↓ Login/Logout ↓
↓ Roster ↓
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Should the Pistons trade Brandon Knight?

Mike Payne of Detroit Bad Boys wrote an interesting piece exploring whether the Pistons should trade Brandon Knight:

The problem is that Detroit may not want to wait four years to develop Knight, and the reasons are numerous. First, Knight may not end up being as good a point guard as Rodney Stuckey was last year. The Pistons have Stuckey on contract for three years, so sticking to Stuck may be a wise option. Second, properly building around Monroe with immediate contributors is terribly important, lest Detroit find themselves in the position of teams like Orlando and Denver with trade demands on the wall. Last, if Knight doesn’t develop signs of a passing game in a year or two, his trade value will plummet. If he can be moved, he should be moved at the highest sign of value– which may be prior to the 2012 NBA trade deadline.

My stance on Knight hasn’t changed since the Pistons drafted him. He was the right pick, but far from a certain NBA success. He’s not immediately a productive NBA point guard, but he has the tools to get there.

So, of course, I have no problem with the Pistons trading Knight if they get a good offer. He’s done nothing to warrant being untouchable.

But I think a point that Payne’s column – well worth reading in its entirety – misses is that Knight taking time to develop might actually help the Pistons. Even if Knight hit his peak form tomorrow, I don’t think the Pistons would have enough talent to compete for a title. They’d likely need to hit again in the draft and have all their young players develop perfectly. Because the latter is extremely unlikely, barring getting Anthony Davis or someone of his caliber, they’ll probably need to hit twice in the draft.

The higher a team picks, the more likely it is to draft a good player. The worse a team plays, the more likely it is to land a high pick.

A project like Knight could keep the Pistons in the cellar long enough to secure more high draft picks, and once (if) he’s ready to contribute, ideally, the Pistons would then have enough talent to contend.


  • Feb 24, 20126:13 pm
    by Tiko


    Why wouldn’t we be just as patient with Knight as we were with Stuckey? Knight’s rookie year >>>>> Stuckey’s first 4 years
    This reminds me of when Chauncey was traded hs rookie season.

  • Feb 24, 20126:30 pm
    by Laser


    Tiko, this isn’t about giving up on the guy. He’s one of the few tradable assets the team has, and he could go a long way in getting the team a good piece or two to build on.

    Right now I’d be ALL FOR this. Stuckey’s not going anywhere ever, Gordon is entrenched until somebody else has interest in his expiring contract, we’ve got Bynum and could probably retain Walker D Russell if we wanted some extra point depth. Guards are a dime a dozen, and there’s nothing about this kid that makes me think he’s untouchable.

    This article makes some good points. It would be great to package Knight and something else to get a building block or two. Maybe pick up an extra first rounder for him or something, I dunno. No sense coveting or stockpiling guards who aren’t really point guards.

    • Mar 3, 20128:08 pm
      by Chris


      Knight IS a building block though…so you might as well keep him.

  • Feb 24, 20126:59 pm
    by frankie d


    imho, the odds of knight developing into a good point guard are pretty high.  he’ll always be a more chauncey-like point guard, rather than a steve nash/chris paul type point, but you can win a title with that kind of player.

    this is another one of those instances where i initially hated the pick, but i’ve come to value what knight birngs to the table.  
    imho, he’s going to develop into a clutch 3 point shooter and he’ll be a good court manager, even if he never leads the league in assists.  
    stuckey is the perfect match for him, because of his ability to penetrate, and handle the ball.  when knight gets too much pressure, stuckey can handle the ball.  when a guard needs to penetrate and get to the rim, stuckey can handle that.
    this is a backcourt that can grown and prosper, given time.  i hope joe doesn’t screw this up.

    • Feb 25, 201210:02 am
      by Sebastian


      This is an interesting topic, during the break in the season, but honestly why would WE trade Knight before the 2012 Trade Deadline. Why?!?!

      Who or what would WE get in return?!?!

      Like frankied and other rational posters have written, if WE trade Knight WE will be having to replace him. Also, WE would be possibly altering a possible developing relationship, a “courtship” you will, between Stuckey and Knight.

      I agree that Knight may not become a “Chris Paul-type” guard. So what?! He can become a Brandon Knight-type point guard. He and Stuckey are guards, both should be able to be on the floor at the same time, providing very similar statistics (eg. 18 pts, 6 ast. 5 rbs, 2 stls. each).

      Also, Joe trading Knight at this point would pretty much nail Joe’s fate. 

      Joe trading Knight, before March 15 is not smart. 

      • Feb 25, 201210:28 am
        by tarsier


        First, I’ve long since gotten over the fact that people refer to a team that they root for but are in no way a part of as “we,” but why the emphasis on the word “we” by use of capitalization? It’s like you are trying to stress the fact that, in spite of it not really being what you are saying, one of your main points is that you are a part of the Pistons.

        Second, it’s all about the return. You asked what Detroit might take back. The most likely answer is a first rounder, protected if a team looks liable to finish in the 5-9 range, unprotected if they look liable to finish in the 10-14 range. Besides that, ideas have been floated of using him as the centerpiece to bring back a player like Cousins (not gonna happen), McGee, or one of Millsap/Jefferson/Kanter/Favors.

        Any one of those returns is at least worth thoughtfully considering. To trade him for a pick in the 20s or some such tiny return would be lunacy. But with the plethora of good, young PGs int he league and the fact that Knight’s future is uncertain but unlikely to be all-star level, it is certainly worth seeing how much other teams like the guy.

  • Feb 24, 20127:32 pm
    by IsraeliPiston


    His long article mentions that it took billips 5 years to develop into a passing point guard. It did not take him 5 years to develop – it happened when Larry Brown became coach and he focused heavily on teaching billips and made billips into a real point guard. If Detroit is serious about Knight being their point guard of the future – they need to bring in someone to mentor him the same way Brown mentored billips

  • Feb 24, 20127:53 pm
    by domnick


    Brandon Knight trade for Deron Williams :)

  • Feb 24, 20127:55 pm
    by frankie d


    read the article and found it wanting.
    payne puts too much credence in the experiences of supposedly similar players  that just aren’t that similar, imho.  the entire premise of the article – that it will take 4 years for him to develop – is flawed.
    he cites the example of chauncey, and that just does not fit at all.  chauncey was held back as much by the fact that he was moved around so much,  that he played for 4 teams and was a member of a 5th before landing in detroit.
    assuming competent coaching, knight has to fare better if he stays in one place and his maturation process has to be easier.   i don’t think his maturation as a point guard really began to hold once he got settled and stayed in one place for more than a few months.
    jason terry is a very good comparison and may be the best comparison available anywhere.
    however, terry’s situation will hopefully not be what knight experiences.  he suffered through 3 bad coaches – lenny wilkins on fumes qualifies as bad – before he shipped himself out to dallas.
    terry was actually putting up both good scoring and decent assist numbers with atlanta, peaking at 7.4 in his 4th year.  considering the coaching turmoil, that is not too shabby.  
    knight is undoubtedly going to benefit from coaching stability.  he’s coming in with frank as his first pro coach and hopefully, frank will be competent enough to remain around for at least 3 years.  during that time, knight should be able to develop.  he has gotten better in 30 games.  considering his improvement in such a short time, i’d expect a big jump after one full year of playing and one summer of intense preparation.
    comparing players is great and fun to do.   
    but often the comparison is very inexact and just doesn’t fit.
    bill laimbeer would have never played in the league – and he was actually on his way out of the league – if you tried to find anyone who fit his style, in order to predict what he might do.
    dennis rodman?  who was like rodman before rodman?
    zeke established a new style, as he is the godfather of all the new breed of point guards.  (both zeke and nate archibald, i should say.)
    ben wallace?
    sometimes the examples just don’t provide much guidance and i think knight is one of those guys where a prior player’s career just doesn’t provide much guidance for what knight is going to do.
    the  aspects of knight’s play that really sets him apart from terry and chauncey are his competitiveness and his smarts.
    he has a really rare level of competitiveness that you see very obviously every once in a while.  it flashes to the surface when he competes against certain players, like rubio or irving.  it is always there, but it is plainly evident at certain times.  
    his intelligence is something that has been noted.  he appears to be an extremely smart player, one with a rare combo of both a high native IQ and BB IQ.
    unfortunately, my impression is that john calapari doesn’t really do much coaching at kentucky and knight’s play reflects that fact.  if you watch irving play, it is clear that he’s had excellent coaching by this point in his career.  coach k doesn’t just roll the ball out and let guys play.  i don’t think he’s any smarter than knight, and if knight gets a bit of competent coaching in some of the fundamentals of playing the point, i’d expect to see huge strides soon…and definitely a lot quicker than 4 years down the line.

    • Mar 3, 20128:17 pm
      by Chris


      don’t worry, on Payne’s blog, he’s extremely negative. If you say anything good about any of the players besides Monroe or Jerebko, him and his cronies on the blog will be all over you accusing you of saying that you think Knight, Gordon, or Stuckey should be in the hall of fame. If you mention that they’re playing well, they tell you “What? You think he should be in the hall of fame??” If Knight hits a 3, they comment on how he doesn’t have any assists instead of just saying it was a nice 3 pointer…haven’t been to the blog in a few weeks, their crap gets really old and I hope PistonPowered stops giving him attention. Worst blogger ever.

  • Feb 24, 20128:04 pm
    by tarsier


    What the article seems to presume is that if the Pistons don’t have a good team by the time Monroe’s contract is up, he’ll bolt. That seems improbable. Most good players stick with their original team for at least 7 years, not 4. And you can guarantee at least 5 by extending a qualifying offer and being willing to match. So the clock is not ticking nearly as much as implied. That said, I’d be fine with trading Knight if Dumars got good value in return. But there is no reason to sell low.

    • Feb 24, 20128:08 pm
      by tarsier


      Of course, it is worth bearing in mind that good PGs are plentiful in the league and should not be too hard to come by in coming years. So if Dumars can flip him for a comparable prospect at another position, he should jump on it. Or if he could get say a late lottery pick this year for him, again, I’d take that.

  • Feb 24, 20128:15 pm
    by frankie d


    late lottery?
    no way.  i would certainly trade him for the right offer, but it would have to be a very good one.
    a lottery pick in the top 7, yes, but nothing lower.  and you cannot guarantee that kind of position yet.  he’s shown enough to have justified his own original draft position, so why sell low?  even though this is admittedly a very strong draft.

    • Feb 24, 20129:38 pm
      by tarsier


      I’d rather have Cody Zeller than Brandon Knight. But yeah, what he is worth is kind of a matter of opinion.

    • Feb 24, 201210:01 pm
      by tarsier


      And yeah, Knight looks worth about the 8th pick he was taken with last year. But this is a better draft and he is at the least valuable position (just based on league-wide availability of talent). Hence, why I’d be happy with even an 11th or 12th pick.

    • Feb 24, 201211:19 pm
      by gmehl1977


      @frankie here is an article that you might find interesting which relates to what we were discussing the other day:


  • Feb 24, 20128:17 pm
    by Nick II


    Frankie D  I agree with everything you said in your post especially about Calipari. Im from Memphis and I watched him hold Derrick Rose game back until the tournament started.If you remember everyone thought Michael Beasley was gonna be the #1 pick til the tournament. But I do think Knight is the point guard of the future for the pistons. With that said if we don’t get the top pick and get Davis I think we should use the amnesty clause on Ben Gordon and draft Jeremy Lamb. Use the cap space from Gordon and get a free agent center to play with Monroe. There are a lot of free agent centers this yr. I like Gordon but we desperately need a shot blocker.Maybe the Pistons can sell Dwight Howard on playing next to Monroe. I always thought that Dwight Howard game would better if he played next to a true PF.

    • Feb 24, 20129:59 pm
      by tarsier


      A) The Pistons won’t have cap room to make an offer to Howard even if they amnesty Gordon.

      B) If they did have said cap room, they’d still be the longest of long shots to get him. They are not a good team, a team designed to mesh well with Howard, nor a particularly desirable city.

  • Feb 24, 20128:36 pm
    by Hardy


    I don’t think you actually look at a watch and expect for players to develop at a certain time. The difference between Stuckey and Knight is mautrity. I like Stuckey as a player but last years antics still are held over his head. As with Knight he has come in and worked hard and it has started to rub off on Stuckey. Knight is a piece of this puzzle that you don’t try to force a fit but you look at where he plays best to fit. To be honset both Stuckey and Knight are off guards (combo). Neither one is going to give you Chris Paul stats but they will give you enough  assists to off set one from being double teamed. I think it is funny  how these sports writers want to dismantle a team before the team starts to gel. There is not one team that can be built in a day with all the salary cap issues. There is alot of luck in finding guys that want to win instead of padding their stat sheets in this league. Right now as a fan I am happy that Stuckey and Knight are working out. This team has more deficiencies in the post and that should be where either free agency or the draft you add or take away.  Getting lowballed into giving away pieces is not a good idea when rebuilding.

  • Feb 24, 20129:57 pm
    by Shane


    Knight is looking pretty good in this all rookie soph game.. except for taking too many threes and missing >.<

  • Feb 24, 201211:35 pm
    by Mark


    Its yet to be seen if Knight/Monroe fit together.

    They’ve yet to have great games both on the same game. And there doesnt seem to be much chemistry there either.

    I think Knight is going to pan out into a great player, but that doesnt mean he’s going to be the best fit with Monroe, if those 2 are the franchise players.

    I wouldnt trade him yet though. The only trade I’d consider for Knight right now would be for Cousins. Because a Monroe/Cousins frontcourt would be the best in the league arguably right now. Just imagine the dominance we would have 5 yrs from now when they’re both 26-27 yrs old.

    • Feb 24, 201211:39 pm
      by Mark


      To follow up on their fit together. On the surface their styles dont match. Knight excels at a full court uptempo game and has his struggles in the halfcourt. Monroe excels at a plodding pace in the half court and gets flustered when he’s forced to rush and play fast.

      If they can meet in the middle it could work, but you wonder if by doing that you’re preventing each from playing their best at what they do best.

  • Feb 24, 201211:41 pm
    by Mark


    Monroe 19 pts, 10 rebs, 5 stls, and 4 asts on 8-12 FG and even drained a 3 at the end!

    Play of the game was his steal on Wall. ROFL

    Knight played great too and tied Rubio for the team lead in assists. Finished with 14 pts, 7 asts, only 2 TO’s.

  • Feb 25, 20123:43 am
    by Max


    Larry Bird recently said that he didn’t think the next two drafts would produce a decent PG.  There are a lot of good point guards in the league at present but in two or three years with some retiring and getting older there could be a dearth.

    • Feb 25, 20129:11 am
      by tarsier


      My point is that there are a ton of good, young PGs. They will be in the league for another 5-10 years. One or two bad draft seasons for the position won’t change that. I mean, who will get old or retire? Nash, Kidd, Miller, Billups. That’s it. Also, who cares what Bird said. It is impossible to predict much about the draft more than a year in advance. Too much changes. Especially when you are talking about the overall composition of talent. Bird may not expect much by way of good PGs, but he has at least a decent chance of being surprised.

      • Feb 25, 20124:27 pm
        by Max


        I agree that Bird could be surprised but if he is right Knight could actually be the best point guard to come out of three consecutive drafts.  Also, I could add a few more names like Tony Parkerto the list of point guards who will decline in the next few years so I don’t know how many point guards you mean by the “ton” who will be good for the next 5-10 because unless you are confident that 15-20 of them will be borderline stars, the position will have a lack of depth.   Personally, I doubt Chris Paul and Deron Williams will even be good for the next 5-10 years unless the emphasis is put completely on the five.   I would contend it is very possible that Knight will at least be a top 10-15  point guard a few years from now without even having to make the huge improvements he is fairly likely to make.

        • Feb 25, 20126:14 pm
          by tarsier


          Parker will be on the decline but could easily still be solid in 5 years. Paul and Williams definitely will be. This is only their 7th season. Still playing at a high level into early 30s at least appears to be the norm for elite PGs. They could easily both be playing in 10 years, although by then they will be pretty much at the end of their careers (like Kidd and Nash).

          But as for a ton of PGs, her lemme give you a list: D-Will, Paul, Rondo, Lowry, Conley, Rose, Westbrook, Evans, Rubio, Curry, Jennings, Holiday, Lawson, Teague, Wall, Irving, Lin. Maybes include Parker, Felton, Brooks, Calderon, Augustin, Dragic, Bayless, Chalmers, Collison, Maynor, Bledsoe, Knight, Walker, Fredette, Cole, and Thomas.

          One or two of those you could argue as SGs. Just like one or two guys left off could be argued as PGs (like Stuckey). By my count, that’s already 17 PGs who are definitely going to be good for at least the next half decade, definitely longer in most cases and probably longer in every case. Plus there are 16 more guys with lower expectations on average but who probably at least 5 of will be good enough to be a starting PG on a championship team (without even being a Fisher-esque weak link). Assuming just one decent PG per year (which is really, really little) over the next 5 years, that’ll still be enough for virtually every team to have a pretty good, and more than half a very good, point guard.

          It’s not infinitely deep, but that’s a hell of a lot younger and deeper than any other position in the league with only PF coming close.

        • Feb 25, 20126:16 pm
          by tarsier


          I’m not saying all those guys will be better than Knight. Just saying that if Knight is dealt for another piece, the Pistons are almost guaranteed to be able to come up with another good PG in the not too distant future. Unlike good centers, they aren’t a rare commodity.

  • Feb 25, 20125:40 am
    by Gregoire


    If you trade Knight, you could fill one of the Voids the Pisons-Roster has just to reopen the Void at the Point. I´ll give him all the Time he needs since before 13/14 the Pistons won´t be relevant again no matter what happens. The Voids to fill are at the Center-Position and at the Small-Forward-Position. Prince is surely not the longterm-answer there and Daye, well…I wonder why the Draft Machine has the Pistons taking Cody Zeller at the Moment…even with Micheal-Kidd-Gilchrist on the Board they take Zeller…he has the Size to play Center but for me looks way to Slim…Is there any Indication the Pistons don´t like Gilchrist?

    • Feb 25, 20129:12 am
      by tarsier


      Don’t worry about the draft machine. It is just told that the Pistons desperately want a C way more than anything else.

  • Feb 25, 20129:12 am
    by Corey


    I found the entire concept of trading Knight for a building block silly. He is a building block. The pistons have 3 players who can probably be starters on a playoff team in two or three years: Monroe, Stuckey, and Knight. And Jerebko will be a good backup forward playing 25 min a game. Unless someone trades us a much better player for one of them (and why would someone do that?) there’s no reason to trade.

    Teams lose their star player by trading their promising young building blocks for overpriced declining veterans in a desperate bid to win one title quick. Look at Orlando: every player except howard and Anderson are below average players. So of course he wants out. Same situation Lebron was in. Carrying a capped-out decking team with no hope of getting better. Are durant or Westbrook eager to leave OKC? No- they are on a promising young team with good young players who are continually improving. A rebuilding team should trade FOR young players with potential, not trade them away

    • Feb 25, 20129:35 am
      by tarsier


      “Unless someone trades us a much better player for one of them (and why would someone do that?) there’s no reason to trade.”

      What if someone trades Detroit a slightly better player. I’d happily take that too. The general idea is to guess whether his trade value will rise or fall. It’s really hard to tell, but when I look at Knight, I see a solid player in the future but not a superstar. I would rather trade him for a player or pick which has the potential to be crap or spectacular. Because I believe contention typically revolves having players on deals for less than they’re worth. And the only veterans who tend to be on such deals are superstars–due to the whole max contract thing.

      Without a ridiculous CBA restriction like the max contract, I would not be nearly so obsessed with superstars. But think about it, the only team that has won since the institution of the max contract without a superstar (defined here as a player deserving more than a max deal were that possible), was the Pistons. And that was because they accomplished the extremely rare feat of having multiple players on low-cost, long-term deals who greatly exceeded expectations. The only player in the league comparable to Billups and Wallace back then (contract vs production-wise for a non-rookie deal, non max-deal player) is Gortat. he’s the only one in the WHOLE NBA!! How is Detroit supposed to get multiple such guys? So, keep swinging for the fences for a superstar.

  • Feb 25, 20129:26 am
    by Steve


    This story makes no sense at all.  I’m a huge Pistons fan, but who said Detroit is even close to being a contender?  Of course, it will take Detroit a couple more drafts to address positions of need.  I believe Monroe and Knight will be the most important pieces going forward.  They need a younger core and it starts with those two.

    • Feb 25, 20129:40 am
      by tarsier


      The article is mostly saying maybe Knight isn’t really that good. In that case, Detroit should trade him sooner rather than later while he has more value.

  • Feb 25, 201210:20 am
    by Steve K


    Interesting topic. Frankie d makes an excellent point that player comparisons are typically useless. Knight could be unique and pan out in his own way. Besides, this season is a tough one to gauge with no camp and a compressed schedule.

    The stats sample size is also too small. I’ve seen games where knight has fit passes thru tight spaces and looked like billups. Other times he’s turned it over repeatedly leading the color guy to call him “dreadful”. That’s a rookie.

    Bottom line is that it’s too early to tell, and I can’t foresee the pistons getting any offer of value. If there’s some GM that’s in love with knight and offers the moon, then sure. He’s not untouchable.

  • Feb 25, 20121:09 pm
    by Anthony


    if you look at teams like the Thunder and even the Hawks a few years ago that are great young teams that havent won championships because of the lack of veteran leadership. Who thought the Mavs we going to beat the Thunder in the confrence finalls last year?

    • Feb 25, 20121:38 pm
      by tarsier


      Value of having a player = how good he is * how many years you can have him

      That is why young players are more valuable than older players, not because they are better. In fact, if you think about it, it’s kinda the inverse. As in, you can trade a good young player for a better older player and they have comparable value (think Griffin for Howard or Nash for Teague).

      So it is unsurprising that young teams rarely win because their value is optimized toward contending for a long time rather than having the best odds possible in any one year. Although the Hawks are just a bad example. They were a decent young team. But never a great one. And the Thunder haven’t won one yet, but it wouldn’t be surprising if they did even this year (although odds remain on the Heat. For what it’s worth,t hey didn’t come up short of expectations at all. They were predicted to lose in the WCF to the Lakers and they lost in the WCF to the Mavs instead. Not bad for a team on which none of the best players had hit their prime yet.

      But it’s not like young teams never win. It’s just that if you’re winning a championship with a young team, you should have a dynasty on your hands. And there has been too much parity in the post-Jordan era for anyone to come closer to a dynasty than Duncan’s Spurs (though in 2003, Tim, Tony, and Manu were pretty young).

  • Feb 25, 20122:39 pm
    by BWB


    Brandon Knight is averaging 18.8 points, 4.3 rebounds, 4.5 assists, the past 4 games since he took his mask off. Hes gettting better and yet all these Pistons fans say trade him. Trade him from who? Milsap?
    i wouldn’t do that. Give him time. We can get a big in the Draft.

  • Feb 25, 20122:55 pm
    by Audrius


    Knight is good player, young player. Wait couple years and he could be on the top of PG list in the leage. Knight and Monroe is bright future for the Pistons. Monroe now showing solid basketball and he is only 21 years old. So be patient, build team around them, trade all others except them if necessary and good things will come. I beleave in those two.

  • Feb 25, 20123:06 pm
    by vic


    a hardworking pg barely a year removed from high school who can hit 3s, works hard, has a good leadership attitude, and is competitive. Itd be dumb to trade him. He’s had some of his best games recently and he hasnt even had a full summer of nba level preparation and practice.  He’s not too undersized. He’s a good piece to Keep, not trade. If another GM gets stupid, then maybe. But you dont go looking to get rid of him for an unsure thing.

  • Feb 25, 20125:14 pm
    by danny


    This is ridiculous just to even suggest. As good as Stuckey last year? What was so impressive with how Stuckey played last year? And havent we learned from the past not to trade highly drafted players so quickly? And its not as if Knight hasnt played great at times. Yes he is inconsistent, but we knew before we took him that he needed developing. I personally wanted Walker, but have to say that I am very pleased thus far with Knight. To suggest trading him is ridiculous, but to do so simply because of some thought that Stuckey can be a better PG than him, is laughable.

    • Feb 25, 20126:19 pm
      by tarsier


      I am for being cautious in getting rid of high drafted guys (although dealing for another high pick is not generally a foolhardy move). But what are you referring to? From which experience have “we learned from the past not to trade highly drafted players so quickly?”

      • Feb 25, 20128:43 pm
        by rick77


        I guess he would be talking about either Amir Johnson or Arron Affalo, as if they were huge pieces, albeit Johnson would look nice next to Monroe. A backcourt of Stuckey and Affalo would be a great one defensively but how long can we play the “what if” game? I am sure we would not have someone we have if we did not get rid of said players. I never understand why people play that game all the time in sports. It is a domino effect and one move always affects another that people never include in their argument. I guess people would rather have Darko, but then we would not have Stuckey. See my point? If someone gives u a big for Knight then take it depending on the big. If its a high pick one thru five and u dont have to trade your pick then do it. Anything lower than 6 or 7 I would not take it. If you can secure picks w/o trading yours and you get lucky say oh like Cleveland then why not trade Knight? If you ask me I would say he did his job if he can net us a huge return. We cannot act like he is the chosen one when I saw Irving throw up 34 with like 9 assists and Knight played a whole season of college ball and this kid played like 10. If you say he is ahead of Knight then why not trade Knight when he has his most value and someone is willing to take a flier. I wish he was as good as Irving, who is as good as advertised. With Knight the jury is still out as to if he is a true point.

        • Feb 25, 201210:50 pm
          by tarsier


          Yeah each person’s cut-off for what pick they’d take back for Knight will be different. I’m guessing with mine around 12, it’s later than most people’s. But that says more about my confidence in this draft and in the depth of good PGs in the league than it does anything about Knight.

          Your suggestions for picks sorta given up on for cap space were who first came to my mind too. But I ruled them out because he was talking about high draft picks. And those were all second rounders. But maybe that is who he meant.

  • Feb 26, 20121:30 am
    by Mike Payne


    “misses is that Knight taking time to develop might actually help the Pistons.”
    One point I didn’t stress enough is that the likelihood of Knight developing a passing game is slim at best.  To further explain my personal opinion, I think Brandon Knight isn’t going to get there and I honestly think he should be traded now while other GMs believe he has value as a starter.  If Detroit is somehow (and foolishly, I might add) hoping it takes Knight 4 years to develop a style of play he hasn’t shown any evidence of having, I’m calling BS.
    So if the Pistons are hoping to hit lottery money for the next several years to field a team that is ready for the big time when Knight figures it all out, what the hell happens if he doesn’t?  The greatest barrier in the way of this scenario is history for a player of his manner.
    “and once (if) he’s ready to contribute, ideally, the Pistons would then have enough talent to contend.”
    Logical leapfrog is junk science.  Somehow, you have just suggested that Brandon Knight could present contender quality talent.  And the Pistons should not trade him because he might not suck in four years when he’s all of a sudden a contender-level point guard.
    Maybe we should fast-forward to extension paperwork?

    • Feb 27, 20121:33 pm
      by Murph


      Hmmmm…  I certainly favored the Pistons drafting Walker over Knight (the jury’s still out), and I’ve been disappointed with Knight’s passing and turnovers so far in his young career.

      That said, the kid does show a great deal of potential.  He has poise and toughness.  He has a sweet jump shot that will get better.  He has a high basketball IQ, and he has a good attitude and seems open to learning and coaching.

      I agree with the comparisons to Chancey Billups early in his career.  Knight may never become a pure PG, like a Ricky Rubio.  However, IMO, he has the skills and leadeship qualities to eventually develop into a Billups type floor general.

      Trading the kid would be a big mistake.

      • Mar 3, 20128:19 pm
        by Chris


        Mike Payne and his cronies at Detroit Bad Boys will now accuse you of wanting to keep Knight, Stuckey, and Gordon and act like you said they should all be in the HOF

  • Feb 26, 20124:17 am
    by Truett


    The Hawks are 9th in the league in ast/g (pistons are 25th, The Clippers with Paul, Billups and Williams are 11th). In his third season Jeff Teague leads the hawks averaging 4.4 ast/g. In his first season he averaged 2.5/g. Following your logic, the Hawks must stink and Jeff Teague will never be a pg, yet they are in the playoffs, in the top third in assists/g and doing all that without All-Star All Horford.

    I think it is a faulty notion to believe that your pg needs to have all of the assists on your team. Any player can get an assist if the ball is moving. most point guards get their assists by penetrating and then kicking out to an open jump shooter, or running a pick and roll with a big man who can finish with authority. aside from Gordon, Knight is the Piston’s second best jump shooter and he cant really get assists from his own shot. As much as I love Monroe, he is more fineness than power. Basically, what I am getting at is that the Pistons are not built to be a team where PGs can rack up a bunch of Assists.

    Knight is one of the youngest players in the league, he is one year removed from HS and he has not had the benefit of preseason. Even assuming that none of that stuff matters, your method of comparing him based on assist number of PGs is deeply flawed because all of those numbers were from THE END OF AN 82 GAME SEASON. What happens if Knight averages just 0.8 ast/g more by the end of the season? Would you have to conclude that he is going to be better than, Ty lawson, Rajon Rondo, Chauncey Billups, Kyle Lowery, Mike Conely, Jameer Nelson, Jrue Holiday, and of course Steve Nash? I think that would be a little silly.

    Knight’s game is not without warts though, He needs to work on his handle a lot, put on some muscle and learn to take better angles going through the lane. He is definitely not Chris paul, or Derrick Rose, or Deron Williams, or Rus Westbrook. You are correct in that he is a project too, but guess what you get when you draft a project? A cheap extension in a few years…ZING!

  • Feb 26, 20126:21 pm
    by Rich


    This is soooo stupid and rediculous! Why would we trade B Knight????? Why draft him if we trade him? Hes good and is developing nicely!  I think we should keep Knight, Stucket and Monroe and dump the rest! Knight-PG, Stuckey-SG, Monroe can play either PF or C. We need another scorer and another good talented Big man. A big man that can bang the boards and block shots and score. A Anthony Davis would be great! But doubt we will get him. But I like Prices leadership but hes getting older. So if we keep Knight, Stuckey and Monroe and draft or sign a free agent and get a PF/C and SF. Get a Scorer and anotehr bench guy that can score good

  • Feb 27, 20123:40 pm
    by Al


    Please dont even suggest that notion, if I have to watch another player that we draft blossom for anther team i will go freakin crazy!!!!! Last being I guess Affalo!! Gosh he is light years ahead of Gordon inconsistent play he’s gave us for…. well lets not even go there. It’s time to just hang with who we have in our new core Daye included, even with his struggles lately. Stop abandoning the future for bad contracts on old bones and knees for one year of glory!!

  • Feb 27, 20125:41 pm
    by Laser


    to the last two slow commenters: nobody is saying the pistons should dump this guy. but he’s one of the few players on this team who has any value at all, and we have much more depth at guard than down low. it makes a ;ot of sense to try and trade him for a player or pick who could help us up front.

  • Feb 28, 20126:06 pm
    by Youssif


    I’d support it if we dump BG or CV’s contract (thus saving the amnesty for the other guy) in the process and get a solid player or draft pick back.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here