Knicks · How do you guys feel if the big price of this trade deadline is Andre Drummond? (page 2)
technomaster wrote:So on one hand:
* Drummond would jump in and provide us with another beefy inside player. At his best, he's an extremely dominant garbage player/physical presence/elite rebounder.
* another "mentor" for RobinsonOn the other hand:
* Mitch/Noel have been an excellent center tandem - and overall, we're getting pretty good production from them.
* Risk to team chemistry
* The NBA obviously favors quick mobile centers. Drummond (280lbs+!) may ultimately be a situational player in the modern NBA. He's more of a situational guy - you save him for the rare instance you want to create a physical disadvantage to opponents OR the rare moments you need to match up physically with a dominant big (how many killer physical centers are there in the east anyway... Embiid in Philly, Valanciunas in Orlando?If it comes down to it, I like what he brings to the table more than Obi/Taj - and he'd be reasonable insurance against injury to Randle (our only "beefy" player), so certainly he'd make us a better team this year.
Except for the fact that he is a C, not a PF and none of that makes sense
I would welcome Drummond, considering how little offense we get from the center position.
As long as Drummond is cool being the the 3rd option behind Randle and Barrett, he would take us to the next level with his passing and rebounding, and he probably has better hands than Noel.
It would make us the best rebounding team in the league with the way Barrett rebounds.
HoustonSprewell84 wrote:I have switched my opinion on this,I would welcome Drummond, considering how little offense we get from the center position.
As long as Drummond is cool being the the 3rd option behind Randle and Barrett, he would take us to the next level with his passing and rebounding, and he probably has better hands than Noel.
It would make us the best rebounding team in the league with the way Barrett rebounds.
From what I have seen, Thibs uses his center to box out more than specifically rebound. Randle and Barrett don’t get get 10 Rebs each with Mitch getting 6 cause they are better rebounders.
https://www.nba.com/stats/players/box-ou...
I think you would have to assume they are looking at Drummond and thinking he has the ability to box out better with his bulk.
So, if you take the offense out of the discussion and assume they use Drummond the way they use Robinson, AND you let Robinson be a little more active with the second unit, I think you have to think about it.
But it’s not because you bring in Drummond to be Drummond, you need to believe he accepts this different, less glamorous role. Closer to his role in Detroit...
HoustonSprewell84 wrote:I have switched my opinion on this,I would welcome Drummond, considering how little offense we get from the center position.
As long as Drummond is cool being the the 3rd option behind Randle and Barrett, he would take us to the next level with his passing and rebounding, and he probably has better hands than Noel.
It would make us the best rebounding team in the league with the way Barrett rebounds.
At what cost to defense and team chemistry are you willing to go to add a little offense at the C spot?
martin wrote:HoustonSprewell84 wrote:I have switched my opinion on this,I would welcome Drummond, considering how little offense we get from the center position.
As long as Drummond is cool being the the 3rd option behind Randle and Barrett, he would take us to the next level with his passing and rebounding, and he probably has better hands than Noel.
It would make us the best rebounding team in the league with the way Barrett rebounds.At what cost to defense and team chemistry are you willing to go to add a little offense at the C spot?
If Thibs wants him, then if we can get him if he is released, you offer him the $15M we have, prorated.
Ideal for Drummond because at the end of the year, he has either rehabilitated his image in the league with Thibs, or not.
I know he has a lot of warts - but I just see a monster presence in the middle that moves the action in a positive way.
He can sub in for Robinson - so he is taking Noel & Gibsons role - hard to see how he can't be an upgrade over those two- and if he isn't, release him.
martin wrote:HoustonSprewell84 wrote:I have switched my opinion on this,I would welcome Drummond, considering how little offense we get from the center position.
As long as Drummond is cool being the the 3rd option behind Randle and Barrett, he would take us to the next level with his passing and rebounding, and he probably has better hands than Noel.
It would make us the best rebounding team in the league with the way Barrett rebounds.At what cost to defense and team chemistry are you willing to go to add a little offense at the C spot?
I get the chemistry concerns, But he's definitely good insurance and adds depth and rebounding, the top two things you need in the playoffs.
Besides, the Pros definitely outweigh the Cons.
knicks1248 wrote:martin wrote:HoustonSprewell84 wrote:I have switched my opinion on this,I would welcome Drummond, considering how little offense we get from the center position.
As long as Drummond is cool being the the 3rd option behind Randle and Barrett, he would take us to the next level with his passing and rebounding, and he probably has better hands than Noel.
It would make us the best rebounding team in the league with the way Barrett rebounds.At what cost to defense and team chemistry are you willing to go to add a little offense at the C spot?
I get the chemistry concerns, But he's definitely good insurance and adds depth and rebounding, the top two things you need in the playoffs.
Besides, the Pros definitely outweigh the Cons.
No team carries 4 playable centers (especially if they can't double as PF's). And the Knicks are not deficient in rebounding.
So what are the Pro's?
martin wrote:there are non. Drummond is a terrible basketball player. He's a huge and powerful athlete and that certainly translates but he's just got no skill or feel for the game, never has, doesnt win bla bla bla. I would much rather have Enes Kanter (who is better anyway) than Drummond. IF you think he's good you have not watched him beyond a couple games with the Knicks. Where's Greg Monroe while we are at it?knicks1248 wrote:martin wrote:HoustonSprewell84 wrote:I have switched my opinion on this,I would welcome Drummond, considering how little offense we get from the center position.
As long as Drummond is cool being the the 3rd option behind Randle and Barrett, he would take us to the next level with his passing and rebounding, and he probably has better hands than Noel.
It would make us the best rebounding team in the league with the way Barrett rebounds.At what cost to defense and team chemistry are you willing to go to add a little offense at the C spot?
I get the chemistry concerns, But he's definitely good insurance and adds depth and rebounding, the top two things you need in the playoffs.
Besides, the Pros definitely outweigh the Cons.
No team carries 4 playable centers (especially if they can't double as PF's). And the Knicks are not deficient in rebounding.
So what are the Pro's?
fishmike wrote:martin wrote:there are non. Drummond is a terrible basketball player. He's a huge and powerful athlete and that certainly translates but he's just got no skill or feel for the game, never has, doesnt win bla bla bla. I would much rather have Enes Kanter (who is better anyway) than Drummond. IF you think he's good you have not watched him beyond a couple games with the Knicks. Where's Greg Monroe while we are at it?knicks1248 wrote:martin wrote:HoustonSprewell84 wrote:I have switched my opinion on this,I would welcome Drummond, considering how little offense we get from the center position.
As long as Drummond is cool being the the 3rd option behind Randle and Barrett, he would take us to the next level with his passing and rebounding, and he probably has better hands than Noel.
It would make us the best rebounding team in the league with the way Barrett rebounds.At what cost to defense and team chemistry are you willing to go to add a little offense at the C spot?
I get the chemistry concerns, But he's definitely good insurance and adds depth and rebounding, the top two things you need in the playoffs.
Besides, the Pros definitely outweigh the Cons.
No team carries 4 playable centers (especially if they can't double as PF's). And the Knicks are not deficient in rebounding.
So what are the Pro's?
Funny, you never see them in the same room together? Hmmmm?
HoustonSprewell84 wrote:I have switched my opinion on this,I would welcome Drummond, considering how little offense we get from the center position.
As long as Drummond is cool being the the 3rd option behind Randle and Barrett, he would take us to the next level with his passing and rebounding, and he probably has better hands than Noel.
It would make us the best rebounding team in the league with the way Barrett rebounds.
The problem is that Drummond isn't a good passer (his assist to TO ratio is about 1:2 for his career), isn't that good a scorer (54% True shooting percentage for his career, which is atrocious for a non-stretch big. As an example, Noel has a TS of 64% this year.) and he's not known for his hands. And he's a worse defender than what the Knicks have now. If you're going to optimize Drummond's offense towards winning, than you're going to have to put him in the same role that Mitch and Noel are already playing. I'm pressed to think of anything Drummond adds outside of size.
MaTT4281 wrote:awe1028 wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:awe1028 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Interesting article on rebounding. Didnt know Cavs have benched Drummond since February.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si.com/...
While he’s had a handful of bright spots—a pair of massive steals in an overtime win against Detroit, and a game-sealing assist late versus Memphis—it’s been a rough year for Drummond, all things considered.He ranks as the NBA’s worst finisher at the rim and is shooting a career-worst 47.4% from the field, a pair of tough realities when you’re a soon-to-be free agent that’s earning almost $29 million for the season.
Drummond is having a down year because he is playing in Cleveland which is not going anywhere. In short he has nothing to play for and is not fully engaged. The moment he comes to the Knicks where Thibs gets a hold of him and he has something to play for, you will see a completely Drummond.Maybe...but is it worth risking chemistry hoping he'll pull a complete 180?
Yes. If the Knicks get the Drummond I think they will get.Even best case scenario - not ready to trade for someone who'll quit on the team. God forbid we go on a losing streak...
The Knicks are not trading for him. That is the point They are specifically saying they are only interested in Drummond only after the buyout.
awe1028 wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:awe1028 wrote:MaTT4281 wrote:awe1028 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Interesting article on rebounding. Didnt know Cavs have benched Drummond since February.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si.com/...
While he’s had a handful of bright spots—a pair of massive steals in an overtime win against Detroit, and a game-sealing assist late versus Memphis—it’s been a rough year for Drummond, all things considered.He ranks as the NBA’s worst finisher at the rim and is shooting a career-worst 47.4% from the field, a pair of tough realities when you’re a soon-to-be free agent that’s earning almost $29 million for the season.
Drummond is having a down year because he is playing in Cleveland which is not going anywhere. In short he has nothing to play for and is not fully engaged. The moment he comes to the Knicks where Thibs gets a hold of him and he has something to play for, you will see a completely Drummond.Maybe...but is it worth risking chemistry hoping he'll pull a complete 180?
Yes. If the Knicks get the Drummond I think they will get.Even best case scenario - not ready to trade for someone who'll quit on the team. God forbid we go on a losing streak...
The Knicks are not trading for him. That is the point They are specifically saying they are only interested in Drummond only after the buyout.
Post was prior to the deadline. Now that this has passed, I'm even less inclined to take him on if he's not coming with a sweatener. Negative value player.
martin wrote:knicks1248 wrote:martin wrote:HoustonSprewell84 wrote:I have switched my opinion on this,I would welcome Drummond, considering how little offense we get from the center position.
As long as Drummond is cool being the the 3rd option behind Randle and Barrett, he would take us to the next level with his passing and rebounding, and he probably has better hands than Noel.
It would make us the best rebounding team in the league with the way Barrett rebounds.At what cost to defense and team chemistry are you willing to go to add a little offense at the C spot?
I get the chemistry concerns, But he's definitely good insurance and adds depth and rebounding, the top two things you need in the playoffs.
Besides, the Pros definitely outweigh the Cons.
No team carries 4 playable centers (especially if they can't double as PF's). And the Knicks are not deficient in rebounding.
So what are the Pro's?
Noel and Mitch have not been the most healthiest players on the roster, and if we do make the playoffs, and one of them (if not both) are not available, are you comfortable with just TAJ, KNOX, OBI.
What do we have to lose?
The coaching staff has done a damn good JOB with the vets we have, putting them in a position to be successful. You guys always talking about coaching making a difference.
And if he so bad, why are so many teams interested (contenders)
knicks1248 wrote:martin wrote:knicks1248 wrote:martin wrote:HoustonSprewell84 wrote:I have switched my opinion on this,I would welcome Drummond, considering how little offense we get from the center position.
As long as Drummond is cool being the the 3rd option behind Randle and Barrett, he would take us to the next level with his passing and rebounding, and he probably has better hands than Noel.
It would make us the best rebounding team in the league with the way Barrett rebounds.At what cost to defense and team chemistry are you willing to go to add a little offense at the C spot?
I get the chemistry concerns, But he's definitely good insurance and adds depth and rebounding, the top two things you need in the playoffs.
Besides, the Pros definitely outweigh the Cons.
No team carries 4 playable centers (especially if they can't double as PF's). And the Knicks are not deficient in rebounding.
So what are the Pro's?
Noel and Mitch have not been the most healthiest players on the roster, and if we do make the playoffs, and one of them (if not both) are not available, are you comfortable with just TAJ, KNOX, OBI.
What do we have to lose?
The coaching staff has done a damn good JOB with the vets we have, putting them in a position to be successful. You guys always talking about coaching making a difference.
And if he so bad, why are so many teams interested (contenders)
Capspace to bring much needed PG and wing depth. If you want to bring in Lonzo(and I'm not saying I'm for this), you can't waste space on guys like Drummond.
Interesting stat. Players shoot -8% below their average six feet within the rim when Drummond is guarding the paint. For comparison, that number is -10% for Noel, about -6% for Randle and about -4% for Mitch. If you look at overall defense, Andre falls behind Noel, Mitch and Randle. But the numbers aren't as bad as I thought. Still don't see a compelling reason to sign him.
awe1028 wrote:The Lakers and Nets recognize what a fully engaged Drummond would mean to their playoff success. I won't deny there is some risk in acquiring him but people are forgetting the X Factor that is Thibs and his effect on Drummond.So essentially because the Lakers (with Lebron and AD) and the Nets (with KD, Kyrie and Harden) think they can make it work with Drummond, we should think likewise with our collection of players?
Stan Van Gundy, someone who coached up Dwight Howard to runner-up MVP, couldn't elevate Drummond into an impactful player, but Thibs will magically unlock the beast in Drummond mid-season? Sorry, can't co-sign on that one.
That's the type of move I want to see the Knicks make. The heck with Drummond.
My guess is Celtics
Welpee wrote:Quick question - Toronto publicly admitted to trying to trade Lowry to the team of his choosing but couldn't work out a deal that made sense. If Lowry, on the last year of his deal, says he would like to play for a contender: 1) why wouldn't Toronto buy him out and let him walk since they think so highly of him and want to do right by him? And 2) since he had his eye on Philly wouldn't you think the Knicks could also make a run at him given that we could offer him way more money than Philly?That's the type of move I want to see the Knicks make. The heck with Drummond.
Lowrey likely wants 2 years and 50mm beyond this year. 35 years old now.