Knicks · Can't say enough about Bullock (page 1)

But i have to hand to our team, we have been able to overcome injuries by just shorten the rotation.

I just knew the team would suffer when mitch went down, well that didn't happen, same with Burke, Rose, Taj, IQ, even payton.

In fact the only person on this roster that hurt us the most when he was out was BULLOCK, i think we lost all of our games he didn't play in except for 1.

He is the 2nd MVP on this roster and an absolute priority to resign.

I know we all happy the morning after. Randle is our MVP. But Bullock over RJ? Maybe there is a statistical argument you can make. But that might require effort. We did lose a lot of games with him early on.
Can’t imagine were we’d be without DRose and perhaps our rise might be as important as any player who starts.

That said, DRose is just about outshining everyone now, with the exception of Julius.

Even the wife is astounded.

Nice to be able to see the players the FO is thinking about signing beyond this season. Tested in the playoffs. Makes the job easier. Dont see any Jerome Jameses on the roster, lol.

ToddTT wrote:Shhhh. We gotta pay this man.

Exactly don’t say his name out loud lol 🤫

ToddTT wrote:Shhhh. We gotta pay this man.

If Bullock flat out sucked in the playoffs, would you still be saying that?

GustavBahler wrote:

ToddTT wrote:Shhhh. We gotta pay this man.

If Bullock flat out sucked in the playoffs, would you still be saying that?

I would be thinking good we can sign him again for 5m!!

Because he was a huge part of us winning nearly 50 games if the season was 82 games

xblvdels3 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

ToddTT wrote:Shhhh. We gotta pay this man.

If Bullock flat out sucked in the playoffs, would you still be saying that?

I would be thinking good we can sign him again for 5m!!

Because he was a huge part of us winning nearly 50 games if the season was 82 games

Being just a good regular season player is enough for you? Not suggesting thats Bullock's fate.

Id much rather see how things play out. Than pull something out of the Steve Mills playbook.

GustavBahler wrote:

ToddTT wrote:Shhhh. We gotta pay this man.

If Bullock flat out sucked in the playoffs, would you still be saying that?

I would. I'm not going to base my opinion on a small sample size. He's returned to form and is a legit 3&D guy. Not a guy who plays passable D and hits a high percentage from three. Or a guy who plays good D and hits a passable percentage from three. Guys like Bullock are coveted and he will draw attention on the free agent market.

The thing is WHY has he thrived and what is that worth?

Its the same conversation as Cameron Payne. Knicks first and foremost need high impact player(s) to match with RJ/Randle. Bullock is a role player who is playing his role perfectly. 3&D and that's literally it.

The problem with giving Bullock money and paying successful role players in general is they are not able to be impact players alone. Reggie's defense and shooting are only a factor because of RJ/Randle/Rose creating huge space for him to get clean 3s off and RJ/Randle/Noel are already a great defensive group. Reggie fits in really well there.

Priority #1 should be a top tier FA like Conley/Schroder/Derozan/Powell followed by Noel. Adding another close to all star caliber player to play next to RJ/Randle is first and foremost, followed by locking up Noel.

Also the Knicks are ABSOLUTELY missing Mitch. They have played well but are a weaker team. Noel and Taj have been great but neither can do what Mitch can and there is an element missing.

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

ToddTT wrote:Shhhh. We gotta pay this man.

If Bullock flat out sucked in the playoffs, would you still be saying that?

I would. I'm not going to base my opinion on a small sample size. He's returned to form and is a legit 3&D guy. Not a guy who plays passable D and hits a high percentage from three. Or a guy who plays good D and hits a passable percentage from three. Guys like Bullock are coveted and he will draw attention on the free agent market.

A seven game playoff series. Lets say 5-6 games played is enough of a sample size to see how well Bullock bounces back from adversity, as an established vet.

Back to my first post, you want to sign a starter for 3-4 years. You want as little doubt as possible. Im not talking about a so-so playoff run. But just plain awful. Game after game. That should give any exec pause.

Again I dont see that happening, worst case scenario. Would not sign him to a multi-year deal just before the playoffs if the rules allowed it. When I can wait and see how he performs when the chips are down.

Knixkik wrote:He's a must to resign. Glad we have his bird rights.

We have his bird rights!!!???

Good we can go over the cap for him!

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

ToddTT wrote:Shhhh. We gotta pay this man.

If Bullock flat out sucked in the playoffs, would you still be saying that?

I would. I'm not going to base my opinion on a small sample size. He's returned to form and is a legit 3&D guy. Not a guy who plays passable D and hits a high percentage from three. Or a guy who plays good D and hits a passable percentage from three. Guys like Bullock are coveted and he will draw attention on the free agent market.

A seven game playoff series. Lets say 5-6 games played is enough of a sample size to see how well Bullock bounces back from adversity, as an established vet.

Back to my first post, you want to sign a starter for 3-4 years. You want as little doubt as possible. Im not talking about a so-so playoff run. But just plain awful. Game after game. That should give any exec pause.

Again I dont see that happening, worst case scenario. Would not sign him to a multi-year deal just before the playoffs if the rules allowed it. When I can wait and see how he performs when the chips are down.

I’ve already seen enough to be happy with a multi year contract. The question for me is the price tag.

ToddTT wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

ToddTT wrote:Shhhh. We gotta pay this man.

If Bullock flat out sucked in the playoffs, would you still be saying that?

I would. I'm not going to base my opinion on a small sample size. He's returned to form and is a legit 3&D guy. Not a guy who plays passable D and hits a high percentage from three. Or a guy who plays good D and hits a passable percentage from three. Guys like Bullock are coveted and he will draw attention on the free agent market.

A seven game playoff series. Lets say 5-6 games played is enough of a sample size to see how well Bullock bounces back from adversity, as an established vet.

Back to my first post, you want to sign a starter for 3-4 years. You want as little doubt as possible. Im not talking about a so-so playoff run. But just plain awful. Game after game. That should give any exec pause.

Again I dont see that happening, worst case scenario. Would not sign him to a multi-year deal just before the playoffs if the rules allowed it. When I can wait and see how he performs when the chips are down.

I’ve already seen enough to be happy with a multi year contract. The question for me is the price tag.

BigDaddyG wrote:

ToddTT wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

ToddTT wrote:Shhhh. We gotta pay this man.

If Bullock flat out sucked in the playoffs, would you still be saying that?

I would. I'm not going to base my opinion on a small sample size. He's returned to form and is a legit 3&D guy. Not a guy who plays passable D and hits a high percentage from three. Or a guy who plays good D and hits a passable percentage from three. Guys like Bullock are coveted and he will draw attention on the free agent market.

A seven game playoff series. Lets say 5-6 games played is enough of a sample size to see how well Bullock bounces back from adversity, as an established vet.

Back to my first post, you want to sign a starter for 3-4 years. You want as little doubt as possible. Im not talking about a so-so playoff run. But just plain awful. Game after game. That should give any exec pause.

Again I dont see that happening, worst case scenario. Would not sign him to a multi-year deal just before the playoffs if the rules allowed it. When I can wait and see how he performs when the chips are down.

I’ve already seen enough to be happy with a multi year contract. The question for me is the price tag.

Yep. 5-6 games isn't enough for me to change my opinion. The playoffs are so matchup dependent and there are a lot of things that can factor into a poor performance. I'm not going to write Paul George off because of his performance in last year's playoffs just like I didn't anoint Tyler Herro the next big star because he got hot.

PG is a superstar, franchise player. The talent level is already off the charts. We have enough cap room to add a star, a starter. Id rather see how things play out. And just as important, who is available, or tradeable. Before making a long term commitment. As a bench player, thats something else.

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ToddTT wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

ToddTT wrote:Shhhh. We gotta pay this man.

If Bullock flat out sucked in the playoffs, would you still be saying that?

I would. I'm not going to base my opinion on a small sample size. He's returned to form and is a legit 3&D guy. Not a guy who plays passable D and hits a high percentage from three. Or a guy who plays good D and hits a passable percentage from three. Guys like Bullock are coveted and he will draw attention on the free agent market.

A seven game playoff series. Lets say 5-6 games played is enough of a sample size to see how well Bullock bounces back from adversity, as an established vet.

Back to my first post, you want to sign a starter for 3-4 years. You want as little doubt as possible. Im not talking about a so-so playoff run. But just plain awful. Game after game. That should give any exec pause.

Again I dont see that happening, worst case scenario. Would not sign him to a multi-year deal just before the playoffs if the rules allowed it. When I can wait and see how he performs when the chips are down.

I’ve already seen enough to be happy with a multi year contract. The question for me is the price tag.

Yep. 5-6 games isn't enough for me to change my opinion. The playoffs are so matchup dependent and there are a lot of things that can factor into a poor performance. I'm not going to write Paul George off because of his performance in last year's playoffs just like I didn't anoint Tyler Herro the next big star because he got hot.

PG is a superstar, franchise player. The talent level is already off the charts. We have enough cap room to add a star, a starter. Id rather see how things play out. And just as important, who is available, or tradeable. Before making a long term commitment. As a bench player, thats something else.

jrodmc wrote:I'd have to say Bullock is a huge part of the Big 15. At first, his D was/is glaringly atrocious at times, but this is the NBA. Lockdown defenders on every possession don't exist. Except at almost the very end of our bench Bullocks's got the best EFG% immediately after our 4 centers. Not bad stuff.

That said, DRose is just about outshining everyone now, with the exception of Julius.

Even the wife is astounded.

Great to see the transformation from Rose's first go-around with the Knicks. Hoping he takes this momentum into the playoffs. After all his injuries, it is great to see him playing so well and proving so many wrong. Including myself.

Bullock has been solid. Many on here that were questioning Thibs for starting him over some end-of-bench guys are now seeing the benefits of his decision. Go Giants!

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ToddTT wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

ToddTT wrote:Shhhh. We gotta pay this man.

If Bullock flat out sucked in the playoffs, would you still be saying that?

I would. I'm not going to base my opinion on a small sample size. He's returned to form and is a legit 3&D guy. Not a guy who plays passable D and hits a high percentage from three. Or a guy who plays good D and hits a passable percentage from three. Guys like Bullock are coveted and he will draw attention on the free agent market.

A seven game playoff series. Lets say 5-6 games played is enough of a sample size to see how well Bullock bounces back from adversity, as an established vet.

Back to my first post, you want to sign a starter for 3-4 years. You want as little doubt as possible. Im not talking about a so-so playoff run. But just plain awful. Game after game. That should give any exec pause.

Again I dont see that happening, worst case scenario. Would not sign him to a multi-year deal just before the playoffs if the rules allowed it. When I can wait and see how he performs when the chips are down.

I’ve already seen enough to be happy with a multi year contract. The question for me is the price tag.

Yep. 5-6 games isn't enough for me to change my opinion. The playoffs are so matchup dependent and there are a lot of things that can factor into a poor performance. I'm not going to write Paul George off because of his performance in last year's playoffs just like I didn't anoint Tyler Herro the next big star because he got hot.

PG is a superstar, franchise player. The talent level is already off the charts. We have enough cap room to add a star, a starter. Id rather see how things play out. And just as important, who is available, or tradeable. Before making a long term commitment. As a bench player, thats something else.

What do you consider a big long-term commitment. I'm thinking about three years, $9M per, around the mid-level.