Reflections on the Mikal Bridges Trade
A month ago, I really thought the New York Knicks had messed up big time by trading for Mikal Bridges. It feels like this is going to be one of those trades that changes the NBA landscape for good—and, well, it seems to be the dramatic conclusion to the Villanova saga.
It’s interesting, though, because I actually wrote a sort of memoir about the trade on April 25th, which, for the Knicks, was Opening Day. I don’t subscribe to the whole jinx or karma thing, but I guess, if I had shared it earlier, the timing would have been… questionable. I can’t help but recall a line from my lost draft:
“The problem is that Bridges is basically the sixth or seventh most important player on the team behind Brunson, Karl-Anthony Towns, OG Anunoby, Josh Hart, and probably Mitchell Robinson. He’s making $150 million while the Knicks spend their draft picks trying to turn him into a decent 3-and-D wing. All those resources could’ve gone elsewhere.” cough cough Giannis Antetokounmpo cough cough. It’s true, the Knicks don’t actually need him taking 15 shots a game, but they are paying him for it. And then there’s the fact that he’s almost hitting Bryce Sensabaugh’s peak numbers with significantly more minutes.
Honestly, at the time, none of that seemed off. But then Bridges flipped a switch—he went into what I can only call Destroy Mode. He helped lead the Knicks to their first NBA Finals appearance since 1999. His performance has been the game-changer. It’s kinda wild to compare how this team struggled against the Hawks and how they’ve turned things around in just a month. I mean, sure, it would have been awkward if I had published my initial thoughts, but, now that I’m revisiting them… here we are.
And I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the only one who thought the Bridges trade could turn out poorly. He faced challenges, was benched in April, and had to defend himself against criticism from teammates and coaching staff. Just a few months ago, he was caught up in a public spat over his performance with Stephen A. Smith. Now, I find myself reassessing what I once thought was “wrong,” even if I still somewhat believe in my original take. Our culture around commentary wasn’t built for situations like this; outcomes really do shift reality. It’s like Schrödinger’s bridge—good or bad, depending on how things turn out.
Does this change my arguments from years past about how the trade was detrimental for the Knicks and possibly ineffective for the Nets? Not quite. But I did overlook something crucial—Brian Windhorst’s famous saying about titles: when you win, you don’t have to apologize. It’s all about getting the right players, since that can be the difference between being good and really great. Whether they were trading away Kevin Durant or Trevor Ariza, as long as they win, that’s what matters.
For a significant part of his time with the Knicks, Bridges didn’t meet expectations, especially after the hefty price New York paid for him. But now, he’s shown incredible adaptability—becoming a standout role player through just 11 games. He might not need to create plays, but he can. Scoring isn’t required, but he can do that too. And while they might not depend on him for guarding top players—OG Anunoby usually does that—Bridges can handle it if needed. It took some time, but he finally became what the Knicks wanted. In retrospect, it seems kind of irrational to question his value now.
As for how Bridges will perform in the NBA Finals against a tougher defense? That’s anyone’s guess. Personally, I don’t really feel equipped to critique what they’ve given up for players who consistently win at the highest level. Sure, the trade was costly, but if New York had known he would shine so brightly in the Finals, they probably wouldn’t hesitate to do it again, no matter the financial implications. Sometimes you just go all in to win, and that, I guess, means trading for Bridges right now.
