smackeddog wrote:Nalod wrote:Neither FV or CP3.
no quick fix. No doubt fans are impatient and yearn for some progress. But......
I sometimes feel like we're in that episode of Seinfeld where George and Jerry are arguing about pitching the pilot show to nbc and arguing about how much of a show about nothing it actually is- the George esq rebuild is literally that we should do nothing - don't sign ANYONE, don't make any move that commits you to ANYTHING beyond a year 
You do not buy high-performance tires before you get a sports car where they would actually make a difference.
martin wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:Pellscup wrote:almost 20 years later, still no point guard smh
You know what's worse? We started UltimateKnicks in July 2001. Exactly 4 appearances in playoffs with 9 games won TOTAL, only 1 playoff series was won. 
We are coming up on 20 years. I think I joined the day it started right ?
Yes, exactly to the day 
didn’t you Bippy-up our post counts by like 20k as a joke?
Jimbo5 wrote:If i were to choose between the two, I would go for FVV, he can grow with the team, find out between Frank or DSJ who will be the back up then build the odd man out to increase his value so we can get better assets for him.But personally, i would really like the front office to just sign an insurance point guard for cheap like Teague or any other former Thibs PG. I want Thibs to work on Frank and DSJ or even the PG we get in the draft if thats the direction the front office goes, for 1 whole year to see what we really have with these PGs. Thibs has a knack of getting the most out of the pGs he has on the team. He developed Rose and when Rose went out everyone counted the bulls out but Thibs still made his PG rotation work. I have a feeling Frank or DSJ will have a good year next year, hopefully both can improve dramatically.
My Ideal scenario, Frank or DSJ finally works out with Thibs. We draft a SF with out 1st Okoro Deni or Vassell, shooters for the clippers and second rounder. Sign a starting PF, Bertans, Melo or Gallo(i prefer Bertans) and a back up center in Aron Baynes or Kaminsky. Nothing too crazy, if we look much improved after next year, chances of getting a superstar in next year's offseason will hopefully improve.
I agree with some of the sentiments shared about not going too crazy this offseason squandering assets,etc. Have Thibs develop our existing PG rotation. But With the proviso that we obtain picks for 21 draft ( stronger draft ) and look to make a splash in next year’s FA. As fans we need to see a defined direction though.
Nalod wrote:martin wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:Pellscup wrote:almost 20 years later, still no point guard smh
You know what's worse? We started UltimateKnicks in July 2001. Exactly 4 appearances in playoffs with 9 games won TOTAL, only 1 playoff series was won.
We are coming up on 20 years. I think I joined the day it started right ?
Yes, exactly to the day
didn’t you Bippy-up our post counts by like 20k as a joke?
Yes? not following the connect
martin wrote:Nalod wrote:martin wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:Pellscup wrote:almost 20 years later, still no point guard smh
You know what's worse? We started UltimateKnicks in July 2001. Exactly 4 appearances in playoffs with 9 games won TOTAL, only 1 playoff series was won.
We are coming up on 20 years. I think I joined the day it started right ?
Yes, exactly to the day
didn’t you Bippy-up our post counts by like 20k as a joke?
Yes? not following the connect
Nostalgia and wtf my post count is nearing 60k. I read all you did not do it for all a that time. Nearing 17 years for me. Yikes!!!! Good job!!
From Reddit.
Expectations versus reality.
Assuming we don’t have to part with many assets, if any, I’d prefer Paul along with a drafted PG. I wouldn’t hate FVV signing but I think Paul could have a more dramatic impact on things, albeit for a limited time.
If the Knicks have something big up their sleeves where they envision a way to net 3 big stars before next season, Paul would make even more sense. Who knows...
Not a PG but Ingram really looks like a super star scorer. Wonder if the Knicks could steal him as a RFA. Doubtful.
You don’t give up anything for chris paul at this age despite his play Nothing zero. In some ways it makes no sense to simply take him because it false promise
I stand behind not paying Fred van fleet 20-22 mm. Just not going there
BigDaddyG wrote:From Reddit.
Expectations versus reality.
LMAO 😂. Now that is funny
Our fortunes lie with a successful draft. The team has more holes than the PG spot. When counted, we see RJ and Mitch as cornerstone assets. Another player(Vassell, Nesmith, Bey?)would build our foundation at the SF position. We have 4 possibilities at the PG position. Let Thibs find a serviceable option amongst them while simultaneously putting a winner together. Were not going to the championships in year one.
BRIGGS wrote:You don’t give up anything for chris paul at this age despite his play Nothing zero. In some ways it makes no sense to simply take him because it false promiseI stand behind not paying Fred van fleet 20-22 mm. Just not going there
I agree re: CP3, however what figure would you take a chance on VanVleet?
smackeddog wrote:BRIGGS wrote:You don’t give up anything for chris paul at this age despite his play Nothing zero. In some ways it makes no sense to simply take him because it false promiseI stand behind not paying Fred van fleet 20-22 mm. Just not going there
I agree re: CP3, however what figure would you take a chance on VanVleet?
Trading for CP3 is about a culture changing move that won't cost the future. We see what happened in OKC. He could leave OKC after this year via trade but they are better positioned for the future because of CP's influence on the younger guys, specifically SGA, who is undoubtedly their franchise player going forward. If we believe that Barrett has similar potential (or more) and can be influenced equally than you make that move provided it doesn't cost major assets. Additionally, the Knicks will likely draft a guard this fall, so you have Barrett and that pick as players who CP should have a strong influence on. Not to mention his professional approach and pick & roll ability having a great impact on Mitch. I don't see how we wouldn't want that for the next couple of years if it sets up these players for the long haul. It's a no-brainer. Having CP here instantly makes Mitch and Barrett better players.
BRIGGS wrote:You don’t give up anything for chris paul at this age despite his play Nothing zero. In some ways it makes no sense to simply take him because it false promiseI stand behind not paying Fred van fleet 20-22 mm. Just not going there
what would be the alternative option, stick with frank and DSJ, and keep tanking until we hit the lottery.
Keep the cap space and pray that some star ask for a trade, then offer that team your best young players.
Maybe we keep overpaying role players to 1 yr deals, and continue to flip the roster every 8 months.
Maybe you like the idea of supplying Thibs with half ass players so he can end up getting fired like the previous 5 coaches.
Maybe you like the idea of gambling on young players who aren't built for NY since you enjoy our top notch developing program.
maybe we should move the franchise to a smaller market so we can do what smaller market teams do, you know like, Dever, Indiana, OKC.
So what pual has 2 yrs left on his deal, or FVV gets 20 mill for 2 or 3 seasons..
Knixkik wrote:smackeddog wrote:BRIGGS wrote:You don’t give up anything for chris paul at this age despite his play Nothing zero. In some ways it makes no sense to simply take him because it false promiseI stand behind not paying Fred van fleet 20-22 mm. Just not going there
I agree re: CP3, however what figure would you take a chance on VanVleet?
Trading for CP3 is about a culture changing move that won't cost the future. We see what happened in OKC. He could leave OKC after this year via trade but they are better positioned for the future because of CP's influence on the younger guys, specifically SGA, who is undoubtedly their franchise player going forward. If we believe that Barrett has similar potential (or more) and can be influenced equally than you make that move provided it doesn't cost major assets. Additionally, the Knicks will likely draft a guard this fall, so you have Barrett and that pick as players who CP should have a strong influence on. Not to mention his professional approach and pick & roll ability having a great impact on Mitch. I don't see how we wouldn't want that for the next couple of years if it sets up these players for the long haul. It's a no-brainer. Having CP here instantly makes Mitch and Barrett better players.
If CP3 was traded to a contender. A team with Stars, and the roster to go deep in the playoffs. Yes, I could see Paul being a culture changer.
You trade him to a team with a mediocre roster. A team where Paul has to carry more of a load, to maybe make the playoffs. No I dont, when these are his last few good years to go for a ring. Paul isnt shy about speaking his mind, when things arent going well.
I dont see CP3 eating vaseline, but if he's traded to a so-so Knicks squad, with no quality Stars to join him, I see drama.
Knixkik wrote:smackeddog wrote:BRIGGS wrote:You don’t give up anything for chris paul at this age despite his play Nothing zero. In some ways it makes no sense to simply take him because it false promiseI stand behind not paying Fred van fleet 20-22 mm. Just not going there
I agree re: CP3, however what figure would you take a chance on VanVleet?
Trading for CP3 is about a culture changing move that won't cost the future. We see what happened in OKC. He could leave OKC after this year via trade but they are better positioned for the future because of CP's influence on the younger guys, specifically SGA, who is undoubtedly their franchise player going forward. If we believe that Barrett has similar potential (or more) and can be influenced equally than you make that move provided it doesn't cost major assets. Additionally, the Knicks will likely draft a guard this fall, so you have Barrett and that pick as players who CP should have a strong influence on. Not to mention his professional approach and pick & roll ability having a great impact on Mitch. I don't see how we wouldn't want that for the next couple of years if it sets up these players for the long haul. It's a no-brainer. Having CP here instantly makes Mitch and Barrett better players.
It could though as it stops us from taking advantage of teams who are desperate to shed salary- that's my issue with such a move.
smackeddog wrote:Knixkik wrote:smackeddog wrote:BRIGGS wrote:You don’t give up anything for chris paul at this age despite his play Nothing zero. In some ways it makes no sense to simply take him because it false promiseI stand behind not paying Fred van fleet 20-22 mm. Just not going there
I agree re: CP3, however what figure would you take a chance on VanVleet?
Trading for CP3 is about a culture changing move that won't cost the future. We see what happened in OKC. He could leave OKC after this year via trade but they are better positioned for the future because of CP's influence on the younger guys, specifically SGA, who is undoubtedly their franchise player going forward. If we believe that Barrett has similar potential (or more) and can be influenced equally than you make that move provided it doesn't cost major assets. Additionally, the Knicks will likely draft a guard this fall, so you have Barrett and that pick as players who CP should have a strong influence on. Not to mention his professional approach and pick & roll ability having a great impact on Mitch. I don't see how we wouldn't want that for the next couple of years if it sets up these players for the long haul. It's a no-brainer. Having CP here instantly makes Mitch and Barrett better players.
It could though as it stops us from taking advantage of teams who are desperate to shed salary- that's my issue with such a move.
One could say taking on CP3 is just that same move. I don't understand anyone who assumes the Knicks would be on the side of giving up assets to take on his contract, it would have to be the other way around.
smackeddog wrote:Knixkik wrote:smackeddog wrote:BRIGGS wrote:You don’t give up anything for chris paul at this age despite his play Nothing zero. In some ways it makes no sense to simply take him because it false promiseI stand behind not paying Fred van fleet 20-22 mm. Just not going there
I agree re: CP3, however what figure would you take a chance on VanVleet?
Trading for CP3 is about a culture changing move that won't cost the future. We see what happened in OKC. He could leave OKC after this year via trade but they are better positioned for the future because of CP's influence on the younger guys, specifically SGA, who is undoubtedly their franchise player going forward. If we believe that Barrett has similar potential (or more) and can be influenced equally than you make that move provided it doesn't cost major assets. Additionally, the Knicks will likely draft a guard this fall, so you have Barrett and that pick as players who CP should have a strong influence on. Not to mention his professional approach and pick & roll ability having a great impact on Mitch. I don't see how we wouldn't want that for the next couple of years if it sets up these players for the long haul. It's a no-brainer. Having CP here instantly makes Mitch and Barrett better players.
It could though as it stops us from taking advantage of teams who are desperate to shed salary- that's my issue with such a move.
isn't that what OKC would be doing by trading CP to us
knicks1248 wrote:smackeddog wrote:Knixkik wrote:smackeddog wrote:BRIGGS wrote:You don’t give up anything for chris paul at this age despite his play Nothing zero. In some ways it makes no sense to simply take him because it false promiseI stand behind not paying Fred van fleet 20-22 mm. Just not going there
I agree re: CP3, however what figure would you take a chance on VanVleet?
Trading for CP3 is about a culture changing move that won't cost the future. We see what happened in OKC. He could leave OKC after this year via trade but they are better positioned for the future because of CP's influence on the younger guys, specifically SGA, who is undoubtedly their franchise player going forward. If we believe that Barrett has similar potential (or more) and can be influenced equally than you make that move provided it doesn't cost major assets. Additionally, the Knicks will likely draft a guard this fall, so you have Barrett and that pick as players who CP should have a strong influence on. Not to mention his professional approach and pick & roll ability having a great impact on Mitch. I don't see how we wouldn't want that for the next couple of years if it sets up these players for the long haul. It's a no-brainer. Having CP here instantly makes Mitch and Barrett better players.
It could though as it stops us from taking advantage of teams who are desperate to shed salary- that's my issue with such a move.
isn't that what OKC would be doing by trading CP to us
I mean we’d need to get stuff back (i.e. picks) in exchange for helping teams out of their financial plight
smackeddog wrote:knicks1248 wrote:smackeddog wrote:Knixkik wrote:smackeddog wrote:BRIGGS wrote:You don’t give up anything for chris paul at this age despite his play Nothing zero. In some ways it makes no sense to simply take him because it false promiseI stand behind not paying Fred van fleet 20-22 mm. Just not going there
I agree re: CP3, however what figure would you take a chance on VanVleet?
Trading for CP3 is about a culture changing move that won't cost the future. We see what happened in OKC. He could leave OKC after this year via trade but they are better positioned for the future because of CP's influence on the younger guys, specifically SGA, who is undoubtedly their franchise player going forward. If we believe that Barrett has similar potential (or more) and can be influenced equally than you make that move provided it doesn't cost major assets. Additionally, the Knicks will likely draft a guard this fall, so you have Barrett and that pick as players who CP should have a strong influence on. Not to mention his professional approach and pick & roll ability having a great impact on Mitch. I don't see how we wouldn't want that for the next couple of years if it sets up these players for the long haul. It's a no-brainer. Having CP here instantly makes Mitch and Barrett better players.
It could though as it stops us from taking advantage of teams who are desperate to shed salary- that's my issue with such a move.
isn't that what OKC would be doing by trading CP to us
I mean we’d need to get stuff back (i.e. picks) in exchange for helping teams out of their financial plight
CP is still playing at an elite level, and to be honest, they would actually be helping the knicks out. He is clearly their best player, and if any one is adding picks it would be the knicks.
This year is a fluke. Cp3 is a good player and had a good year but it doesn t change the fact that he is injury prone, is like 35 and owed 85 millions for 2 more years. We would be doing them a favor and should be compensated for it.
If the first move rose does is giving 1st round pick for a 35 years old player, it doesn t send the right message to Knicks fan.
