The Knicks probably won't get Zach LaVine. Should they, though?

The Knicks have been linked to the Bulls’ Zach LaVine. Is he a perfect fit, or perfectly ignorable for the Knicks?

Miranda: As we saw in 2021 and again this past season, the playoffs are a different speed. This was Quentin Grimes’ first taste. While he struggled at times with the postseason tempo, given his biggest skill – his threat as a shooter – is fairly impervious to erosion, there’s little reason to think he can’t become a meaningful contributor on both ends for a contender, especially given how other parts of his game trended last season. But if trading Grimes accelerates the timeline to become a contender, do you do it?

There’d been growing talk before the draft about the Knicks considering a move for Chicago’s Zach LaVine, before we all came to our senses and remembered Klutch Sports, who rep LaVine, would never deal one of their clients to the Knicks because New York is CAA country.  “From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.” Still, even if LaVine never plays for the Knicks, the conversation around him shows the Knicks are shopping in a select part of the store. Would acquiring a LaVine-level player be worth the cost, likely to fall somewhere between Cleveland raining assets down on Utah for Donovan Mitchell and what at first looked like Phoenix giving Washington a glass of lukewarm water – from the bathroom sink – for Bradley Beal? 

Collin: Good evening Professor! This month’s gossip claimed the Bulls would be looking for “a good young player, multiple first-round picks, and salary filler” in exchange for the high-flier scoring dynamo. Who do you see them being interested in out of the New York core? I don’t know if Obi Toppin makes sense given the existence of Patrick Williams. Would you be more inclined to give up one of Grimes or Immanueal Quickley?

For added context, a look at LaVine’s contract, which runs through 2026-2027:

• 2023-24: $40,064,220

• 2024-25: $43,031,940

• 2025-26: $45,999,660

• 2026-27: $48,967,380 (player option)

M: LaVine is 28, has shot 38% or better from deep the past four years and gotten to the line five to six times a game for five years running. The Wizards’ paltry return for Beal seems less likely the market correcting after the Rudy Gobert inflation scare a year ago and more likely the Wizards, under new president Michael Winger, being so desperate to be rid of Beal’s contract (plus hamstrung by Beal’s no trade clause) they decided beggars couldn’t be choosers. Turning Chris Paul into Jordan Poole wasn’t a bad piece of business, either.

Chicago can’t afford to throw any stones Washington’s way, given the Bulls’ own house of glass. All that huffing and puffing under general manager Artūras Karnišovas and what do they have to show for it? A gentleman’s sweep two years ago against the Bucks, a play-in elimination this year at the hands of the Heat and their first-round pick this year – the 11th overall – become Jett Howard to Orlando to take care of the Nikola Vučević deal. Undoubtedly Chicago would like to rebuild. Undoubtedly trading LaVine is one way to go: the team owes him triple the money of their next-highest paid player, and the only Bull guaranteed under contract as far as 2025 besides LaVine is Alex Caruso. 

I can’t see the Bulls letting LaVine go for as little as the Wizards got for Beal. I understand Washington’s motivation may have differed than Chicago’s would for moving LaVine; don’t discount that part of the appeal of the trade for the Wiz is it virtually gives them a first-round pick (one the Knicks own, but that’s less likely to convey since the Wizards figure to lose too many games for the protections not to kick in). So that tells me the Knicks’ll have to give up somebody. Quickley? Grimes? RJ Barrett?

Tough call, but I think I’d have to let Grimes go. I can’t imagine he’s going to play a ton if Barrett, LaVine and Josh Hart are all on the roster. He’s clearly a superior defender to LaVine, but the Knicks wouldn’t trade for a player of his stardom/salary to platoon him. Quickley’s ability to toggle roles plus his dribble penetration and orchestrating are more complementary to LaVine’s bag than bookending him with RJ and Grimes.

The Knicks have been aching to make The Big Move™ since time immemorial. The new, fan-hating CBA is clearly pushing teams to accelerate their plans ahead of June 30th, when new more restrictive conditions kick in. How much would adding a player like LaVine – not a superstar, but an All-Star, more along the lines of Julius Randle than Jimmy Butler – impact the Knicks’ ceiling? Does this make them a team that can go farther in the playoffs?

C: In any potential Knick trade for LaVine, I think one of Barrett or Randle has to be among the outgoing salaries, at least for my seal of approval. I’ve mocked Phoenix far too much for signing up to spend $130 million on three players following the Beal trade to eagerly root for the Knicks to spend whatever it would cost for a core of Brunson/LaVine/Barrett/Randle. And there's a reasonable argument that they’re not in the same tier as the aforementioned Suns with that core. 

As for his fit in New York, I think in the absence of Barrett, LaVine makes for a starting five with three average-to-below-average defenders, and that’s not going to cut it. Brunson’s likelihood to defy the defensive liability allegations while not getting any taller seems slim. And there isn’t any X-factor in a coaching change, given that Tom Thibodeau coached LaVine before. Add in the wishy-washy nature of Randle, and opposing team’s won’t be focusing on the Knicks’ offense in pregame strategy. 

That being said, there is a world where the offensive boost makes this worth it. A lot of what LaVine brings to the table can be found in the very slim margin that “hooper Twitter” is typically correct in: the effortless nature of his game and versatility of his scoring palette. I trust LaVine taking a shot anywhere in the three levels. He would make for just the second Knick to get a green light in that regard, and we’ve seen what happened when they added the first in Brunson last summer. The unknown element to a Brunson/LaVine backcourt would be downright anxiety-inducing for opposing defenders. I think it would be fun. 

But then again, I also think dropping my entire life and moving to a coast-side city in California could be fun, for a while. But life has a way of finding us right at the moment where we’re having so much fun we forget that there are t’s that need crossing and i’s that need dotting. I think any Knicks team that makes a competitive offer for Zach LaVine runs out of gas at the most inopportune moment – in the playoffs. An area he’s logged less time in his career than Grimes. 

M: If I try to look much beyond next year, I get dizzy, disoriented; the vicissitudes of all the possible everythings between present and future fall on my mind like a mountain. So I try to keep it as simple as possible. The safest, soundest starting point for the Knicks to work off of as of today is this: what kind of players does a player like Brunson need around him to potentially contend for a title? This is where LaVine doesn’t add up to me.

If I may be extremely overly simplistic, when I think of guards as small as Brunson to lead a title-winner in my lifetime, two come to mind: Isiah Thomas and Steph Curry. Both played alongside All-Star 2-guards who were also All-Defense at their position in Joe Dumars and Klay Thompson. LaVine is a two-time All-Star, but his is not a name you’ll hear mentioned when defensive honors are floated. So just say no, yes? No.

Before Isiah and Steph could say their teams were contenders, they were trying to reach that level. That’s where the Knicks are now. Before the Klays and Dumars were covered in confetti, there were years when Jarrett Jack and Sidney Green were leading their teams on the journey from the lottery to the deep end of the playoff pool. I’m more interested in the Knicks winning 50 games next year and the year after than them making one orgasmic trade that relieves our years? decades? of tension. LaVine can be our John the Baptist: not the guy, but the guy before the guy. Are you satisfied with LaVine as a step in the right direction? Or do you think what he’d cost them isn’t worth what he’d bring?

C: Disoriented and dizzy are also how I felt after seeing The Flash, a movie about being lost in time that simultaneously seemed lost in time. For anyone debating whether or not to go see the film, you have been warned. 

I couldn’t agree more, re: pairing Brunson with a defensively-renowned guard in the backcourt. This, too, presents complications when trying to identify the ceiling on a Brunson-LaVine backcourt. Along largely similar lines, could I interest you in one Paul George? His healthiest days are behind him – he’s averaging just 47 games played his last four seasons – but he’s only got two years left on his current deal, $45,640,084 next season and a $48,787,646 player option for 2024-25. Granted, he plays within the frontcourt, but as the “on the back nine of his career” Robin to Brunson’s Batman, I love the fit. And there are already rumblings that the LA Clippers could be looking to move him this summer . . .

That being said, I think given where the Bulls are, and where the Clippers are – for the sake of banter we’ll call that the “precipice of irrelevance” – that a price tag in either trade would look largely similar, dependent upon whether or not LA is ready to admit defeat and blow the whole thing up. I suspect they’re not, for what it’s worth. Is a swap of Randle and George all that out of the ballpark? Could we sell the Clippers front office on an ironman third banana for their 45-games-a-year but premiere second option? In Leon Rose I trust. 

I’d rather New York avoid swinging on a player like LaVine, with longer financial commitments, and more on-the-court weaknesses. Make a medium-sized swing that provides an early out and give it a go with a team largely made up of players with undefined (and rising) ceilings. To me, in the midst of finally, like for real, actually climbing the NBA’s power rankings, plateau moves with upside present the greatest value. Enter: Paul George, Stage Left. Exit, Collin: Stage Right.