might actually help that. parker isn't a great passer, but the Spurs lead the league in assists because everybody moves the ball.

 

[Letsgokings13]

I'd be ok with a Knight/Sanders deal

 

[Letsgokings13]

Or if none of that works, I like Smart still

 

[Fear the Putin]

only if we can get Sanders somehow

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I'd far rather keep the #8. I liked Knight before he got into the league, but he simply hasn't looked like the player I hoped he would be. Straight up, I pass on this deal without giving it a second thought. If there are other assets involved then I'd reassess.

 

[hrdboild]

Well, I mentioned this in the Chad Ford topic last week as a possibility from Milwaukee. It's a trade that makes sense so it seems like pure speculation more than an actual rumor. If you want someone with an NBA track record instead of taking a chance on a rookie, Knight is someone young with potential. His first month in Milwaukee was awful, but look at what he did after that:

DEC: 18.5pts, 4.6ast, 5.3rebs, 1.1stl
JAN: 17.3pts, 4.9ast, 3.5rebs, 1stl
FEB: 21.7pts, 6.4ast, 3.2rebs, 1stl
MAR: 19.1pts, 4.8ast, 3.5rebs, 1stl
APR: 20.9pts, 4.4ast, 4.1rebs, 1stl

Hardly All-Star level stuff but pretty solid. It's a decent return for a #8 pick if you don't like anyone on the board. Even when I brought the idea up last week though I wasn't thrilled about it. His playmaking hasn't come along as quickly as expected and he still looks like more of a shooter than a true PG (though his 3pt% took a hit last year with the lack of options in that offense). Seems like a lateral move. It delays us having to commit a long contract at the position but doesn't really make us better. I'd rather we draft and develop Elfrid Payton with that pick than trade for Knight. Payton is a significantly better defender and looks like a better choice to run a team as well.

Actually, I think drafting Exum to pair with Knight makes a lot of sense for Milwaukee. Knight is the shooting PG and Exum is the playmaking big guard. Knight guards the PGs but Exum brings up the ball and initiates the offense. Are they really going to use a #2 pick on Exum with Parker, Wiggins, or Embiid on the board though?

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

I'm not really a Knight fan. He's young, but ... ehh. He doesn't do a lot for me. Not for the #8 pick, that is for sure.

I actually wish his defense was as good as his reputation for it is. I just haven't seen him stand out on that end despite what most people say. Granted I'm not watching the Bucks 82 times a year, but I've seen him play enough to know that the gap between IT's defense and Knights defense isn't as big as i'd like it to be.

I just can't wrap my head around trading #8 for Knight when Gordon, Smart, Vonleh, or Randle will be on the board.

Like I mentioned in another post, if they want to give us Henson as well than I'm on board. If they want to take back Landry and give us Sanders, I'm also on board, but #8 for Knight alone isn't enough for me.

Of course, #8 for Knight + letting IT walk could mean other things with more money available. We could dump Outlaw on them, Williams, etc, and free up some space to go after other free agents (looking at you, Avery Bradley).

A lot of moving pieces.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Like I mentioned in another post, if they want to give us Henson as well than I'm on board. If they want to take back Landry and give us Sanders, I'm also on board, but #8 for Knight alone isn't enough for me.

Agreed.

Of course, #8 for Knight + letting IT walk could mean other things with more money available. We could dump Outlaw on them, Williams, etc, and free up some space to go after other free agents (looking at you, Avery Bradley).

If Gay opts in, though, I'm not sure that freed up space amounts to all that much.

 

[bajaden]

I'd vote no on trading the number 8 pick straight up for Knight. I think we can get a better player with the pick. I like Knight and wouldn't mind having him on the team. Just not at that price. Plus, I'm not a big fan of Henson's. Maybe as a bench player, but not as a starter. He still has a very weak core. When he tried to guard Cousins, he got killed. I'm not sure he'll ever be strong enough to guard big men in the NBA.

 

[KingMilz]

If Gay leaves if we can get Knight and Middleton I would be interested, any combo of

Knight/Middleton
Knight/Sanders
Middleton/Sanders

Would work for me, if we could get all three in a deal that includes our 8th pick and maybe IT in a sign and trade (plus probably D-Will and JT) I woould do that.


So IT (4-6mill per season sign + trade) + Derrick + JT (would prefer Landry to go but I doubt Bucks do it) + 8th pick for Knight/Sanders and Middleton?

If Gay leaves that should leave us with money to play around with getting another solid veteran or two.

 

[kingsboi]

Knight....ehhh he is too shoot first for my taste. What I do like about him is he plays hard and puts in work on the defensive end. However, his frail frame limits him to a certain extent where he can't do much on the other side of the ball being out powered more often than not.

 

[ParniValjak]

Not really sure how I feel about this. Knight improves the D at PG but does not improve the play making and creativity and pick 8 is a big price to pay. Surely there would be more to the deal. Sanders or shed some salaries and a later pick?

There has to be more to it!

 

[KingsCitizen]

One guy nailed it in RealGM. All these seems to be just a smoke screen.
FO is probably waiting for some other teams to call and say, "Hey Pete! we can give you better guys than Schoeder or Knight."

 

[Chupacabra]

i'm not really a Knight fan. He's young, but ... ehh. He doesn't do a lot for me. Not for the #8 pick, that is for sure.

I actually wish his defense was as good as his reputation for it is. I just haven't seen him stand out on that end despite what most people say. Granted I'm not watching the Bucks 82 times a year, but I've seen him play enough to know that the gap between IT's defense and Knights defense isn't as big as i'd like it to be.

I just can't wrap my head around trading #8 for Knight when Gordon, Smart, Vonleh, or Randle will be on the board.

Like I mentioned in another post, if they want to give us Henson as well than I'm on board. If they want to take back Landry and give us Sanders, I'm also on board, but #8 for Knight alone isn't enough for me.

Of course, #8 for Knight + letting IT walk could mean other things with more money available. We could dump Outlaw on them, Williams, etc, and free up some space to go after other free agents (looking at you, Avery Bradley).

A lot of moving pieces.

I like to try and stay away from wishful posts (which means Im about to make one), but if we acquired Avery Bradley in FA and put together some kind of package to get Knight+Sanders I might cry tears of joy. That would make for a nasty squad.

 

[beb0p]

The thing is that 1. Knight is not very good. 2. He has not shown he has the mindset of a 3&D player. He likes to have the ball in his hands and as soon as he returned from his injury, he completely squeezed out OJ Mayo, as the two ball hogs cannot co-exist. If you tell Knight to just bring the ball up and wait in the corner, I don't think he will buy into that.
.

 

[roasthawg]

Knight for the 8th pick would be horrendous value... which means it's obviously not gonna happen.

 

[Gary]

I wouldn't do Knight for the 8th pick, but I would do Knight and Sanders for the 8th pick and filler. Knight is the type of player that I believe would be able to play well in a system where every player passes the ball. He could turn into a Bibby type player with the added benefit of a little bit of D. It makes sense if the team is trying to Mirror San Antonio.

 

[Letsgokings13]

Knight/Sanders is really appealing to me

 

[Albatros]

Means nothing but Chad Ford said this in his Chat roundup.

Yes. The need a rim protector and Sanders is available. I think if they give up Knight and Sanders they'll want more than just the 8th pick. But the Kings have enough assets to throw another player the Bucks way. Would be a good deal for both teams -- especially if the Bucks could get Ben McLemore as well. They need young players they can build around. The Bucks will be active in trying to move up and get another pick and the Kings have been among the most active in trying to add a few vets to turn this team into a playoff contender next year. Sanders and Knight would probably do it.

 

[upinsmoke]

Honestly I don't even want to throw in the pick for Sanders and certainly would not throw in Ben the deal even if they want to deal Knight which by the way does not fit a need here because we have Ray. IF in fact we really have to trade the pick for Sanders Milwaukee has to take some combination of JT/Landry/Terry.

 

[Gary]

We need someone better than Ray. Sorry to say but Ray won't be winning us many games (if any) next year. I still want to develop Ray though, but we need a veteran with a few years under his belt to run the PG. If we sit on our hands we're basically saying that we think our current lineup can develop into a playoff team. I do not want to wait any longer. We have been for almost 10 years now. Enough with the "developing young players", I want to get a good core here with some D.

 

[upinsmoke]

We need someone better than Ray. Sorry to say but Ray won't be winning us many games (if any) next year. I still want to develop Ray though, but we need a veteran with a few years under his belt to run the PG. If we sit on our hands we're basically saying that we think our current lineup can develop into a playoff team. I do not want to wait any longer. We have been for almost 10 years now. Enough with the "developing young players", I want to get a good core here with some D.

And Brandon Knight is some sort of game changer? Don't confuse "developing young players here" for "Maloofism".

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Honestly I don't even want to throw in the pick for Sanders and certainly would not throw in Ben the deal even if they want to deal Knight which by the way does not fit a need here because we have Ray. IF in fact we really have to trade the pick for Sanders Milwaukee has to take some combination of JT/Landry/Terry.

Agreed. Sanders is extremely damaged goods on a very big contract right now. Milwaukee has basically zero leverage with him, and there's no way I throw in the 8 pick to get him. If Milwaukee asks for the 8 pick, I hang up and wait for them to call back. Spoiler: they'll call back.

 

[randymoss1881]

Give them 8/landry or JT for Sanders/Knight, Ford must be out his damn mind if he thinks we give up Ben in that deal.

I think that is great value for the 8 pick and could potentially be semi franchise changing. If Sanders could get back to being a dominate defender with new management/coach than we have a key cog that every conteder has. You than add in Knight who is a good player he can be our starter for next season as Ben develops then slide him to the bench later on. If Ben develops like I hope he can we would have two very good shooters at the SG spot

 

[Bricklayer]

I will repeat the idle thought of the other thread that rather than trading our #8, which we may still do in another deal, its not 100% impossible we could think of swapping Ben for Knight as a SG. if the idea is we need more ballhandlers, and are looking for more experienced personnel. Knight at PG = poor ballhandling/passing. Knight at SG = good ballhandling/passing.

Or in the bigger and either more hopeful or more disastrous scenarios, Ben/Landry for Knight/Sanders. But I have no evidence of the above and don't claim to know what anyone is thinking.

 

[macadocious]

You sure want to get rid of Ben don't you.

 

[JLoss22]

Still on the fence about a possible trade for Knight and Sanders.

Sanders is or has been an idiot so far in his career and has a big contract.

And Knight is a scoring combo guard who I don't really see having a future here.

Not sure if I would give up 8 for that.

 

[beb0p]

Yes. The need a rim protector and Sanders is available. I think if they give up Knight and Sanders they'll want more than just the 8th pick. But the Kings have enough assets to throw another player the Bucks way. Would be a good deal for both teams -- especially if the Bucks could get Ben McLemore as well. They need young players they can build around. The Bucks will be active in trying to move up and get another pick and the Kings have been among the most active in trying to add a few vets to turn this team into a playoff contender next year. Sanders and Knight would probably do it.

Is Larry Sanders available? Maybe I've missed it but I haven't heard anything about that. I can't imagine the GM, who last year convinced the ownership to shell out money to keep him, now wanting to get rid of him. It makes him looks incompetent. Outside of them drafting Embiid, I don't see them trading Sanders just yet.

But if Sanders is available, I'd just focus on Sanders and forget about Knight; and I think expiring contracts ought to be good enough to get a deal done.
.

 

[Kingster]

7) IT is a more dynamic player. But possible Knight is a better fit for what Malone wants to do. More in control. of course again this would be a ?? move for a front office who said they wanted us to be passers. But having a less ball dominant PG might actually help that. parker isn't a great passer, but the Spurs lead the league in assists because everybody moves the ball.

This is just mythology. IT isn't ball dominant. A zillion times he came down the floor, threw the one pass of the series to Gay or Cousins and they shot the ball. End of Story. There is no reason IT can't do what Parker does.

 

[Letsgokings13]

"Brian (CA)


You said the Kings had interest in Brandon Knight for the 8th pick, would that interest extend to Larry Sanders, considering he would be a perfect fit next to Big Cuz.

Chad Ford
(1:42 PM)


Yes. The need a rim protector and Sanders is available. I think if they give up Knight and Sanders they'll want more than just the 8th pick. But the Kings have enough assets to throw another player the Bucks way. Would be a good deal for both teams -- especially if the Bucks could get Ben McLemore as well. They need young players they can build around. The Bucks will be active in trying to move up and get another pick and the Kings have been among the most active in trying to add a few vets to turn this team into a playoff contender next year. Sanders and Knight would probably do it."

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/50741/nba-insider-chad-ford