I know the thing for many is to offload our young players and draft assets for a Lavine or even a Luka (so we can be a Chicago or Dallas I presume) but I would rather keep IQ, Grimes et al and continue drafting and acquiring young talent without emptying the cupboard. I know - no sugar rush, no drama, no fun.
Panos wrote:IQ should be staring at SG
Dont make me break out my "Start Quickley at SG" thread! If the FO wants to keep IQ (barring a trade) they're going to have to at some point.
KnickDanger wrote:I know the thing for many is to offload our young players and draft assets for a Lavine or even a Luka (so we can be a Chicago or Dallas I presume) but I would rather keep IQ, Grimes et al and continue drafting and acquiring young talent without emptying the cupboard. I know - no sugar rush, no drama, no fun.
If trading for arguably the best player in the league is a "thing", I hope its the thing the FO makes happen. Im not downplaying IQ's potential, but Luka has the potential to be a top 3 player all time. And he's been showing it since his rookie season. Needs to get with the right coach IMO.
Caseloads wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:I know I will catch hell for this, but does IQ deserve the starting position over Brunson? I mean, IQ is the two way player. Doesn't have to be this year or next, but when looking at lineups, would IQ's added length and defense be better for the team overall? I can honestly see IQ being starting point guard on a championship Knicks team.
Would love to win a championship, with either Brunson or quick as our starting Point
Right now I believe Brunson can score under pressure from elite defenses better than IQ. In time yes. I was wrong in thinking that IQ could'nt be as good a PG as an SG, but Id still prefer putting him next to Brunson. Grimes seems better suited for 6th man, until he develops a mid-range game.
GustavBahler wrote:Caseloads wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:I know I will catch hell for this, but does IQ deserve the starting position over Brunson? I mean, IQ is the two way player. Doesn't have to be this year or next, but when looking at lineups, would IQ's added length and defense be better for the team overall? I can honestly see IQ being starting point guard on a championship Knicks team.
Would love to win a championship, with either Brunson or quick as our starting Point
Right now I believe Brunson can score under pressure from elite defenses better than IQ. In time yes. I was wrong in thinking that IQ could'nt be as good a PG as an SG, but Id still prefer putting him next to Brunson. Grimes seems better suited for 6th man, until he develops a mid-range game.
And that right there is the crux of IQ's next step: performing like he did last night against teams that have good defense and will key off on him.
GustavBahler wrote:Panos wrote:IQ should be staring at SG
Dont make me break out my "Start Quickley at SG" thread! If the FO wants to keep IQ (barring a trade) they're going to have to at some point.
Knicks offer him a good contract, 30+mins and crunch time mins. I see him being happy to stay even if featured as a 6th man. They just got to move Grimes, start Hart and give IQ all those backup PG/SG mins. As well as early 4th quarter go to touches.
KnickDanger wrote:I know the thing for many is to offload our young players and draft assets for a Lavine or even a Luka (so we can be a Chicago or Dallas I presume) but I would rather keep IQ, Grimes et al and continue drafting and acquiring young talent without emptying the cupboard. I know - no sugar rush, no drama, no fun.
Nah to Lavine. We would have to shake up the roster to make that work in terms of fit.
Wouldn't mind going after Vooch though.
newyorknewyork wrote:KnickDanger wrote:I know the thing for many is to offload our young players and draft assets for a Lavine or even a Luka (so we can be a Chicago or Dallas I presume) but I would rather keep IQ, Grimes et al and continue drafting and acquiring young talent without emptying the cupboard. I know - no sugar rush, no drama, no fun.
Nah to Lavine. We would have to shake up the roster to make that work in terms of fit.
Wouldn't mind going after Vooch though.
Whoa Vooch? What role do you envision him in?
GustavBahler wrote:KnickDanger wrote:I know the thing for many is to offload our young players and draft assets for a Lavine or even a Luka (so we can be a Chicago or Dallas I presume) but I would rather keep IQ, Grimes et al and continue drafting and acquiring young talent without emptying the cupboard. I know - no sugar rush, no drama, no fun.
If trading for arguably the best player in the league is a "thing", I hope its the thing the FO makes happen. Im not downplaying IQ's potential, but Luka has the potential to be a top 3 player all time. And he's been showing it since his rookie season. Needs to get with the right coach IMO.
If you get your wish - which includes the non-dayream of giving up vast multiple assets - then maybe we'll be as good as the Mavs. Maybe.
martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:KnickDanger wrote:I know the thing for many is to offload our young players and draft assets for a Lavine or even a Luka (so we can be a Chicago or Dallas I presume) but I would rather keep IQ, Grimes et al and continue drafting and acquiring young talent without emptying the cupboard. I know - no sugar rush, no drama, no fun.
Nah to Lavine. We would have to shake up the roster to make that work in terms of fit.
Wouldn't mind going after Vooch though.
Whoa Vooch? What role do you envision him in?
Vooch can do pretty much everything offensively, so he can fit into a variety of roles. Space the floor with his shooting, create for others as a featured guy, but doesn't need to be featured to be productive. Score at all 3 levels, double digit rebounder, hits his FTs. His defense is pretty solid as well.
KnickDanger wrote:GustavBahler wrote:KnickDanger wrote:I know the thing for many is to offload our young players and draft assets for a Lavine or even a Luka (so we can be a Chicago or Dallas I presume) but I would rather keep IQ, Grimes et al and continue drafting and acquiring young talent without emptying the cupboard. I know - no sugar rush, no drama, no fun.
If trading for arguably the best player in the league is a "thing", I hope its the thing the FO makes happen. Im not downplaying IQ's potential, but Luka has the potential to be a top 3 player all time. And he's been showing it since his rookie season. Needs to get with the right coach IMO.
If you get your wish - which includes the non-dayream of giving up vast multiple assets - then maybe we'll be as good as the Mavs. Maybe.
Getting a star to join Brunson and Luka in NY will be easier than in Dallas. Confident of that.
newyorknewyork wrote:martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:KnickDanger wrote:I know the thing for many is to offload our young players and draft assets for a Lavine or even a Luka (so we can be a Chicago or Dallas I presume) but I would rather keep IQ, Grimes et al and continue drafting and acquiring young talent without emptying the cupboard. I know - no sugar rush, no drama, no fun.
Nah to Lavine. We would have to shake up the roster to make that work in terms of fit.
Wouldn't mind going after Vooch though.
Whoa Vooch? What role do you envision him in?
Vooch can do pretty much everything offensively, so he can fit into a variety of roles. Space the floor with his shooting, create for others as a featured guy, but doesn't need to be featured to be productive. Score at all 3 levels, double digit rebounder, hits his FTs. His defense is pretty solid as well.
I was asking more about his role with the Knicks. Starter? Coming off bench for Mitch and to replace iHart (Vooch is good with bench role if his contract is OK)? Replace Mitch?
martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:KnickDanger wrote:I know the thing for many is to offload our young players and draft assets for a Lavine or even a Luka (so we can be a Chicago or Dallas I presume) but I would rather keep IQ, Grimes et al and continue drafting and acquiring young talent without emptying the cupboard. I know - no sugar rush, no drama, no fun.
Nah to Lavine. We would have to shake up the roster to make that work in terms of fit.
Wouldn't mind going after Vooch though.
Whoa Vooch? What role do you envision him in?
Vooch can do pretty much everything offensively, so he can fit into a variety of roles. Space the floor with his shooting, create for others as a featured guy, but doesn't need to be featured to be productive. Score at all 3 levels, double digit rebounder, hits his FTs. His defense is pretty solid as well.
I was asking more about his role with the Knicks. Starter? Coming off bench for Mitch and to replace iHart (Vooch is good with bench role if his contract is OK)? Replace Mitch?
He would be our best center so he would start. If Knicks added Vooch it would be because they chose him over Mitch. I'm not eager to dump Mitch so don't get me wrong. But Vooch's skill set is a fit here and adds another threat that makes everyone else even tougher to guard.
GustavBahler wrote:Panos wrote:IQ should be staring at SG
Dont make me break out my "Start Quickley at SG" thread! If the FO wants to keep IQ (barring a trade) they're going to have to at some point.
As always, not really.
And Quickley IS effectively a starter. Now the largely symbolic appearance and perception of being a "starter" may mean something to him, and fair enough. I doubt it will be enough for him to pass on a 4 or 5 year 8-figure contract for the one-year 7-figure qualifying offer, but that's not a thing until 2024-2025.
But as fans, can we get over this?
He plays starter mins. He closes games. He starts when any of the starting 1-3s doesn't. He'll PROBABLY start next year.
Right now, this isn't a thing.
Even a litte bit.
knicks won't be any better if some his starter mins are redistributed to the beginning of games.
IQ is really developing nice and perhaps in time will be a starter either here or elsewhere.
I have no issue with his statement.
He has exceeded my expectation and timeline.
As a trade asset or on court, his ascension is nothing but a positive.
He is also blocking Deuce from playing.
I have no issue when Brunson is banged up or not having a stellar night finishing with IQ if he is and gives us better defense.
At some point one might have to go. Its a good problem.
newyorknewyork wrote:martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:KnickDanger wrote:I know the thing for many is to offload our young players and draft assets for a Lavine or even a Luka (so we can be a Chicago or Dallas I presume) but I would rather keep IQ, Grimes et al and continue drafting and acquiring young talent without emptying the cupboard. I know - no sugar rush, no drama, no fun.
Nah to Lavine. We would have to shake up the roster to make that work in terms of fit.
Wouldn't mind going after Vooch though.
Whoa Vooch? What role do you envision him in?
Vooch can do pretty much everything offensively, so he can fit into a variety of roles. Space the floor with his shooting, create for others as a featured guy, but doesn't need to be featured to be productive. Score at all 3 levels, double digit rebounder, hits his FTs. His defense is pretty solid as well.
I was asking more about his role with the Knicks. Starter? Coming off bench for Mitch and to replace iHart (Vooch is good with bench role if his contract is OK)? Replace Mitch?
He would be our best center so he would start. If Knicks added Vooch it would be because they chose him over Mitch. I'm not eager to dump Mitch so don't get me wrong. But Vooch's skill set is a fit here and adds another threat that makes everyone else even tougher to guard.
Well, it would be Vooch's offensive upside versus his defensive dropoff compared to Mitch, right? Plus his salary and the cost of acquiring him while noting that he will be 33 in Oct when he would start that new 3+ year contract compared to the declining salary of a 24yo Mitch over next 3 years.
Mitch covers for guys like Brunson, Randle, and RJ in the starter rotation in my view. He REALLY compliments them that way while also not taking offensive usage away from them. Could Vooch do that or at least have the offensive upside to negate those defensive things he is not doing? I really don't know his game on the defensive side of things so maybe help me there.
Caseloads wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:I know I will catch hell for this, but does IQ deserve the starting position over Brunson? I mean, IQ is the two way player. Doesn't have to be this year or next, but when looking at lineups, would IQ's added length and defense be better for the team overall? I can honestly see IQ being starting point guard on a championship Knicks team.
Would love to win a championship, with either Brunson or quick as our starting Point
I just think they should eventually be the starting backcourt. It’s small-ish but Quickley is an elite defender with elite length.
Knixkik wrote:Caseloads wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:I know I will catch hell for this, but does IQ deserve the starting position over Brunson? I mean, IQ is the two way player. Doesn't have to be this year or next, but when looking at lineups, would IQ's added length and defense be better for the team overall? I can honestly see IQ being starting point guard on a championship Knicks team.
Would love to win a championship, with either Brunson or quick as our starting Point
I just think they should eventually be the starting backcourt. It’s small-ish but Quickley is an elite defender with elite length.
That type of backcourt would be fantastic. I would caveat this by mentioning that the one area of IQ's defense that is not in line with the rest is his ISO defense. Don't have the link in front of me but I think he (strangely) rates out as a tad below average, I think mostly because of size but not sure.
Fire Thibs or unfollow Berman? Or both for good measure?
martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:KnickDanger wrote:I know the thing for many is to offload our young players and draft assets for a Lavine or even a Luka (so we can be a Chicago or Dallas I presume) but I would rather keep IQ, Grimes et al and continue drafting and acquiring young talent without emptying the cupboard. I know - no sugar rush, no drama, no fun.
Nah to Lavine. We would have to shake up the roster to make that work in terms of fit.
Wouldn't mind going after Vooch though.
Whoa Vooch? What role do you envision him in?
Vooch can do pretty much everything offensively, so he can fit into a variety of roles. Space the floor with his shooting, create for others as a featured guy, but doesn't need to be featured to be productive. Score at all 3 levels, double digit rebounder, hits his FTs. His defense is pretty solid as well.
I was asking more about his role with the Knicks. Starter? Coming off bench for Mitch and to replace iHart (Vooch is good with bench role if his contract is OK)? Replace Mitch?
He would be our best center so he would start. If Knicks added Vooch it would be because they chose him over Mitch. I'm not eager to dump Mitch so don't get me wrong. But Vooch's skill set is a fit here and adds another threat that makes everyone else even tougher to guard.
Well, it would be Vooch's offensive upside versus his defensive dropoff compared to Mitch, right? Plus his salary and the cost of acquiring him while noting that he will be 33 in Oct when he would start that new 3+ year contract compared to the declining salary of a 24yo Mitch over next 3 years.
Mitch covers for guys like Brunson, Randle, and RJ in the starter rotation in my view. He REALLY compliments them that way while also not taking offensive usage away from them. Could Vooch do that or at least have the offensive upside to negate those defensive things he is not doing? I really don't know his game on the defensive side of things so maybe help me there.
The offensive upside and defensive drop off overall grades better. As Vooch has been a plus defender majority of his career, so not like he is a defensive liability. Don't have to worry about pulling for FTs in crunch time and shown to be more durable. Vooch is a better player than Mitch and skill for skill a better fit. Getting someone with Vooch's skill set is harder to find. Getting a rim running defensive specialist backup is easer in the grand scheme of things.
The negatives you bring up with age, contract, reduced touches, are all a factor in weighing if he should be sought after or not. But going back to my original statement. I wouldn't mind Vooch. As his value in what he brings from a skill set standpoint with this squad. Is higher than what I believe cost would be to get him, in comparison to other stars. While maintaining a very healthy war chest to add a superstar and being a team with to much fire power for teams to handle.
No doubt iq will command 25-30 mm per imho.
