Knicks · Who are the best triangle-fit free agents? (page 1)

Since it's all about the triangle, what players do you think Phil is most likely to target (not necessarily who you want)?

the fact that we need to ask this question is a problem

james harden, russell westbrook, and joe johnson :D :D

mreinman wrote:the fact that we need to ask this question is a problem

The problem is people feel the need to keep beating that thought in our heads.

A triangle player is a good basketball player. The end. We can't get guys that like to go one on one, and free lance... aka low basketball IQ players.

For any team to win you need high IQ players.

That golden state teams offense is pretty complex but because it doesn't have a name nobody has anything to key in on...

anyway...

Kevin Durant, Lebron James, Pau Gasol.

GO GET'EM, PHIL!

Knixkik wrote:Since it's all about the triangle, what players do you think Phil is most likely to target (not necessarily who you want)?

It's really not an issue at all. The only players you don't want are selfish players that can't or won't pass. If a player can't be effective unless they have the ball then it's not the most ideal. Guys that have good overall skills, BB IQ and can play well without the ball are ideal.

We're not likely looking at any bigs so really you can limit your search to guards. That makes things a bit more simple. There are not a lot of guards out there worth bringing in. Phil prefers big Combo Guards that can create their own offense, get to the basket but also pass effectively. That's why you see Phil target guards like Jerian, Wroten and guys like Shved. So there are FA's that fit that kind of mold.

Even guys like Seth Curry have popped up on the radar recently. If he opts out I suspect Phil would be interested. So it doesn't have to be a star.

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:the fact that we need to ask this question is a problem

The problem is people feel the need to keep beating that thought in our heads.

A triangle player is a good basketball player. The end. We can't get guys that like to go one on one, and free lance... aka low basketball IQ players.

For any team to win you need high IQ players.

That golden state teams offense is pretty complex but because it doesn't have a name nobody has anything to key in on...

anyway...

Yup...

Also have to look at our draft.

Not sure you would consider KP to be a classic candidate for the Triangle.

Grant played in a motion offense at ND, and you would have expected him to easily adapt to the Triangle, but it is taking him longer. Grant looks comfortable in a pick and roll type offense, too.

Hernangomez might be the most Triangle ready guy we took last year. Better interior and midrange game- much more of a classic center.

Good players with some intelligence adapt and find a way to succeed.

I also want players who won't be lost if/when the Knicks modify or ditch the Triangle at some point in the future.

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:the fact that we need to ask this question is a problem

The problem is people feel the need to keep beating that thought in our heads.

A triangle player is a good basketball player. The end. We can't get guys that like to go one on one, and free lance... aka low basketball IQ players.

For any team to win you need high IQ players.

That golden state teams offense is pretty complex but because it doesn't have a name nobody has anything to key in on...

anyway...

My question is based on this article. Phil and Kurt don't say we are going after "good" players, he is saying we are going after players to fit this specific system. So my question is what players do you think he has in mind. All of these responses, and not one specific answer. Yeah, no $h!t we want good basketball players. Doesn't everyone?

'Knicks will go after players who fit triangle system'

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basket...

WaltLongmire wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:the fact that we need to ask this question is a problem

The problem is people feel the need to keep beating that thought in our heads.

A triangle player is a good basketball player. The end. We can't get guys that like to go one on one, and free lance... aka low basketball IQ players.

For any team to win you need high IQ players.

That golden state teams offense is pretty complex but because it doesn't have a name nobody has anything to key in on...

anyway...

Yup...

Also have to look at our draft.

Not sure you would consider KP to be a classic candidate for the Triangle.

Grant played in a motion offense at ND, and you would have expected him to easily adapt to the Triangle, but it is taking him longer. Grant looks comfortable in a pick and roll type offense, too.

Hernangomez might be the most Triangle ready guy we took last year. Better interior and midrange game- much more of a classic center.

Good players with some intelligence adapt and find a way to succeed.

I also want players who won't be lost if/when the Knicks modify or ditch the Triangle at some point in the future.

KP was compared a lot to Gasol though, which seems to be pretty fair. And Gasol is one of the best Triangle big men ever, after Shaq.

I have to think KP's similarities to Gasol actually did factor a fair amount into Gaines and Phil becoming enamored with him.

And Grant is a classic big Triangle PG in the mold of Ron Harper. (As is Wroten, I've argued)

I think it does definitely play into Phil's decisions. Rolo is a very typical Triangle center, too.

The key becomes getting the type of dynamic wing players the Triangle seems to call for - the Odoms, Pippens, Bryants, Jordans. Can we get one of those? It's like right now we have the skeleton of the Triangle, but not the star power at the wings.

To me, DWill was an attempt to buy low on a guy who could be a Toni Kukoc or Lamar Odom for this team - and it kinda worked... still a work in progress. Look back at the tape to see all the fastbreaks Toni and Lamar used to lead. Just like DWill does.

I think all things being equal DeMar DeRozan would be the absolute best fit we could get. I just don't think there's any way we could get him.

WaltLongmire wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:the fact that we need to ask this question is a problem

The problem is people feel the need to keep beating that thought in our heads.

A triangle player is a good basketball player. The end. We can't get guys that like to go one on one, and free lance... aka low basketball IQ players.

For any team to win you need high IQ players.

That golden state teams offense is pretty complex but because it doesn't have a name nobody has anything to key in on...

anyway...

Yup...

Also have to look at our draft.

Not sure you would consider KP to be a classic candidate for the Triangle.

Grant played in a motion offense at ND, and you would have expected him to easily adapt to the Triangle, but it is taking him longer. Grant looks comfortable in a pick and roll type offense, too.

Hernangomez might be the most Triangle ready guy we took last year. Better interior and midrange game- much more of a classic center.

Good players with some intelligence adapt and find a way to succeed.

I also want players who won't be lost if/when the Knicks modify or ditch the Triangle at some point in the future.

I would argue he is a classic triangle player, similar to Pau. Also, it was known that the Knicks were hoping for an improvement from Bargnani in the year Phil took over because of his potential fit in the triangle as a stretch-big.

If we're going by triangle fit, it's Pau at the top of the list, followed by Derozan, then if we strike out on everyone, Batum.

Free agents

Pau Gasol
Seth Curry
Kent Bazemore
Jamal Crawford

Draft picks
1st round past 15
Denzell Valentine
Malik Beasley
Rd 2
Derrick Jones
Patrick MCcaw
Ben Bentil
Undrafted
well a bunch

By now we should all be well versed in the kind of players Phil would look at. We have all his past teams plus what he's been targeting here in NY. Saying "Good Players" in general makes a lot of sense. Usually when we say a player is good, that tends to mean Team Oriented, Smart and skilled. As opposed to talented but selfish me 1st players. You can be very talented and still not be considered a "good Player". Also it's extremely hard to have a team full of only "Good Players". San Antonio and Golden State are some of the very few that can claim this. Most teams have to get by with having some players that are sub par. It takes time to build up your organization to a high level.

Knixkik wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:the fact that we need to ask this question is a problem

The problem is people feel the need to keep beating that thought in our heads.

A triangle player is a good basketball player. The end. We can't get guys that like to go one on one, and free lance... aka low basketball IQ players.

For any team to win you need high IQ players.

That golden state teams offense is pretty complex but because it doesn't have a name nobody has anything to key in on...

anyway...

My question is based on this article. Phil and Kurt don't say we are going after "good" players, he is saying we are going after players to fit this specific system. So my question is what players do you think he has in mind. All of these responses, and not one specific answer. Yeah, no $h!t we want good basketball players. Doesn't everyone?

'Knicks will go after players who fit triangle system'

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basket...

We need players similar to guys that play on the spurs or golden state as compared to guys that play for Cleveland.... I use them as an example because the spurs and golden state play team ball while cleveland plays a one on one offense. They all represent the best teams in the nba. The Knicks are trying to play system bask like the spurs and golden state.

anyway as far as free agents. I really like Evan Fournier at the 2. He plays alot like Sasha except he makes his shots.

I like David Lee off the bench. I like Eric Gordon and Marcus Thornton. Derozen would be a dream but he's not leaving Toronto. I'm sure they feel they are one player away from the finals.

EnySpree wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:the fact that we need to ask this question is a problem

The problem is people feel the need to keep beating that thought in our heads.

A triangle player is a good basketball player. The end. We can't get guys that like to go one on one, and free lance... aka low basketball IQ players.

For any team to win you need high IQ players.

That golden state teams offense is pretty complex but because it doesn't have a name nobody has anything to key in on...

anyway...

My question is based on this article. Phil and Kurt don't say we are going after "good" players, he is saying we are going after players to fit this specific system. So my question is what players do you think he has in mind. All of these responses, and not one specific answer. Yeah, no $h!t we want good basketball players. Doesn't everyone?

'Knicks will go after players who fit triangle system'

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basket...

We need players similar to guys that play on the spurs or golden state as compared to guys that play for Cleveland.... I use them as an example because the spurs and golden state play team ball while cleveland plays a one on one offense. They all represent the best teams in the nba. The Knicks are trying to play system bask like the spurs and golden state.

anyway as far as free agents. I really like Evan Fournier at the 2. He plays alot like Sasha except he makes his shots.

I like David Lee off the bench. I like Eric Gordon and Marcus Thornton. Derozen would be a dream but he's not leaving Toronto. I'm sure they feel they are one player away from the finals.

Great call on Fournier. He definitely can be a way better version of Sasha, plus is very young. Orlando has a bunch of wing players, and might let him go if he's offered a big contract.

EnySpree wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:the fact that we need to ask this question is a problem

The problem is people feel the need to keep beating that thought in our heads.

A triangle player is a good basketball player. The end. We can't get guys that like to go one on one, and free lance... aka low basketball IQ players.

For any team to win you need high IQ players.

That golden state teams offense is pretty complex but because it doesn't have a name nobody has anything to key in on...

anyway...

My question is based on this article. Phil and Kurt don't say we are going after "good" players, he is saying we are going after players to fit this specific system. So my question is what players do you think he has in mind. All of these responses, and not one specific answer. Yeah, no $h!t we want good basketball players. Doesn't everyone?

'Knicks will go after players who fit triangle system'

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basket...

We need players similar to guys that play on the spurs or golden state as compared to guys that play for Cleveland.... I use them as an example because the spurs and golden state play team ball while cleveland plays a one on one offense. They all represent the best teams in the nba. The Knicks are trying to play system bask like the spurs and golden state.

anyway as far as free agents. I really like Evan Fournier at the 2. He plays alot like Sasha except he makes his shots.

I like David Lee off the bench. I like Eric Gordon and Marcus Thornton. Derozen would be a dream but he's not leaving Toronto. I'm sure they feel they are one player away from the finals.

Yeah. Great synopsis. Phil said he's looking for players with Multiple Skills. Effective with and without the ball. 2 way players that can thrive in a team oriented style of play.