Knicks Rumors: Mike James to New York Makes Too Much Sense Not to Happen
The Knicks entered this offseason with a gaping hole at point guard. They had precisely zero under contract for next season.
They do have the right to match any offer made to Jeremy Lin, which would allow them to retain the Linsanity, and it would be wise for them to do just that with the Rockets offer.
But Lin certainly can't handle the point guard duties all by himself, and to that end, the Knicks have reportedly agreed to a contract with veteran Jason Kidd.
This is a nice duo, and they will be capable of handling the job when they are both healthy, but Kidd is 39, and it is highly unlikely that he will be able to play all 82 games next year. In other words, the Knicks need a third guy to run the point, which brings us to James.
Apparently this logical connection is not lost on James' agent. Fox Sports' Chris Tomasson passes along the following info:
Agent Bernie Lee said Mike James is a candidate to sign minimum deal with Knicks. “It seems like a pretty logical thing,’’ Lee said of James, who could be third point behind Jeremy Lin and Jason Kidd. Lee noted James won a title with Detroit in 2004 when Knicks coach Mike Woodson was a Pistons assistant. Lee said Chicago, where James finished last season, also has maintained interest in bringing back James.
Let me be clear, there are plenty of better players available at the point guard position than the 37-year-old James. He averaged just 4.8 points and 2.6 assists in 11 games with the Bulls last season.
However, the Knicks are going to have a difficult time adding any of them since they are going to have nothing to offer but the veteran's minimum and no guaranteed playing time.
So here is James, who is familiar with Woodson and is a smart veteran. It would be a nice luxury for the Knicks to have someone they can trust to bring off the bench in times of extreme need, and they aren't going to find a better candidate for that than James.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?