Al Iannazzone @Al_Iannazzone 4m
I have heard the Knicks-Raptors deal is agreed upon with Quentin Richardson being signed-and-traded to make the deal work. Official July 10.
does this mean less picks?
LOL @ Q Rich getting another contract just to be part of the trade. Worst player in the NBA just lucked himself into good money.
NYY1NYK2 wrote:does this mean less picks?
no. Not sure of exact details but looks like it's 2016 first, 2014 OKC second rounder and future second rounder.
Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal.
Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
Novak's efficiency numbers (along with Tyson's) are the flaw of using efficiency numbers as the biggest way to evaluate a player. Novak was shit last year no matter what his numbers look like.
Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
Bargs is much better then Novak if he is on the court. U can put the words volume or efficent in front of it he is far more talented then Novak
The thing that amazes me is 3 Picks not 1 got sent , 3 picks they got out of Grunwald. how do u get hosed that bad.
Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?
Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?
Exactly. The price we paid for flexibility was a late 1st round pick and 2 2nd rounders. Could Grunwald have gotten away with not including the 1st rounder? I don't know. Tor turned down David Lee for Bargs so I guess a 1st was their asking price.
Bargnani will be an excellent small 6'11 forward in the Knicks frontcourt rotation. We desperately needed a second scorer and acquired one. Chandler focuses on rebounding. Carmelo does what he does. Sign Kenyon Martin and test drive the other big men (CJ Leslie, Jerome Jordan, AJ Matthews) in Summer League in 2 weeks.
Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?
No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.
Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?
No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.
Eye test - no numbers allowed - do you believe Novak was helping this team?
Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?
No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.
so Novak was a positive roleplayer? And Bargs was a negative starter? There is a flaw in this methodology, especially when there's a good chance Bargs will be apart of the second unit
Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?
No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.
Pick a completely random 10-15 games from this past Knicks season, watch them from start to finish, and then with a straight face tell me Novak was a positive contributor.
misterearl wrote:Bargnani will be an excellent small 6'11 forward in the Knicks frontcourt rotation. We desperately needed a second scorer and acquired one. Chandler focuses on rebounding. Carmelo does what he does. Sign Kenyon Martin and test drive the other big men (CJ Leslie, Jerome Jordan, AJ Matthews) in Summer League in 2 weeks.
Actually Bargs is a legit 7' without shoes and 7-1.25 in shoes. It's actually amazing that he can drive from the 3pt line all the way to the basket at that size. This is a kid that really needs a coach like Woodson to get in his head, cuz he's got a ton of talent that hasn't been fully tapped.
MSG3 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?
No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.
Pick a completely random 10-15 games from this past Knicks season, watch them from start to finish, and then with a straight face tell me Novak was a positive contributor.
How do you want me to assess "positive contribution"? Is the team consistently going on good runs with him on the court sufficient? What about highly efficient scoring? You gotta be more specific first. Then I (might) look for a 10 to 15 game stretch.
Note that it's rare that Bargs even stays healthy let alone contributes a net positive impact for 10 to 15 consecutive games anyway though.
nixluva wrote:misterearl wrote:Bargnani will be an excellent small 6'11 forward in the Knicks frontcourt rotation. We desperately needed a second scorer and acquired one. Chandler focuses on rebounding. Carmelo does what he does. Sign Kenyon Martin and test drive the other big men (CJ Leslie, Jerome Jordan, AJ Matthews) in Summer League in 2 weeks.
Actually Bargs is a legit 7' without shoes and 7-1.25 in shoes. It's actually amazing that he can drive from the 3pt line all the way to the basket at that size. This is a kid that really needs a coach like Woodson to get in his head, cuz he's got a ton of talent that hasn't been fully tapped.
Did he grow a lot? His pre-draft measured height was 6'10 1/4"
Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?
No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.
This is the problem with judging purely on advanced metrics. You can actually find evidence to support Novak being a better player than Bargnani and actually believe it not taking into account team, role, etc. But no one in their right mind who knows anything about basketball could actually suggest Novak is a better player. In the right role Bargnani is a significant upgrade no matter what stat you look at.
Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?
No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.
This is the problem with judging purely on advanced metrics. You can actually find evidence to support Novak being a better player than Bargnani and actually believe it not taking into account team, role, etc. But no one in their right mind who knows anything about basketball could actually suggest Novak is a better player. In the right role Bargnani is a significant upgrade no matter what stat you look at.
The problem is entirely ignoring the advanced metrics. I didn't say I judge the player entirely on them but when every advanced metric favors player A over B, that's enough for me to say we shouldn't throw in a bunch of draft picks to get player B.
Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Knixkik wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:Q gets a 3 yr contract, 1 yr guaranteed to complete the deal. Now Imagine if we took back 3 stiffs, gave one of them a 3 yr deal, added to our salary cap situation for an extra year and got a late 1st rd pick and 2 2nd round picks in return. Toronto got a good deal FOR THEM. We got a good deal FOR OUR SITUATION.
It's questionable whether an unhealthy, 7' volume scorer is even better than a 6'10", healthy, efficient scorer anyway. There's no way we should be giving up any picks in this deal.
So you expect Toronto to take back longer contracts, for worst players, without receiving anything of value?
No, they're getting the healthier and probably better player. Almost every advanced stat I see on Bargs indicates that he's a net negative for his team while Novak is a positive role player.
This is the problem with judging purely on advanced metrics. You can actually find evidence to support Novak being a better player than Bargnani and actually believe it not taking into account team, role, etc. But no one in their right mind who knows anything about basketball could actually suggest Novak is a better player. In the right role Bargnani is a significant upgrade no matter what stat you look at.
The problem is entirely ignoring the advanced metrics. I didn't say I judge the player entirely on them but when every advanced metric favors player A over B, that's enough for me to say we shouldn't throw in a bunch of draft picks to get player B.
Advanced metrics are good in some ways and bad in others. If advanced metrics go against your common sense, it is best to ignore them. Considering these 2 players have completely different roles, it is best to ignore most advanced metrics. And the draft picks traded can be bought back, seeing how they are low value picks. Higher picks though, i would agree with you.
