With talks of the Knicks potentially looking to trade up in the draft swirling, one conversation has garnered some back burner attention… could the Knicks trade entirely out of the first round of the draft? And more importantly, should they?

Friends, we need to have a talk. That talk. I know, we’ve been avoiding it for months now. But it is what it is, and we’re running out of time, and I just want you to be prepared for what life may throw at you. I won’t always be around and I don’t want you cast adrift should the unthinkable happen. Of course, I (Prez) am talking about the possibility of the unthinkable, the IRRESPONSIBLE, the inane: 

Should the Knicks trade out of the draft? 

The Knicks have a lot of talent on this team. Guys like Rokas Jokubaitis and Deuce McBride, in the opinion of this humble scribe, would be top 20 talents in this class. Sure, we can praise the depth of the class — there’s about 30 guys who have an argument to go from 15-30 — but that’s really not what our Knicks are here for, is it? They’re here for top-end, playable talent, assets who will appreciate, to put it crudely. So let’s talk about it. I’ve brought two opposing forces of hot takes and pragmatism to help navigate this discussion: Shwinnypooh and Tyrese London.

Is there a situation in terms of how the draft unfolds where you would want the Knicks to trade out? 

Shwinnypooh: I can’t think of a single scenario, bar some buy-low opportunity for a star-level talent, that I would want the Knicks to trade out of this draft entirely. We’re seeing more and more how much depth matters in the league, and even competitive teams who view themselves as contenders are betting on young talent and giving them opportunities to contribute in meaningful, high-leverage situations. The Knicks went 37-45 and missed the playoffs. They lack a dynamic dribble penetration threat, athleticism and size on the wing, and arguably could use more talent at the 5 depending on the Mitchell Robinson situation. There’s no logical argument for them to trade the pick, especially when no likely move that it could be used in is likely to open up a clearer or quicker path to contention.

Tyrese: I think it depends on how the board shakes out on draft day. If the draft gets to pick 11 and the board is looking like Jeremy Sochan, Malaki Branham, Jaden Hardy, etc., available with no obvious pick like a dropping AJ Griffin or even Johnny Davis (#NoLottoCenters), I think trading out and trying to net more capital in 2023 or 2024 in the quest for a star would be the better use of resources. I also understand that it’s pretty unlikely to happen. However, taking a pick, not having a real pathway for that pick to have minutes and a developmental context, and THEN going into a deeper 2023 draft — where you have at LEAST two firsts with a very real chance to trade back into the first if need be — feels like you can punt on this year and not feel too bad about it. I agree with Shwin that depth is important and the Knicks need it, but the Knicks’ depth isn’t the problem here; it’s the lack of true franchise-altering talent. They’ve shown they can find depth all around the board if need be and still have the trade and free agent flexibility to acquire more with resources such as the MLE and the expiring contracts on the books.

Is trading out more about what offers you get than how picks 1-10 unfold? Or both? Either way, what kind of offers for young players or picks would get you to seriously consider it?

Shwinnypooh: For a star. Can 11 be packaged with a few other things to land a Donovan Mitchell, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, etc.? Would some awful team offer a barely protected or entirely unprotected future first to get that pick? If not, then who fucking cares? The Knicks are nowhere near good or talented enough to entertain trade-out opportunities.

Tyrese: The offers matter, of course. But ultimately, if they’re trading 11 in any context it needs to be for a star. I know it doesn’t answer the question, but if there was a pathway to move up to No. 4 for Jaden Ivey or to No. 6-7 for Shaedon Sharpe, I’d do it. If there’s a way to get an actual, bonafide, perennial All-Star talent, the Knicks should be all hands on deck.

As a rook, Obi averaged a criminal 11 minutes per game. Who’s the worst prospect on your board who you think would deserve 11 minutes a game? Assume that 1) Randle is gone, and 2) the roster is only partially un-fucked, not completely remade.

Shwinnypooh: I don’t really have a board, and for the sake of this hypothetical I will further assume Mitch is still here, since if he’s not, the extremely easy answer is one of the centers: Mark Williams or Jalen Duren. So with that said, I’ll go with Malaki Branham, who people are extremely high on, and for good reason, given the shot creation and shooting touch he showed during the second half of his season at Ohio State. His defense and rebounding are just not up to par right now, and he needs time to fill out. None of these are unfixable issues long-term, but if Tom Thibodeau’s the head coach of this team, he’s shown an unwillingness to stretch the minutes for young players who he trusts defensively, let alone ones who desperately require seasoning on that side of the ball.

Tyrese: I think Wendell Moore Jr. may fit the bill here. I think he’s just solid at everything already and could make the most of his minutes even in a limited role. He definitely has his concerns about athleticism and the blocks meme on draft Twitter was funny, but 6-foot-6 wings who can dribble/pass/shoot and be passable on D will have a place in the league.

What about the worst prospect who deserves 20 minutes per game on the Knicks? Just trying to get a feel here for who has to be off the board for the New York front office to think ‘’Why are we even bothering here?’’

Shwinnypooh: Man, cracking 20 minutes for ANY rookie without basically all the vets being sent out in consolidation trades that return players who are unplayable will be a tough task. Even if we said one of Deuce or Cam went out in those transactions, it’s tough to see who it would be, so this is where I will invoke the “Mitch is gone” card. I think Thibs would HAVE to play either Williams or Duren 20 minutes a night in a scenario where Mitch was gone and the Knicks drafted one with the 11th pick — which, despite me liking both players, would be a very poor allocation of resources, all things considered.

Tyrese: Pfffffffffffffffffft. Maybe Tari Eason if he splits time at the 3 and 4 with a sprinkle of time at the 5? I don’t think any rookie the Knicks draft is playing unless at least Fournier and Burks are gone, which isn’t happening. Team is deep, yo. Poorly coached by a geriatic boomer who needs to adapt to modern basketball, but deep nonetheless. 

Off the top I can’t really think of a team trading out, only consolidating picks. Am I trippin’? Has a team in recent memory done that?

Shwinnypooh: Not very recently, but if you go back a few years to 2017, the Timberwolves traded the seventh pick (Lauri Markkanen) in a package to Chicago for Jimmy Butler; in 2016, the Magic traded the 11th pick (Domantas Sabonis) and Victor Oladipo to OKC for Serge Ibaka, and in 2014, the Hornets traded Noah Vonleh (OAKAAK) to Portland for Nicolas Batum. Worth noting those trades really have not resulted in great success for either party, but if you make win-now swings as a lottery team, the success rate is pretty fucking shit. Not ideal.

Tyrese: Shwin kinda stole my thunder there, haha. Trading out is rare, but if you end up trading No. 1 for Kevin Love like the Cavs did, it works out (yes, there’s context; no, I’m not gonna stop pushing #agendas regardless). 

Lastly and most importantly, why would you waste all of Prez’ hard work?

Tyrese: Because it’s fun, what other reason is there?