Knicks · Lost a little Faith in the FO (page 2)
Society of Sour Grapes
franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:do we know if our FO spoke with Leonard's agent(s)?If Leonard said - I want to come to NY, did Rose tell them - sorry, we're keeping our own guys.
How does Pat Riley every year pull rabbits out of hats, and we're happy to retain Derrick 'I'm 33 and have played 20,000+ minutes and now am firmly on the downside of my career' Rose?
Versus what? Paying a fat 35 year old $90M over 3 years versus giving a guy who boosted out team to a 24-11 record while Toronto floundered?
Let this sink in. Rose, 32 given 3 year $43M. Lowry, 35 given $90M over 3 years.
I though Jimmy Butler was over rated. He goes to Maimi, and then he's an absolute monster in COVID year.
Riley added - we kept.
Look - I would not have signed Lowry. And I'm not against Rose in isolation. But we didn't really improve anything.
Bulls, Miami certainly did.
We were lucky last year, out performed- got career years out of some players. That is hard to do that year after year.
We needed to swap out and roll the dice on someone getting better.
Rose can't give us starter minutes. If we're lucky, we get 60 games, 28 mins per out of him. What are we doing for the other 57% of PG minutes? Are we going with Burks? Is Payton coming back. Is it IQ? The kid we drafted?
Fuck yes we did. Fournier over Bullock is a significant step.
I don't agree that the Bulls upgraded. Ball didn't move the needle in New Orleans and I have doubts he does much in Chicago. Miami is a well coached team and we shall see how much Lowry adds.
martin wrote:franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:do we know if our FO spoke with Leonard's agent(s)?If Leonard said - I want to come to NY, did Rose tell them - sorry, we're keeping our own guys.
How does Pat Riley every year pull rabbits out of hats, and we're happy to retain Derrick 'I'm 33 and have played 20,000+ minutes and now am firmly on the downside of my career' Rose?
Versus what? Paying a fat 35 year old $90M over 3 years versus giving a guy who boosted out team to a 24-11 record while Toronto floundered?
Let this sink in. Rose, 32 given 3 year $43M. Lowry, 35 given $90M over 3 years.
I though Jimmy Butler was over rated. He goes to Maimi, and then he's an absolute monster in COVID year.
Riley added - we kept.
Look - I would not have signed Lowry. And I'm not against Rose in isolation. But we didn't really improve anything.
Bulls, Miami certainly did.
We were lucky last year, out performed- got career years out of some players. That is hard to do that year after year.
We needed to swap out and roll the dice on someone getting better.
Rose can't give us starter minutes. If we're lucky, we get 60 games, 28 mins per out of him. What are we doing for the other 57% of PG minutes? Are we going with Burks? Is Payton coming back. Is it IQ? The kid we drafted?
Fuck yes we did. Fournier over Bullock is a significant step.
I don't agree that the Bulls upgraded. Ball didn't move the needle in New Orleans and I have doubts he does much in Chicago. Miami is a well coached team and we shall see how much Lowry adds.
which version of Fournier is a significant upgrade? The 13 PPG version that played on the Celtics, or the 19 PPG version that played on a last place lottery team?
I'm not saying Fournier isn't better than Bullock, just not enough to warrent spending that kind of money.
Heck, bring back Frank and develop him into a situational 3&d wing player.
franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:do we know if our FO spoke with Leonard's agent(s)?If Leonard said - I want to come to NY, did Rose tell them - sorry, we're keeping our own guys.
How does Pat Riley every year pull rabbits out of hats, and we're happy to retain Derrick 'I'm 33 and have played 20,000+ minutes and now am firmly on the downside of my career' Rose?
Versus what? Paying a fat 35 year old $90M over 3 years versus giving a guy who boosted out team to a 24-11 record while Toronto floundered?
Let this sink in. Rose, 32 given 3 year $43M. Lowry, 35 given $90M over 3 years.
I though Jimmy Butler was over rated. He goes to Maimi, and then he's an absolute monster in COVID year.
Riley added - we kept.
Look - I would not have signed Lowry. And I'm not against Rose in isolation. But we didn't really improve anything.
Bulls, Miami certainly did.
We were lucky last year, out performed- got career years out of some players. That is hard to do that year after year.
We needed to swap out and roll the dice on someone getting better.
Rose can't give us starter minutes. If we're lucky, we get 60 games, 28 mins per out of him. What are we doing for the other 57% of PG minutes? Are we going with Burks? Is Payton coming back. Is it IQ? The kid we drafted?
Fuck yes we did. Fournier over Bullock is a significant step.
I don't agree that the Bulls upgraded. Ball didn't move the needle in New Orleans and I have doubts he does much in Chicago. Miami is a well coached team and we shall see how much Lowry adds.
which version of Fournier is a significant upgrade? The 13 PPG version that played on the Celtics, or the 19 PPG version that played on a last place lottery team?
I'm not saying Fournier isn't better than Bullock, just not enough to warrent spending that kind of money.
Heck, bring back Frank and develop him into a situational 3&d wing player.
Fournier got markt value, and Thibs was never going to play frank even if his mama begged.
You hear of any NBA team remotely interested in Frank, not a peep, he'll be available right up until next summer.
what exactly was our wing option, bullock for 10 mill, giving you 10 points as a starter, well fournier gives you 18 points as a starter and got 18 mill per
franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:do we know if our FO spoke with Leonard's agent(s)?If Leonard said - I want to come to NY, did Rose tell them - sorry, we're keeping our own guys.
How does Pat Riley every year pull rabbits out of hats, and we're happy to retain Derrick 'I'm 33 and have played 20,000+ minutes and now am firmly on the downside of my career' Rose?
Versus what? Paying a fat 35 year old $90M over 3 years versus giving a guy who boosted out team to a 24-11 record while Toronto floundered?
Let this sink in. Rose, 32 given 3 year $43M. Lowry, 35 given $90M over 3 years.
I though Jimmy Butler was over rated. He goes to Maimi, and then he's an absolute monster in COVID year.
Riley added - we kept.
Look - I would not have signed Lowry. And I'm not against Rose in isolation. But we didn't really improve anything.
Bulls, Miami certainly did.
We were lucky last year, out performed- got career years out of some players. That is hard to do that year after year.
We needed to swap out and roll the dice on someone getting better.
Rose can't give us starter minutes. If we're lucky, we get 60 games, 28 mins per out of him. What are we doing for the other 57% of PG minutes? Are we going with Burks? Is Payton coming back. Is it IQ? The kid we drafted?
Fuck yes we did. Fournier over Bullock is a significant step.
I don't agree that the Bulls upgraded. Ball didn't move the needle in New Orleans and I have doubts he does much in Chicago. Miami is a well coached team and we shall see how much Lowry adds.
which version of Fournier is a significant upgrade? The 13 PPG version that played on the Celtics, or the 19 PPG version that played on a last place lottery team?
I'm not saying Fournier isn't better than Bullock, just not enough to warrent spending that kind of money.
Heck, bring back Frank and develop him into a situational 3&d wing player.
It should be noted that Fournier played while recovering from Covid and it's known he has lingering affects. His playoff performance this year is likely the only time he was healthy-ish in Boston.
Honestly my expectation was we were going to let Burks and Noel walk and only add someone like Schroder or Graham on a multi-year deal as well as a couple guys on 1-year deals like Otto Porter and Justice Winslow. Fournier is better than who I expected.
homeskillitprigioni wrote:RSparrow2 wrote:I LOVE what the FO has been doing, taking what comes at them, fans want an instant contender and are star stuck that need name recognition. We need a particular type FA, not just one of the best of that particular year. The FO has done a good job accumulated good players and are building a winning culture. We are so much better and closer to a complete team with depth than any time over the last 20 years. In addition, alot of our players are under 23 years old and will improve year over year. The Knicks have not overpaid for anything, very patient and calculating moves.I remember the fans outrage last year after their analysis of our failed FA signings. Last years team was one of the most enjoyable years I could remember, love rooting for the young players.
Most all of our contracts end in 2025, I believe when players like Lilliard and Karl Anthony Towns become FA's. I think this team will grow and win enough to get near the Conference Championship by then ..
At least you're more realistic, even though we disagree on a few points.
I agree that the Knicks basically made a big proclamation that they have no designs on winning the championship over the next 3 years with locking into these players they did. Conference championship is probably the ceiling, agreed.
I just don't agree that's a good thing. We had the roster flexibility to be able to add a big piece if it became available, and now we don't. Literally the best case scenario could happen with this roster in terms of development and health and whatever and it's still not good enough.
Last year's offseason was totally different. While we whiffed on a couple players in FA, we stayed with 1 year deals for the most part and didn't trap ourselves into bad multi-year contracts, we retained our flexibility while surrounding our young players with decent vets.
I said this before in another post...but I think the people that are angry about this offseason ARE the more patient fans because we didn't want to lock ourselves into these contracts just to be marginally better next year. We would've been fine with 1 year deals again and letting our young guys develop and retain roster and cap flexibility.
I guess it's ultimately a matter of preference. The fans that are happy with this offseason are just happy with being mediocre or slightly above and the fans that aren't happy are the ones that wanted to shoot for the stars within the next 3 years.
Well, the players we signed to 1 year deals last year had years that made them more marketable on the FA front. They basically were given prove it deals and they proved it. To get the remnants left over in FA again to offer them again the 1 year deals, there's no guarantee they will have the same impact, different player profiles. You want some kind of roster continuity.
Maybe we could have tied up one of the big FA's with a near Max deal but then we do not have roster depth. Forget about Rose, Noel and Burks, it was the depth that made us a strong team. Where would we have been without Burks and especially Noel last year? Sacramento in their championship years had those great secondary players that gave them depth. Once they had to break up the team because those secondary players wanted to be paid, Sacramento collapsed. Despite what is happening with the 3 super star teams, those teams did great jobs drafting young cheap players to build a base and gives them the depth you need. Teams like Phoenix, Miami, Sacramento (in their early days) had great drafts and let those players become great before bringing in other players.
I think we are 2-3 years from having those young players break out. RJ is there, I LOVE our draft and the hard nosed players we brought in. I love Quickly's game, think Obi will be so much better year 2 post lockdowns. All these young players work hard and are gym rats.
The salary cap will increase some players will not work out (Knox?) and we'll gain their salaries to combo into a player that will put us over the top. We still have alot of draft capital and roster flexibility.
knicks1248 wrote:franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:do we know if our FO spoke with Leonard's agent(s)?If Leonard said - I want to come to NY, did Rose tell them - sorry, we're keeping our own guys.
How does Pat Riley every year pull rabbits out of hats, and we're happy to retain Derrick 'I'm 33 and have played 20,000+ minutes and now am firmly on the downside of my career' Rose?
Versus what? Paying a fat 35 year old $90M over 3 years versus giving a guy who boosted out team to a 24-11 record while Toronto floundered?
Let this sink in. Rose, 32 given 3 year $43M. Lowry, 35 given $90M over 3 years.
I though Jimmy Butler was over rated. He goes to Maimi, and then he's an absolute monster in COVID year.
Riley added - we kept.
Look - I would not have signed Lowry. And I'm not against Rose in isolation. But we didn't really improve anything.
Bulls, Miami certainly did.
We were lucky last year, out performed- got career years out of some players. That is hard to do that year after year.
We needed to swap out and roll the dice on someone getting better.
Rose can't give us starter minutes. If we're lucky, we get 60 games, 28 mins per out of him. What are we doing for the other 57% of PG minutes? Are we going with Burks? Is Payton coming back. Is it IQ? The kid we drafted?
Fuck yes we did. Fournier over Bullock is a significant step.
I don't agree that the Bulls upgraded. Ball didn't move the needle in New Orleans and I have doubts he does much in Chicago. Miami is a well coached team and we shall see how much Lowry adds.
which version of Fournier is a significant upgrade? The 13 PPG version that played on the Celtics, or the 19 PPG version that played on a last place lottery team?
I'm not saying Fournier isn't better than Bullock, just not enough to warrent spending that kind of money.
Heck, bring back Frank and develop him into a situational 3&d wing player.
Fournier got markt value, and Thibs was never going to play frank even if his mama begged.
You hear of any NBA team remotely interested in Frank, not a peep, he'll be available right up until next summer.
what exactly was our wing option, bullock for 10 mill, giving you 10 points as a starter, well fournier gives you 18 points as a starter and got 18 mill per
what was our plan last year when we got Bullock and Burks?
Our biggest need was a PG - I would have filled that, and then just found someone undrafted or under the radar. We did draft some 3&d players - go with them.
To me, unless we're in a position, or putting ourselves into position to challenge for a championship, why spend money on simply maintain the status quo?
I'd have taken a step back vs. lock in to mediocrity.
franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:martin wrote:franco12 wrote:do we know if our FO spoke with Leonard's agent(s)?If Leonard said - I want to come to NY, did Rose tell them - sorry, we're keeping our own guys.
How does Pat Riley every year pull rabbits out of hats, and we're happy to retain Derrick 'I'm 33 and have played 20,000+ minutes and now am firmly on the downside of my career' Rose?
Versus what? Paying a fat 35 year old $90M over 3 years versus giving a guy who boosted out team to a 24-11 record while Toronto floundered?
Let this sink in. Rose, 32 given 3 year $43M. Lowry, 35 given $90M over 3 years.
I though Jimmy Butler was over rated. He goes to Maimi, and then he's an absolute monster in COVID year.
Riley added - we kept.
Look - I would not have signed Lowry. And I'm not against Rose in isolation. But we didn't really improve anything.
Bulls, Miami certainly did.
We were lucky last year, out performed- got career years out of some players. That is hard to do that year after year.
We needed to swap out and roll the dice on someone getting better.
Rose can't give us starter minutes. If we're lucky, we get 60 games, 28 mins per out of him. What are we doing for the other 57% of PG minutes? Are we going with Burks? Is Payton coming back. Is it IQ? The kid we drafted?
Fuck yes we did. Fournier over Bullock is a significant step.
I don't agree that the Bulls upgraded. Ball didn't move the needle in New Orleans and I have doubts he does much in Chicago. Miami is a well coached team and we shall see how much Lowry adds.
which version of Fournier is a significant upgrade? The 13 PPG version that played on the Celtics, or the 19 PPG version that played on a last place lottery team?
I'm not saying Fournier isn't better than Bullock, just not enough to warrent spending that kind of money.
Heck, bring back Frank and develop him into a situational 3&d wing player.
Come one man, you can do better. At this point you are posting out of frustration.
I'm talking about the solid 18ppg, 40% 3pt shooter over the past 2 years who played on crappy teams without a decent PG.
Put him on a good team and look what he does in the Olympics.
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/IanBegley/status/1422671596351807490?s=20
Click here to view the Tweet
knicks1248 wrote:Knicks are not a place most players care to play, you can't even blame the FO, when guys are turning down our $$Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/IanBegley/status/1422671596351807490?s=20
Click here to view the Tweet
He's thinking he has a legitimate shot at a title on the Lakers...You're making this a Knicks thing, when it is actually a Lakers thing.
CleaverGreene wrote:knicks1248 wrote:Knicks are not a place most players care to play, you can't even blame the FO, when guys are turning down our $$Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/IanBegley/status/1422671596351807490?s=20
Click here to view the TweetHe's thinking he has a legitimate shot at a title on the Lakers...You're making this a Knicks thing, when it is actually a Lakers thing.
It's a gut punch. He's at the stage in his career where he should be worried about making the most money. Instead, he'll likely get less minutes while being Russ's caddy.
BigDaddyG wrote:CleaverGreene wrote:knicks1248 wrote:Knicks are not a place most players care to play, you can't even blame the FO, when guys are turning down our $$Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/IanBegley/status/1422671596351807490?s=20
Click here to view the TweetHe's thinking he has a legitimate shot at a title on the Lakers...You're making this a Knicks thing, when it is actually a Lakers thing.
It's a gut punch. He's at the stage in his career where he should be worried about making the most money. Instead, he'll likely get less minutes while being Russ's caddy.
i'm not so sure. he could be their starting sg at this point, no?
triple threat is muttering bitcoin right around now
BigDaddyG wrote:CleaverGreene wrote:knicks1248 wrote:Knicks are not a place most players care to play, you can't even blame the FO, when guys are turning down our $$Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/IanBegley/status/1422671596351807490?s=20
Click here to view the TweetHe's thinking he has a legitimate shot at a title on the Lakers...You're making this a Knicks thing, when it is actually a Lakers thing.
It's a gut punch. He's at the stage in his career where he should be worried about making the most money. Instead, he'll likely get less minutes while being Russ's caddy.
Crazy thing is Nunn or Horton-Tucker (or if they resign Schroeder) would all probably start for us. On the Lakers they are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th string
BigDaddyG wrote:CleaverGreene wrote:knicks1248 wrote:Knicks are not a place most players care to play, you can't even blame the FO, when guys are turning down our $$Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/IanBegley/status/1422671596351807490?s=20
Click here to view the TweetHe's thinking he has a legitimate shot at a title on the Lakers...You're making this a Knicks thing, when it is actually a Lakers thing.
It's a gut punch. He's at the stage in his career where he should be worried about making the most money. Instead, he'll likely get less minutes while being Russ's caddy.
Exactly,
That laker Roster isn't even well thought out, looks like a YMCA pick up game of former players.
The Lakers were able to get three shooters, Ariza, Melo and Howard. Two promising young scorers with no cap room. Just mind blowing.
homeskillitprigioni wrote:RSparrow2 wrote:I LOVE what the FO has been doing, taking what comes at them, fans want an instant contender and are star stuck that need name recognition. We need a particular type FA, not just one of the best of that particular year. The FO has done a good job accumulated good players and are building a winning culture. We are so much better and closer to a complete team with depth than any time over the last 20 years. In addition, alot of our players are under 23 years old and will improve year over year. The Knicks have not overpaid for anything, very patient and calculating moves.I remember the fans outrage last year after their analysis of our failed FA signings. Last years team was one of the most enjoyable years I could remember, love rooting for the young players.
Most all of our contracts end in 2025, I believe when players like Lilliard and Karl Anthony Towns become FA's. I think this team will grow and win enough to get near the Conference Championship by then ..
At least you're more realistic, even though we disagree on a few points.
I agree that the Knicks basically made a big proclamation that they have no designs on winning the championship over the next 3 years with locking into these players they did. Conference championship is probably the ceiling, agreed.
I just don't agree that's a good thing. We had the roster flexibility to be able to add a big piece if it became available, and now we don't. Literally the best case scenario could happen with this roster in terms of development and health and whatever and it's still not good enough.
Last year's offseason was totally different. While we whiffed on a couple players in FA, we stayed with 1 year deals for the most part and didn't trap ourselves into bad multi-year contracts, we retained our flexibility while surrounding our young players with decent vets.
I said this before in another post...but I think the people that are angry about this offseason ARE the more patient fans because we didn't want to lock ourselves into these contracts just to be marginally better next year. We would've been fine with 1 year deals again and letting our young guys develop and retain roster and cap flexibility.
I guess it's ultimately a matter of preference. The fans that are happy with this offseason are just happy with being mediocre or slightly above and the fans that aren't happy are the ones that wanted to shoot for the stars within the next 3 years.
The First round is ceiling. We are a borderline playoff team. The Heat and Bulls are much better. The Hawks won't finish behind us again. More likely we miss the playoffs than finish with the 4th seed
MS wrote:That’s really bad. Kendrick Nunn turned down the opportunity to start for the Knicks to be the 8th man on Lakers.The Lakers were able to get three shooters, Ariza, Melo and Howard. Two promising young scorers with no cap room. Just mind blowing.
Not really mind boggling at all, how long have i been saying the only way a star is coming here is via trade.
We have had Cap space almost every yr (at least 20 mill) since Phil jackson and haven't been able to sign no one special.
And it seems we may have to over pay in a trade because the FO have been getting turned down in the DEPT..
knicks1248 wrote:MS wrote:That’s really bad. Kendrick Nunn turned down the opportunity to start for the Knicks to be the 8th man on Lakers.The Lakers were able to get three shooters, Ariza, Melo and Howard. Two promising young scorers with no cap room. Just mind blowing.
Not really mind boggling at all, how long have i been saying the only way a star is coming here is via trade.
We have had Cap space almost every yr (at least 20 mill) since Phil jackson and haven't been able to sign no one special.
And it seems we may have to over pay in a trade because the FO have been getting turned down in the DEPT..
This particular problen isn't a Knicks problem. This is a league problem.
knicks1248 wrote:MS wrote:That’s really bad. Kendrick Nunn turned down the opportunity to start for the Knicks to be the 8th man on Lakers.The Lakers were able to get three shooters, Ariza, Melo and Howard. Two promising young scorers with no cap room. Just mind blowing.
Not really mind boggling at all, how long have i been saying the only way a star is coming here is via trade.
We have had Cap space almost every yr (at least 20 mill) since Phil jackson and haven't been able to sign no one special.
And it seems we may have to over pay in a trade because the FO have been getting turned down in the DEPT..
If that is the case, why not take a flyer on Kai Jones vs trading to the Hornets with rather extreme protection? Take a flyer on finding and developing talent. If we can get Nunn to come here with the opportunity for more money and the chance to really get a ton of playing time and the chance to establish his chops, then why try? Spend the money smartly on guys that want to be here, but try finding the gems in the rough out there, acquire and draft as many picks as possible.
Chandler wrote:
Society of Sour Grapes
And wet diapers.
Im impressed with how other teams were able to improve their roster particularly the Bulls adding Ball and Derozan to their roster last year is huge although i think they over did it with the talent acquisition, too many cooks in the kitchen type of senario. Other teams have showed the ability to attract free agents.
If this is part of the FO's big end game, let go of their cap flexibility to retain their free agents essentially taking them out of the running for the free agent sweepstakes next year and improve the team by upgrading Bullock with Fournier and still have a big question mark about the team's starting point guard, with a front office filled with relationship guys it seems like its a big letdown. I think the best case scenario now is the knicks moved up from a cellar dwelling team to a team in purgatory(stuck in mediocrity).
The only way the knicks can improve now is through trades which this front office hasnt shown they have the ability to do so far. I think this front office only had a significant trade with the Jazz(Perrin connection) snd the Clippers. Why didnt the knicks persue a sign and trade with the Mavs for Bullock to get Brunson?
Maybe the knicks can still make some major moves via Trade by netting them Myles Turner and Sexton. That might be something. But with the way this front office has performed, I doubt if they can even trade for a back up player or even an end of bench type of player. This front office have done quite well since Rose took over to show patience but when it was time to make his move finally came things kinda fell flat.