Knicks · Report that Derrick Rose looks lean and explosive (page 2)
BRIGGS wrote:Rose trade was good. Downside was very low upside is high
coming from someone who wants to be right about monroe being 100x better than lopez and 1000+ posts and threads reiterating.
lopez was a very good player on a good contract. what value did that get us in return?
mreinman wrote:lopez was a very good player on a good contract. what value did that get us in return?
Remains to be seen, is the only correct answer, no?
Unless we want to indulge in the same sort of 'x is 1000x better than y' stuff before the season starts.
Knickoftime wrote:mreinman wrote:lopez was a very good player on a good contract. what value did that get us in return?Remains to be seen, is the only correct answer, no?
Unless we want to indulge in the same sort of 'x is 1000x better than y' stuff before the season starts.
That's the mreinman game.
Chandler wrote:newyorker4ever wrote:crzymdups wrote:I know we're supposed to be very wary, but I'm actually pretty excited for Rose.And I'm a guy who hated a lot of trades we've made over the past 15 years.
Yeah i'm with you. Again, it's a win win situation for us with DRose. Kendall Gill said he saw Rose working out not too long ago and said he looks great and has his explosiveness back as well. We have to remember that last year was really his first year back playing with legitimate minutes in a couple of years so he was just getting acclimated to the game again so we're gonna see a better Rose than what we saw last year and he was pretty good last year. My worry isn't next year but is if he does look good next year then Phil might think of signing him to a new contract and that's when i'll worry most because we won't know if we'll be signing a new motivated DRose or if we're signing a DRose that was just motivated to get a new contract and won't be as motivated after he gets that new multi year contract and that's what scares me most.
this is true, but it's also a great problem to have
Solution is to target Chris Paul.
mreinman wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Rose trade was good. Downside was very low upside is highcoming from someone who wants to be right about monroe being 100x better than lopez and 1000+ posts and threads reiterating.
lopez was a very good player on a good contract. what value did that get us in return?
Lopez is a quality player. But there is a healthy supply of big men available. I can't see a team looking to give up any real value for Lopez when they can target the many other big men without giveing up assets.
StarksEwing1 wrote:I like rose as a player even though he is a somewhat diminished version of his old self. I just felt it was a bit of a overpaymentis that your tier immediately below "king's ransom?"
Knickoftime wrote:mreinman wrote:lopez was a very good player on a good contract. what value did that get us in return?Remains to be seen, is the only correct answer, no?
Unless we want to indulge in the same sort of 'x is 1000x better than y' stuff before the season starts.
you can say that with any trade. We are talking about (on a MB) what it looks like as of now.
mreinman wrote:Knickoftime wrote:mreinman wrote:lopez was a very good player on a good contract. what value did that get us in return?Remains to be seen, is the only correct answer, no?
Unless we want to indulge in the same sort of 'x is 1000x better than y' stuff before the season starts.
you can say that with any trade. We are talking about (on a MB) what it looks like as of now.
Correct, but its only fair we evaluate who Rose is NOW. A young player with legitimate injury/performance history with legitimate talent who was significantly better in the second half of last season than the first.
They didn't trade Lopez for a guy whose ceiling is the Rose of the last few years.
What the Knicks think they may know about where he is physically is a factor. Rose may well turn out to be a bust. Very, very possible.
But to suggest there is no potential there for the Knicks having gotten the best player in the trade by far is playing the same game you criticized Briggs for.
Knickoftime wrote:mreinman wrote:Knickoftime wrote:mreinman wrote:lopez was a very good player on a good contract. what value did that get us in return?Remains to be seen, is the only correct answer, no?
Unless we want to indulge in the same sort of 'x is 1000x better than y' stuff before the season starts.
you can say that with any trade. We are talking about (on a MB) what it looks like as of now.
Correct, but its only fair we evaluate who Rose is NOW. A young player with legitimate injury/performance history with legitimate talent who was significantly better in the second half of last season than the first.
They didn't trade Lopez for a guy whose ceiling is the Rose of the last few years.
What the Knicks think they may know about where he is physically is a factor. Rose may well turn out to be a bust. Very, very possible.
But to suggest there is no potential there for the Knicks having gotten the best player in the trade by far is playing the same game you criticized Briggs for.
whats the potential? 5? 10%? People keep saying that we got the best player in the trade. Lopez is 100x the player that Rose is today.
why trade an asset that is worth much more on the open market than that? Watch what people are going to pay for a player like him this off season. And we throw in grant who 80% of the board was salivating about his future and how good he looked at the end of the season. Did he have trade value?
Steve Francis 2.0 unless we see otherwise.
Right now, this trade seems like a really really stupid one.
mreinman wrote:whats the potential? 5? 10%?
I don't know and neither do you and that's the point.
I'd say you're lowballing the % to make a point, but that's just my opinion.
People keep saying that we got the best player in the trade. Lopez is 100x the player that Rose is today.
As I say if you want to copy Briggs methodology verbatim, you're free to do so.
And if you want to criticize him later for doing the same thing you're doing now, you're free to do so.
why trade an asset that is worth much more on the open market than that?
I suppose that depends on how much time you want to spend trying to convince other people of your entirely subjective, personal opinion.
mreinman wrote:I think they realized that they weren't getting Conley. I think they saw Grant and decided they needed more from the point guard spot. Their coach wanted a point guard that was 27-28. They went out and got that guy. Grant and Jose don't get that done. If it wasn't Rolo it probably would have been a first rounder. Also, Rolo's role probably changes under Hornacek and with that his value goes down. They took a risk but not a huge one. They got the best player in the trade.Knickoftime wrote:mreinman wrote:Knickoftime wrote:mreinman wrote:lopez was a very good player on a good contract. what value did that get us in return?Remains to be seen, is the only correct answer, no?
Unless we want to indulge in the same sort of 'x is 1000x better than y' stuff before the season starts.
you can say that with any trade. We are talking about (on a MB) what it looks like as of now.
Correct, but its only fair we evaluate who Rose is NOW. A young player with legitimate injury/performance history with legitimate talent who was significantly better in the second half of last season than the first.
They didn't trade Lopez for a guy whose ceiling is the Rose of the last few years.
What the Knicks think they may know about where he is physically is a factor. Rose may well turn out to be a bust. Very, very possible.
But to suggest there is no potential there for the Knicks having gotten the best player in the trade by far is playing the same game you criticized Briggs for.
whats the potential? 5? 10%? People keep saying that we got the best player in the trade. Lopez is 100x the player that Rose is today.
why trade an asset that is worth much more on the open market than that? Watch what people are going to pay for a player like him this off season. And we throw in grant who 80% of the board was salivating about his future and how good he looked at the end of the season. Did he have trade value?
Steve Francis 2.0 unless we see otherwise.
Right now, this trade seems like a really really stupid one.
Who do you think they could get for Rolo to play the point?
mreinman wrote:Knickoftime wrote:mreinman wrote:Knickoftime wrote:mreinman wrote:lopez was a very good player on a good contract. what value did that get us in return?Remains to be seen, is the only correct answer, no?
Unless we want to indulge in the same sort of 'x is 1000x better than y' stuff before the season starts.
you can say that with any trade. We are talking about (on a MB) what it looks like as of now.
Correct, but its only fair we evaluate who Rose is NOW. A young player with legitimate injury/performance history with legitimate talent who was significantly better in the second half of last season than the first.
They didn't trade Lopez for a guy whose ceiling is the Rose of the last few years.
What the Knicks think they may know about where he is physically is a factor. Rose may well turn out to be a bust. Very, very possible.
But to suggest there is no potential there for the Knicks having gotten the best player in the trade by far is playing the same game you criticized Briggs for.
whats the potential? 5? 10%? People keep saying that we got the best player in the trade. Lopez is 100x the player that Rose is today.
why trade an asset that is worth much more on the open market than that? Watch what people are going to pay for a player like him this off season. And we throw in grant who 80% of the board was salivating about his future and how good he looked at the end of the season. Did he have trade value?
Steve Francis 2.0 unless we see otherwise.
Right now, this trade seems like a really really stupid one.
These are the things that contributed to Rose having a poor start last year:
09/29/2015 Orbital fracture
02/24/2015 Torn right knee meniscus
Having to rehab after the Knee Surgery is one thing but then dealing with double vision after the Orbital Fracture is yet another thing. Rose has been an injury magnet for sure, but in terms of him being able to play a better brand of basketball next season barring another serious setback, that seems extremely logical.
Knicks checked his knees and overall health and were very pleased. Rose has been able to work on his game and conditioning this summer and that is a change from previous offseasons. If you only base your prediction off the stats from last season you really are missing the Forest for the Trees. Rose was not going full tilt last year and he was hampered by some things that aren't the case this summer. I believe that Rose is very much capable of having a comeback season for the Knicks next year, especially on a team with Melo and KP. Plus the cap space to add even more talent.
I agree with all points that Rose has significant upside to what we've seen over the past 2 seasons.
A fascinating thing to note is that he's still only 27 (younger than Steph Curry by more than 6 months). Yeah, he's had his knee injuries... but you could also say that he hasn't had a lot of miles on the other parts of his body. We can only hope that the latest iteration of the Knicks' medical/trainer staff can help him on the up and up.
One thought is whether an injury diminished Rose couldn't replicate Brandon Knight's numbers from last year - 19.6ppg, 5.1apg, 3.9rpg in 36mpg. From some of the highlights folks have posted last year, I think their athleticism is now comparable (Rose was all world pre-injury, now he's merely elite).
meloanyk wrote:Reinman was right about losing Lopez. His deal is now under market and he's locked up for another three years, he was an asset that had good trade value. We certainly should gain at pg but we also lose a real contributor, one only stats (17.7 per)butbut also intangibles that were clear to see. Indispensable? No, but losing him will show unless we pay up in fa for a capable replacement in Noah, Gasol or gasp Howard. Let's not forget that Lopez did everything as advertised and then some better, he boarded on both ends and tightened up our interior D, he not only helped KP develop but helped others with pickups and screens, he actually contributed offensively and at 28 appeared to be developing his own odd repertoire and was one who got understood the triangle. I think most everyone here finally realized that he turned out to a better fit than Monroe despite the latter having greater stats. Lopez did experience back problems at times and perhaps that factor into including him. Almost all trades involve some risk and almost all are give and takes. Not sure how this will pan out, Rose should help in some ways , Lopez absence will hurt in other ways. Our fortunes depend on adding another plus player
The impact that Rose can have on the team and how it plays is far more than the production we got from Lopez and I liked RoLo. The thing is this team should be able to bring in bigs that can approximate what RoLo gave the team. The improvement at guard over Jose/Grant is going to be a massive shift in that Rose is a constant threat that teams have to account for. Even when he's not scoring teams simply can't ignore him with the ball. They will respect him much more than Jose or Grant and that will have a huge impact on the rest of the team. Rose is also much more decisive with the ball at all times. Those long moments of hesitation we saw with our guards often wasted any advantage and the way that Hornacek wants this team to play will fit Rose, Melo and KP much better.
It's just simple, Rose PG, Melo SF/PF and KP PF/C fits like a glove together and you now actually have a balanced core that can score from anywhere on the floor. Adding to that core will only make the team that much better.
meloanyk wrote:Reinman was right about losing Lopez. His deal is now under market and he's locked up for another three years, he was an asset that had good trade value. We certainly should gain at pg but we also lose a real contributor, one only stats (17.7 per)butbut also intangibles that were clear to see. Indispensable? No, but losing him will show unless we pay up in fa for a capable replacement in Noah, Gasol or gasp Howard. Let's not forget that Lopez did everything as advertised and then some better, he boarded on both ends and tightened up our interior D, he not only helped KP develop but helped others with pickups and screens, he actually contributed offensively and at 28 appeared to be developing his own odd repertoire and was one who got understood the triangle. I think most everyone here finally realized that he turned out to a better fit than Monroe despite the latter having greater stats. Lopez did experience back problems at times and perhaps that factor into including him. Almost all trades involve some risk and almost all are give and takes. Not sure how this will pan out, Rose should help in some ways , Lopez absence will hurt in other ways. Our fortunes depend on adding another plus player
I don't think anyone is arguing the Knicks got Rose for free.
Knicks gave up something to get something.
The equivalency/balance of the value that changed hands is hopelessly subjective in nature.
Knickoftime wrote:meloanyk wrote:Reinman was right about losing Lopez. His deal is now under market and he's locked up for another three years, he was an asset that had good trade value. We certainly should gain at pg but we also lose a real contributor, one only stats (17.7 per)butbut also intangibles that were clear to see. Indispensable? No, but losing him will show unless we pay up in fa for a capable replacement in Noah, Gasol or gasp Howard. Let's not forget that Lopez did everything as advertised and then some better, he boarded on both ends and tightened up our interior D, he not only helped KP develop but helped others with pickups and screens, he actually contributed offensively and at 28 appeared to be developing his own odd repertoire and was one who got understood the triangle. I think most everyone here finally realized that he turned out to a better fit than Monroe despite the latter having greater stats. Lopez did experience back problems at times and perhaps that factor into including him. Almost all trades involve some risk and almost all are give and takes. Not sure how this will pan out, Rose should help in some ways , Lopez absence will hurt in other ways. Our fortunes depend on adding another plus playerI don't think anyone is arguing the Knicks got Rose for free.
Knicks gave up something to get something.
The equivalency/balance of the value that changed hands is hopelessly subjective in nature.
To me it's about the improvement in balance. There was no head to the offense. At least not in the way that we needed. Rose has played in Triangle before which helps to speed up the adjustment process. It's also about how the Hornacek wants the Knicks to play. Faster and more aggressive.
BRIGGS wrote:Rose trade was good. Downside was very low upside is high
Downside of losing a starring center for 12MM a year, where Noah may end up getting 30MM is low in what language? To get Rose we had to give him up, Outside of Melo no one else came close in salary, but we didn't have to match salaries. Not sure if the Bulls would have dealt him without Rolo though.
I think now that the cap is set to explode and salaries go nuts, it will take long time for the baseline to settle before we can tell what real values are fit most players.Rose as a one year rental is ok, long Tenn is really scary.Still think it was too much to give up, but he brings something we really need in a drive and fish guard.
newyorknewyork wrote:mreinman wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Rose trade was good. Downside was very low upside is highcoming from someone who wants to be right about monroe being 100x better than lopez and 1000+ posts and threads reiterating.
lopez was a very good player on a good contract. what value did that get us in return?
Lopez is a quality player. But there is a healthy supply of big men available. I can't see a team looking to give up any real value for Lopez when they can target the many other big men without giveing up assets.
Big men available at what price? Gaining cap room and then being forced to spend it to get a servicable big is going to make us better how?
meloshouldgo wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Rose trade was good. Downside was very low upside is highDownside of losing a starring center for 12MM a year, where Noah may end up getting 30MM is low in what language? To get Rose we had to give him up, Outside of Melo no one else came close in salary, but we didn't have to match salaries. Not sure if the Bulls would have dealt him without Rolo though.
I think now that the cap is set to explode and salaries go nuts, it will take long time for the baseline to settle before we can tell what real values are fit most players.Rose as a one year rental is ok, long Tenn is really scary.Still think it was too much to give up, but he brings something we really need in a drive and fish guard.
Exactly. the Bulls preferred securing Lopez at his contract with three years remaining and were willing to take on Calderon's pay for a year to faciltate trade rather than retaining homeboy Rose and simply resigning Noah. Matter of financial planning for Bulls but also reflects their valuing of their own which raises some red flags for me. I think a healthy Noah is a good fit for this squad but rumors of market price seem absurd. If we could sign Noah at a similar price then we have upgraded the team . If price for these select centers is anywhere near the max then it remains to be seen if Rose upgrade is greater than losing the contributions of Lopez and his cap freindly deal however crazy that would have sounded a year ago