Knicks · Last Chance to Change Paths? (page 4)
HofstraBBall wrote:GustavBahler wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:GustavBahler wrote:fishmike wrote:jskinny35 wrote:I know it may seem less logical to not ride Randle's improved play this year and go for the playoffs but still think this could be the last (good) opportunity to sell high on Randle and use the rest of the season to decide on IQ, Obi, Sims and even Cam. While the FO may be content making the playoffs (even if early exit) I still see this path as short-sighted to some degree.Knicks are 5th in the league in PPSIf Randle flames out in the playoffs again - there will be more pressure to move him and yet his trade value will decline again (like the last time).
If I'm wrong and he plays well we are still not realistically strong enough to beat the upper echelon teams in a 7 games series.
I'd even be open to trying to rebuild our roster with Randle but then feel strongly that Thibs has to go for it to work. I get this is an unpopular take and likely not realistic but does anyone agree with the position that something out of Randle, Thibs and RJ has to move or change for us to healthily progress to next level (even if not likely to happen)?
Exs
Trade RJ and/or Randle
Move RJ to the bench and upgrade SF position
New Coach and/or new offensive system implemented
https://www.basketball-reference.com/lea...Randle has gotten better on BOTH ends AND has shown the ability to effectively defer to better suited finisher (Brunson) and be happy about it. He's also hitting young guys like Grimes for open 3s in crunch time. Yeah lets get rid of THAT guy.
RJ... well there's an argument but he's also 22 so patience is a factor. I would move him for a better fit (OG) but that's just me
Less heroball from Randle, more rebounding. better D. Still some sloppy play in the 4th. Im guessing its nerves more than anything.
Hero ball is when guys take matters into their own hands and ignore team plays. Is it Hero ball when JB runs iso off a spread set? So why is it Hero ball when it's clear Thibs is running a spread set for Randle to post up. Can he make better reads, yes, but stop with the "hero ball" brush to paint a selfish tone.
More rebounds? We not talking about Obi. Randle just had 14 and usually leads the team.
His defensive effort has been there all year. Made some blocks this year that we did not ever see before.
These narratives are old man. Stop trying to rekindle them. We all know you are an Obi lover and can't take that your view on Randle was shortsighted.
Some of us fought you guys all summer with the BS that Randle was garbage because of yet another 20/10 year. Just because the rest of the team was crap.
The knowledgeable fans knew the relevance of not having a true PG, the consistent historical production, the physicality he exhibit every year since being drafted and the reasonable contract he has.
Fact is, Randle is a beast. He is a fighter. Tough sob. He has all the tools that makes him the best player on the court on most games. He was last night. Does he need to improve his bball IQ? Absolutely. But so does every player on the planet.
We need more players like him. Not less.500 words on heroball? Heroball is when you drive right into your defender and turn the ball over, when there are better options. Randle has done that plenty of times. If you want to spin that into it being part of Thibs plan, be my guest.
Hard to converse with someone with such an acute hypersensitivity to any criticism of a basketball player. Most of my comments in that post were positive. But you freaked out over one criticism, and wrote War and Peace.
If this is how you want to do it. Try converting someone else. Pass
Don't know if you notice but the only one that is hyper sensitive and freaks out about convos is you. Open to any point and typically post my disagreement and counterpoint. I responded to each point you made and gave my reason why I disagree with them. Also gave my OPINION that I feel you are just biased when it comes to Randle and look for any weakness to warp the narrative.
You pointing out fouls and fourth quarter TO's are just two more instances where I feel guys that don't like Randle are trying to spin Randles good year with obscure tangents. I am sure you have been reading Martin's posts showing many categories where Randle is close to the top in NBA?
It's just funny to me as a Knick fan that guys look to find the negative in their best players. Funny how some engage in a forensic breakdown to find any negative of their best player.
I mean we love the Knicks and have OBVIOUS areas that need improvement. Yet you spend all this effort trying to proof that the player having his second All Star season has weaknesses? Why?
Sure seems like you would be happier if he failed.
You did freak out, absolutely. I made my post about a player, you made it about a poster. You do it all the time. You're awful quiet though when said player is playing poorly. Crickets.
Its childish, only way to describe it Hofstra. You make these talks about hoops way too personal. You arent defending yourself from personal attacks, you're just making it personal.
GustavBahler wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:GustavBahler wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:GustavBahler wrote:fishmike wrote:jskinny35 wrote:I know it may seem less logical to not ride Randle's improved play this year and go for the playoffs but still think this could be the last (good) opportunity to sell high on Randle and use the rest of the season to decide on IQ, Obi, Sims and even Cam. While the FO may be content making the playoffs (even if early exit) I still see this path as short-sighted to some degree.Knicks are 5th in the league in PPSIf Randle flames out in the playoffs again - there will be more pressure to move him and yet his trade value will decline again (like the last time).
If I'm wrong and he plays well we are still not realistically strong enough to beat the upper echelon teams in a 7 games series.
I'd even be open to trying to rebuild our roster with Randle but then feel strongly that Thibs has to go for it to work. I get this is an unpopular take and likely not realistic but does anyone agree with the position that something out of Randle, Thibs and RJ has to move or change for us to healthily progress to next level (even if not likely to happen)?
Exs
Trade RJ and/or Randle
Move RJ to the bench and upgrade SF position
New Coach and/or new offensive system implemented
https://www.basketball-reference.com/lea...Randle has gotten better on BOTH ends AND has shown the ability to effectively defer to better suited finisher (Brunson) and be happy about it. He's also hitting young guys like Grimes for open 3s in crunch time. Yeah lets get rid of THAT guy.
RJ... well there's an argument but he's also 22 so patience is a factor. I would move him for a better fit (OG) but that's just me
Less heroball from Randle, more rebounding. better D. Still some sloppy play in the 4th. Im guessing its nerves more than anything.
Hero ball is when guys take matters into their own hands and ignore team plays. Is it Hero ball when JB runs iso off a spread set? So why is it Hero ball when it's clear Thibs is running a spread set for Randle to post up. Can he make better reads, yes, but stop with the "hero ball" brush to paint a selfish tone.
More rebounds? We not talking about Obi. Randle just had 14 and usually leads the team.
His defensive effort has been there all year. Made some blocks this year that we did not ever see before.
These narratives are old man. Stop trying to rekindle them. We all know you are an Obi lover and can't take that your view on Randle was shortsighted.
Some of us fought you guys all summer with the BS that Randle was garbage because of yet another 20/10 year. Just because the rest of the team was crap.
The knowledgeable fans knew the relevance of not having a true PG, the consistent historical production, the physicality he exhibit every year since being drafted and the reasonable contract he has.
Fact is, Randle is a beast. He is a fighter. Tough sob. He has all the tools that makes him the best player on the court on most games. He was last night. Does he need to improve his bball IQ? Absolutely. But so does every player on the planet.
We need more players like him. Not less.500 words on heroball? Heroball is when you drive right into your defender and turn the ball over, when there are better options. Randle has done that plenty of times. If you want to spin that into it being part of Thibs plan, be my guest.
Hard to converse with someone with such an acute hypersensitivity to any criticism of a basketball player. Most of my comments in that post were positive. But you freaked out over one criticism, and wrote War and Peace.
If this is how you want to do it. Try converting someone else. Pass
Don't know if you notice but the only one that is hyper sensitive and freaks out about convos is you. Open to any point and typically post my disagreement and counterpoint. I responded to each point you made and gave my reason why I disagree with them. Also gave my OPINION that I feel you are just biased when it comes to Randle and look for any weakness to warp the narrative.
You pointing out fouls and fourth quarter TO's are just two more instances where I feel guys that don't like Randle are trying to spin Randles good year with obscure tangents. I am sure you have been reading Martin's posts showing many categories where Randle is close to the top in NBA?
It's just funny to me as a Knick fan that guys look to find the negative in their best players. Funny how some engage in a forensic breakdown to find any negative of their best player.
I mean we love the Knicks and have OBVIOUS areas that need improvement. Yet you spend all this effort trying to proof that the player having his second All Star season has weaknesses? Why?
Sure seems like you would be happier if he failed.
You did freak out, absolutely. I made my post about a player, you made it about a poster. You do it all the time. You're awful quiet though when said player is playing poorly. Crickets.Its childish, only way to describe it Hofstra. You make these talks about hoops way too personal. You arent defending yourself from personal attacks, you're just making it personal.
Please point out the "making it personal" part of the "500 words" post?
Other than, what I admitted to, which was stating my opinion that you are biased and have a personal motive to put down Randle.
If I made it personal, I apologize.
Interested to find out what was?
Yet to call anyone "childish" or any other disparaging name.
It's obvious we will never agree about Randle. But. not oppose to you chiming in when I post an opinion about him. It seems to me that you do not like the same.
Have no issues keeping our convos just about hoops though. That's why we are all here.
Fyi, no crickets from me. Biggest opposer of the Randle hate this summer when everyone was regurgitating the "he had a horrible year" and "trade him for scraps" hysteria.
GustavBahler wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:GustavBahler wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:GustavBahler wrote:fishmike wrote:jskinny35 wrote:I know it may seem less logical to not ride Randle's improved play this year and go for the playoffs but still think this could be the last (good) opportunity to sell high on Randle and use the rest of the season to decide on IQ, Obi, Sims and even Cam. While the FO may be content making the playoffs (even if early exit) I still see this path as short-sighted to some degree.Knicks are 5th in the league in PPSIf Randle flames out in the playoffs again - there will be more pressure to move him and yet his trade value will decline again (like the last time).
If I'm wrong and he plays well we are still not realistically strong enough to beat the upper echelon teams in a 7 games series.
I'd even be open to trying to rebuild our roster with Randle but then feel strongly that Thibs has to go for it to work. I get this is an unpopular take and likely not realistic but does anyone agree with the position that something out of Randle, Thibs and RJ has to move or change for us to healthily progress to next level (even if not likely to happen)?
Exs
Trade RJ and/or Randle
Move RJ to the bench and upgrade SF position
New Coach and/or new offensive system implemented
https://www.basketball-reference.com/lea...Randle has gotten better on BOTH ends AND has shown the ability to effectively defer to better suited finisher (Brunson) and be happy about it. He's also hitting young guys like Grimes for open 3s in crunch time. Yeah lets get rid of THAT guy.
RJ... well there's an argument but he's also 22 so patience is a factor. I would move him for a better fit (OG) but that's just me
Less heroball from Randle, more rebounding. better D. Still some sloppy play in the 4th. Im guessing its nerves more than anything.
Hero ball is when guys take matters into their own hands and ignore team plays. Is it Hero ball when JB runs iso off a spread set? So why is it Hero ball when it's clear Thibs is running a spread set for Randle to post up. Can he make better reads, yes, but stop with the "hero ball" brush to paint a selfish tone.
More rebounds? We not talking about Obi. Randle just had 14 and usually leads the team.
His defensive effort has been there all year. Made some blocks this year that we did not ever see before.
These narratives are old man. Stop trying to rekindle them. We all know you are an Obi lover and can't take that your view on Randle was shortsighted.
Some of us fought you guys all summer with the BS that Randle was garbage because of yet another 20/10 year. Just because the rest of the team was crap.
The knowledgeable fans knew the relevance of not having a true PG, the consistent historical production, the physicality he exhibit every year since being drafted and the reasonable contract he has.
Fact is, Randle is a beast. He is a fighter. Tough sob. He has all the tools that makes him the best player on the court on most games. He was last night. Does he need to improve his bball IQ? Absolutely. But so does every player on the planet.
We need more players like him. Not less.500 words on heroball? Heroball is when you drive right into your defender and turn the ball over, when there are better options. Randle has done that plenty of times. If you want to spin that into it being part of Thibs plan, be my guest.
Hard to converse with someone with such an acute hypersensitivity to any criticism of a basketball player. Most of my comments in that post were positive. But you freaked out over one criticism, and wrote War and Peace.
If this is how you want to do it. Try converting someone else. Pass
Don't know if you notice but the only one that is hyper sensitive and freaks out about convos is you. Open to any point and typically post my disagreement and counterpoint. I responded to each point you made and gave my reason why I disagree with them. Also gave my OPINION that I feel you are just biased when it comes to Randle and look for any weakness to warp the narrative.
You pointing out fouls and fourth quarter TO's are just two more instances where I feel guys that don't like Randle are trying to spin Randles good year with obscure tangents. I am sure you have been reading Martin's posts showing many categories where Randle is close to the top in NBA?
It's just funny to me as a Knick fan that guys look to find the negative in their best players. Funny how some engage in a forensic breakdown to find any negative of their best player.
I mean we love the Knicks and have OBVIOUS areas that need improvement. Yet you spend all this effort trying to proof that the player having his second All Star season has weaknesses? Why?
Sure seems like you would be happier if he failed.
You did freak out, absolutely. I made my post about a player, you made it about a poster. You do it all the time. You're awful quiet though when said player is playing poorly. Crickets.Its childish, only way to describe it Hofstra. You make these talks about hoops way too personal. You arent defending yourself from personal attacks, you're just making it personal.
It’s hard to disagree here. And others tend to follow. Which is why u see posters getting blasted by others because of the personal over reactions. It quickly switch from basketball to personal attacks.
blkexec wrote:GustavBahler wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:GustavBahler wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:GustavBahler wrote:fishmike wrote:jskinny35 wrote:I know it may seem less logical to not ride Randle's improved play this year and go for the playoffs but still think this could be the last (good) opportunity to sell high on Randle and use the rest of the season to decide on IQ, Obi, Sims and even Cam. While the FO may be content making the playoffs (even if early exit) I still see this path as short-sighted to some degree.Knicks are 5th in the league in PPSIf Randle flames out in the playoffs again - there will be more pressure to move him and yet his trade value will decline again (like the last time).
If I'm wrong and he plays well we are still not realistically strong enough to beat the upper echelon teams in a 7 games series.
I'd even be open to trying to rebuild our roster with Randle but then feel strongly that Thibs has to go for it to work. I get this is an unpopular take and likely not realistic but does anyone agree with the position that something out of Randle, Thibs and RJ has to move or change for us to healthily progress to next level (even if not likely to happen)?
Exs
Trade RJ and/or Randle
Move RJ to the bench and upgrade SF position
New Coach and/or new offensive system implemented
https://www.basketball-reference.com/lea...Randle has gotten better on BOTH ends AND has shown the ability to effectively defer to better suited finisher (Brunson) and be happy about it. He's also hitting young guys like Grimes for open 3s in crunch time. Yeah lets get rid of THAT guy.
RJ... well there's an argument but he's also 22 so patience is a factor. I would move him for a better fit (OG) but that's just me
Less heroball from Randle, more rebounding. better D. Still some sloppy play in the 4th. Im guessing its nerves more than anything.
Hero ball is when guys take matters into their own hands and ignore team plays. Is it Hero ball when JB runs iso off a spread set? So why is it Hero ball when it's clear Thibs is running a spread set for Randle to post up. Can he make better reads, yes, but stop with the "hero ball" brush to paint a selfish tone.
More rebounds? We not talking about Obi. Randle just had 14 and usually leads the team.
His defensive effort has been there all year. Made some blocks this year that we did not ever see before.
These narratives are old man. Stop trying to rekindle them. We all know you are an Obi lover and can't take that your view on Randle was shortsighted.
Some of us fought you guys all summer with the BS that Randle was garbage because of yet another 20/10 year. Just because the rest of the team was crap.
The knowledgeable fans knew the relevance of not having a true PG, the consistent historical production, the physicality he exhibit every year since being drafted and the reasonable contract he has.
Fact is, Randle is a beast. He is a fighter. Tough sob. He has all the tools that makes him the best player on the court on most games. He was last night. Does he need to improve his bball IQ? Absolutely. But so does every player on the planet.
We need more players like him. Not less.500 words on heroball? Heroball is when you drive right into your defender and turn the ball over, when there are better options. Randle has done that plenty of times. If you want to spin that into it being part of Thibs plan, be my guest.
Hard to converse with someone with such an acute hypersensitivity to any criticism of a basketball player. Most of my comments in that post were positive. But you freaked out over one criticism, and wrote War and Peace.
If this is how you want to do it. Try converting someone else. Pass
Don't know if you notice but the only one that is hyper sensitive and freaks out about convos is you. Open to any point and typically post my disagreement and counterpoint. I responded to each point you made and gave my reason why I disagree with them. Also gave my OPINION that I feel you are just biased when it comes to Randle and look for any weakness to warp the narrative.
You pointing out fouls and fourth quarter TO's are just two more instances where I feel guys that don't like Randle are trying to spin Randles good year with obscure tangents. I am sure you have been reading Martin's posts showing many categories where Randle is close to the top in NBA?
It's just funny to me as a Knick fan that guys look to find the negative in their best players. Funny how some engage in a forensic breakdown to find any negative of their best player.
I mean we love the Knicks and have OBVIOUS areas that need improvement. Yet you spend all this effort trying to proof that the player having his second All Star season has weaknesses? Why?
Sure seems like you would be happier if he failed.
You did freak out, absolutely. I made my post about a player, you made it about a poster. You do it all the time. You're awful quiet though when said player is playing poorly. Crickets.Its childish, only way to describe it Hofstra. You make these talks about hoops way too personal. You arent defending yourself from personal attacks, you're just making it personal.
It’s hard to disagree here. And others tend to follow. Which is why u see posters getting blasted by others because of the personal over reactions. It quickly switch from basketball to personal attacks.
Have seen you claim this a few other times. Yet to see what specifically you call personal attacks?
More often the not, I just see some fiercely disagree with your points and calling out possible bias.
If you don’t like me calling out the dump/fire/I hate the pick crowd then fine. I don’t like your opinion either. But let’s keep an eye on our blood pressure.
And that goes for me as well.
HofstraBBall wrote:jskinny35 wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:jskinny35 wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:jskinny35 wrote:I don't think Luka is realistic and actually think we are better served to try to land a higher level star via the draft or overpay for an up and coming young player with high potential (eg Anfernee Simmons). I do think Randle will fall back to somewhere in between this year and last years stats and just don't believe he has what it takes to lead us as a primary guy. Not his fault as he's in a higher role then he should be in...I don't think we get that higher level player without either gutting our bench and draft picks or selling high on Randle who should be able to command at least 1 first round pick (unprotected) if he's as amazing as many here believe he is. So it comes down to how we each believe we can get there.
I would take our pick, add Dallas pick and a 1st we land from trading Randle - and move up to an 8-9 position as this draft seems loaded. Risk is there either way IMO.
I would rather keep more picks, IQ, Toppin and possibly Grimes vs keeping Randle to upgrade. I believe IQ has developed nicely and could become a starter in time. I'm not as high on Toppin lately but also believe we have done very little to put him in a position to serve his strengths... we play slow, ask him to stand in the corner and shoot 3s like K. Korver, etc... not sure we really know what we have in him. Grimes seems like a perfect plug and play 2/3 - just needs time to develop. RJ doesn't seem to have good chemistry with Randle and I stick with the youth and believe RJ can be similarly productive in a similar role.
I'll admit my bias against Randle is partially Thibs offensive scheme and role he assigned Randle to... but that combined with Randle's iso-ball, slow tempo/pace, overhandling and feast or famine shooting does not make me want to hitch our wagon to his long-term. He deserves a lot of credit for improving his effort and overall play this year - but fear a repeat of 2 seasons ago with less options the more we build around him.
Simmons huh. Guess we would develop him into an All Star and then sell high?
You think Randle will fall back back between 24ppg and 20? 10rpg and 11? What a shame.
The Ole "he is not a primary guy"? He was last night. He has been most of the two out of the last three years. And do you think Randle should win a chip by himself. Yet Nets, with two of the best players on the planet have yet to do so? What a concept. Of course he can't be a primary on a chip team but what does that have to do with needing to trade him? You do know you need good players on a team besides the primary guy right? Who is that going to be? Obi, Deuce, some guy you can't say who? Here is an idea, let's keep the guys like Randle, JB and RJ who can actually play and produce and get another two more that can also produce at similar levels. Trade the one dimensional guys like Obi, who has not done what a 8 pick should do along with other obvious weak links who have many more weaknesses then the ones mentioned for Randle. ie, Rose, Cam, EF, Deuce.
Btw, you think we would only get a first for Randle? And trading him would only move us a few spots in draft? LMAO. You have no concept of current market value.
Smells like the bias you mention is a cover for the actual bias which seems to be preferring a guy who is underachieving and has yet to produce over a proven alpha.Not if he is more of a building block. His stats are good but only a part of what we as fans should be looking at. He has not been a primary guy as he has not been at the level of primary guys (eg Lebrons, KD)... so an easier path to get an alpha/star is to package one of your best player (with picks) to upgrade. Last season other teams would laugh as they hung up the phone. This season he is playing much better and we have lots of picks - so not sure why that is so unreasonable...especially if you think he is worth multiple first round picks right?
I will admit I don't know his actual value. I tried to get the forum perspective on here awhile back and there was no consensus. I heard everything from maybe a protected first to a similar player and a heavily protected pick. When his value was lower in the past offseason it was suggested by many that we would have had to attach a pick just to trade him. Obviously it's much better now - so what do you think it is? My bias was stated and I think (to his credit) he has overachieved. If we had this same conversation last season or two seasons before would you be this adamant that he is untouchable? Simply because he's our best player does not mean that to me. I side with RJ vs Randle most of the time but he's not untouchable either - nobody is if it's about the team IMO. So we can agree to disagree...
Are you saying there was anyone pragmatic on this planet that expected to get LBJ or KD type production when we signed JR to his extension? Several unrealistic fans with little knowledge may have and were the ones whining that he was not that last year.
Untouchable? Don't think anyone here would say he is untouchable.
Have always been adamant (4 years)that he is a solid producer, necessary physical PF, excellent rebounder and reasonably contracted.
Trading him for a top 10? Sure. Which one of the many available do you suggest?
Trading him for a first seemed to be your suggestion. Pretty bad one imo
One that not one GM would consider giving up Randle for.
When you say you don't know his value but claim his value,in the off-season was low, is that first hand knowledge? Or blog/forum information from the many expert Randle haters on UK? ?Not sure where this comment in bold above comes from? I have no issue/problem with JR's production/stats - they are very good this year. Can you at least try to stick to the debate and what points are made?
His value was lower this previous offseason because he didn't play very well last year. I don't think that's really an opinion - as he clearly is playing better this season.
I don't have to suggest and identify the exact player (in the top 10) to trade him for to say I think we should sell high... you can't play both sides of the coin. And you never answered the question - what do you perceive his value to be currently? If it is 2 1st rounders how come there are no rumors abound? Last season I'm assuming there were no rumors because nobody else wanted to touch him.
Btw, I would love to get 2 first rounders or more - I said only 1 because I didn't believe any team would give us more. I'd be happy to be wrong on that. Last season I heard back from many on this forum that interest was low unless we attached a pick or traded him as a straight salary dump. Those that love Randle say we shouldn't trade him last season because his value was too low (understood and could agree). Now the same people say he's playing too unbelievably well and we can't seriously consider trading him now. When things finally level off and he finds a middle ground - will there be an option to trade him at that point?
It's sure sounding like when you love a player there is too much bias/emotions to consider alternative positions. Prove me wrong - what's his value and when would you be open to moving him? We've had 4 seasons of the entire spectrum of JR - he's basically played either very well or very poorly. I don't want to hear about last season's numbers being so great and irreplaceable. You give most players 34-36 minutes with a decent work ethic (which he has) and they will produce. Difference is this year he is much more efficient (Brunson has helped for sure). I acknowledged my bias against Randle and his play style... but would trade any player on the Knicks if it seemed that it would improve our team.
What is his value? I would sound just as bad as you do claiming I would know that.
Value is usually what someone is willing to pay. Many were shocked when Utah received what they did for Gobert.
You suggested one first. I disagrees. That is nowhere near what other deals have shown market value to be. OG is rumored to need a young piece and up to three ones to be traded.Your argument keeps ignoring a basic questions. Who/what/why would a professional FO trade a consistent producer who is on the verge of getting a second All Star bid, reasonably priced and is still young? I mean we can keep talking about make belief and imaginary scenarios but why?
If you are trying to insinuate that I or anyone on here would not trade Randle for a true number one, that is not close to anything that has been posted on the forum.
Imo, your bias is more than the type of player Randle is. You claim that loving a player clouds ones judgement. Agree. But so does disliking a player.
Well I asked you what you perceive his value to be since you made all these comments about 1 pick even after I explained that I was being conservative after previously polling the UK board awhile back.
A FO would trade a consistent producing player because he's only been producing consistently well this season - and they are unsure he will continue to do so. They would have doubt based on last season's and his first season's poor play. They would consider a trade if they are unsure if a 9 year veteran would be likely to adapt and adjust his play style enough (eg sharing the ball more). They would consider if this veteran player has finally matured (eg no outbursts like last season) or if he's just managing better because he's playing well so far this season. A good FO would see his entire body of work and not focus solely on the current play - as best predictor of future behavior is often the past behavior. And at the end of all this they would say regardless of numbers and improved play - do we think JR can either a) lead us to become a top tier team or b) if not and we need to upgrade - would JR's trade value be higher and easier to move in an effort to upgrade to a higher level of player.
I did not insinuate what you would do - but was trying to get you to declare what you think his worth is since it seems like many supporters play both sides of the fence in regards to his value. You responded critically about 1 #1 draft pick which I stated - can you at least state what you think it is? Your responses come across as pretty intense at times - so it leads me to believe you can't fathom my idea of trading him (which is fine). So if JR is worth 3 first rounders vs 1 first rounder that would make a potential trade situation very different. That is why I am asking you for your take.
My bias is centered around him playing iso-ball and not having the court vision or any exceptional skill to justify handling the ball as much as he does. Thibs shares much of this critique/opinion since he put JR in this role and rarely holds him accountable to to the level needed to help him reduce his defaults (to iso and hold the ball).
I admire and respect his effort, rebounding and believe he has overachieved. He has raised his ceiling higher then I thought it could go to his credit. I do not trust his decision-making, see him as feast or famine much of the time offensively - and too easy/predictable to guard due to his play style. He's good enough to make you respectable and can beat lesser teams most of the time. He is exposed when we face better teams (eg Nets, Bucks) with team-oriented defenses and requires a perfect roster fit to negate his shortcummings. My bias includes sharing the ball so really not a fan of Randle and RJ's play this season - that is more of a Thibs issue though.
So there are my known biases. I would be open to not moving Randle but believe strongly that him or Thibs needs a change as our offense is middle of the road with a low ceiling. If we parted with Thibs and played semi up tempo I'd be open to seeing how Randle responds... but after watching him for 4 seasons we have a situation where Randle's default is to play slow, hold the ball, struggle when doubled and act out periodically when things get tough. Yes he's shooting better and making better decisions overall this year. I do think a coach holding him accountable could do wonders but see JR and Thibs sticking (or going down) together.
jskinny35 wrote:
Well I asked you what you perceive his value to be since you made all these comments about 1 pick even after I explained that I was being conservative after previously polling the UK board awhile back.A FO would trade a consistent producing player because he's only been producing consistently well this season - and they are unsure he will continue to do so. They would have doubt based on last season's and his first season's poor play. They would consider a trade if they are unsure if a 9 year veteran would be likely to adapt and adjust his play style enough (eg sharing the ball more). They would consider if this veteran player has finally matured (eg no outbursts like last season) or if he's just managing better because he's playing well so far this season. A good FO would see his entire body of work and not focus solely on the current play - as best predictor of future behavior is often the past behavior. And at the end of all this they would say regardless of numbers and improved play - do we think JR can either a) lead us to become a top tier team or b) if not and we need to upgrade - would JR's trade value be higher and easier to move in an effort to upgrade to a higher level of player.
I did not insinuate what you would do - but was trying to get you to declare what you think his worth is since it seems like many supporters play both sides of the fence in regards to his value. You responded critically about 1 #1 draft pick which I stated - can you at least state what you think it is? Your responses come across as pretty intense at times - so it leads me to believe you can't fathom my idea of trading him (which is fine). So if JR is worth 3 first rounders vs 1 first rounder that would make a potential trade situation very different. That is why I am asking you for your take.
My bias is centered around him playing iso-ball and not having the court vision or any exceptional skill to justify handling the ball as much as he does. Thibs shares much of this critique/opinion since he put JR in this role and rarely holds him accountable to to the level needed to help him reduce his defaults (to iso and hold the ball).
I admire and respect his effort, rebounding and believe he has overachieved. He has raised his ceiling higher then I thought it could go to his credit. I do not trust his decision-making, see him as feast or famine much of the time offensively - and too easy/predictable to guard due to his play style. He's good enough to make you respectable and can beat lesser teams most of the time. He is exposed when we face better teams (eg Nets, Bucks) with team-oriented defenses and requires a perfect roster fit to negate his shortcummings. My bias includes sharing the ball so really not a fan of Randle and RJ's play this season - that is more of a Thibs issue though.
So there are my known biases. I would be open to not moving Randle but believe strongly that him or Thibs needs a change as our offense is middle of the road with a low ceiling. If we parted with Thibs and played semi up tempo I'd be open to seeing how Randle responds... but after watching him for 4 seasons we have a situation where Randle's default is to play slow, hold the ball, struggle when doubled and act out periodically when things get tough. Yes he's shooting better and making better decisions overall this year. I do think a coach holding him accountable could do wonders but see JR and Thibs sticking (or going down) together.
I think you are looking for improvement in the wrong way. The biggest issue I had going into the season was the long term fit between Robinson and Randle. Those two have led the Knicks in win shares the past 4 seasons yet they're 2 man net ratings were always low or negative.
Season Minutes Net Rating/ 100 possessions (from basketball-reference.com)
19-20 703 +.4
20-21 742 - 1.2
21-22 1403 -3.6
22-23 942 + 9
I think looking at individual numbers only gets you so far. The real key is how players complement each other. The Nets game broadcast mentioned that Randle and Robinson worked out together for a week over the summer. It seems really dangerous to trade either of them now when they have shown such improved chemistry this season. Randle and Hart or Sims have really strong negative ratings so this isn't about Randle playing better this year as much as Randle and Robinson playing better together.
This passes the eye test as well. It seems like Randle has gotten a lot closer to the hoop this season, likely because of the attention that Robinson draws and also Randle can play tighter perimeter defense knowing Mitch Rob has his back.
Regarding 'consistency' theringer.com had a good article comparing NBA stars best and worst games. There's a very, very small group of players who basically never have bad games- Steph Dominican Embiid KD and Jokic. Every other top player has pretty significant splits. What I'm saying is, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
jskinny35 wrote:
Well I asked you what you perceive his value to be since you made all these comments about 1 pick even after I explained that I was being conservative after previously polling the UK board awhile back.A FO would trade a consistent producing player because he's only been producing consistently well this season - and they are unsure he will continue to do so. They would have doubt based on last season's and his first season's poor play. They would consider a trade if they are unsure if a 9 year veteran would be likely to adapt and adjust his play style enough (eg sharing the ball more). They would consider if this veteran player has finally matured (eg no outbursts like last season) or if he's just managing better because he's playing well so far this season. A good FO would see his entire body of work and not focus solely on the current play - as best predictor of future behavior is often the past behavior. And at the end of all this they would say regardless of numbers and improved play - do we think JR can either a) lead us to become a top tier team or b) if not and we need to upgrade - would JR's trade value be higher and easier to move in an effort to upgrade to a higher level of player.
I did not insinuate what you would do - but was trying to get you to declare what you think his worth is since it seems like many supporters play both sides of the fence in regards to his value. You responded critically about 1 #1 draft pick which I stated - can you at least state what you think it is? Your responses come across as pretty intense at times - so it leads me to believe you can't fathom my idea of trading him (which is fine). So if JR is worth 3 first rounders vs 1 first rounder that would make a potential trade situation very different. That is why I am asking you for your take.
My bias is centered around him playing iso-ball and not having the court vision or any exceptional skill to justify handling the ball as much as he does. Thibs shares much of this critique/opinion since he put JR in this role and rarely holds him accountable to to the level needed to help him reduce his defaults (to iso and hold the ball).
I admire and respect his effort, rebounding and believe he has overachieved. He has raised his ceiling higher then I thought it could go to his credit. I do not trust his decision-making, see him as feast or famine much of the time offensively - and too easy/predictable to guard due to his play style. He's good enough to make you respectable and can beat lesser teams most of the time. He is exposed when we face better teams (eg Nets, Bucks) with team-oriented defenses and requires a perfect roster fit to negate his shortcummings. My bias includes sharing the ball so really not a fan of Randle and RJ's play this season - that is more of a Thibs issue though.
So there are my known biases. I would be open to not moving Randle but believe strongly that him or Thibs needs a change as our offense is middle of the road with a low ceiling. If we parted with Thibs and played semi up tempo I'd be open to seeing how Randle responds... but after watching him for 4 seasons we have a situation where Randle's default is to play slow, hold the ball, struggle when doubled and act out periodically when things get tough. Yes he's shooting better and making better decisions overall this year. I do think a coach holding him accountable could do wonders but see JR and Thibs sticking (or going down) together.
"Let's try to stay on subject" lmao
The subject is the same as every fourth thread and every other thread where Randle detractors need to take over and mention their personal biases vs our best player. But I'll play. Again.
You said his value was 1 first. I mentioned you had no concept of current market conditions or acknowledged how how well he is playing. Judging by OG rumored to be in the ball park of 3 picks, that would be a good comp.
Everything you feel a front office would do in terms of Randle is based on your bias. Which was my point. Just take a look at most of your reasoning and explanations above.
A true professional FO, which we have, will not consider a player who plays at an All Star level 2 out of 4 contract years as "inconsistent". Nor will they consider a career per 36 20/10 player inconsistent. which he did those years you and other detractors as "bad". They also don't factor in how JSkinny and other fans prefers Randle to play like. You also keep dodging my questions. Mainly, who are we trading him for? Are you trading an All Star just for picks? Why? We rebuilding? If so, why trade just Randle? Also disagree with you that we should trade Randle just because he will not be the next LBJ? That rational points to trading everyone as well. But again, I am all for getting an LBJ type for Randle. Who is he?
Look, this is the same convo as every other Randle convo in the last year. Admire you for having the same gusto despite Randle proving you completely wrong. Respect "a couple" guys on here, who wanted Randle traded for scraps, this summer. and admitted they were wrong. Many others egos can't let them do the same.
My points with you on Randle were:
1. Not worth just one first.
2. People that mention trades never have an actual scenario. Luka is not that.
3. Randle detractors focus on their own personal reasons and ignore production when it comes to Randle. And yes, this includes wanting him to be their idea of perfect.
HofstraBBall wrote:jskinny35 wrote:
Well I asked you what you perceive his value to be since you made all these comments about 1 pick even after I explained that I was being conservative after previously polling the UK board awhile back.A FO would trade a consistent producing player because he's only been producing consistently well this season - and they are unsure he will continue to do so. They would have doubt based on last season's and his first season's poor play. They would consider a trade if they are unsure if a 9 year veteran would be likely to adapt and adjust his play style enough (eg sharing the ball more). They would consider if this veteran player has finally matured (eg no outbursts like last season) or if he's just managing better because he's playing well so far this season. A good FO would see his entire body of work and not focus solely on the current play - as best predictor of future behavior is often the past behavior. And at the end of all this they would say regardless of numbers and improved play - do we think JR can either a) lead us to become a top tier team or b) if not and we need to upgrade - would JR's trade value be higher and easier to move in an effort to upgrade to a higher level of player.
I did not insinuate what you would do - but was trying to get you to declare what you think his worth is since it seems like many supporters play both sides of the fence in regards to his value. You responded critically about 1 #1 draft pick which I stated - can you at least state what you think it is? Your responses come across as pretty intense at times - so it leads me to believe you can't fathom my idea of trading him (which is fine). So if JR is worth 3 first rounders vs 1 first rounder that would make a potential trade situation very different. That is why I am asking you for your take.
My bias is centered around him playing iso-ball and not having the court vision or any exceptional skill to justify handling the ball as much as he does. Thibs shares much of this critique/opinion since he put JR in this role and rarely holds him accountable to to the level needed to help him reduce his defaults (to iso and hold the ball).
I admire and respect his effort, rebounding and believe he has overachieved. He has raised his ceiling higher then I thought it could go to his credit. I do not trust his decision-making, see him as feast or famine much of the time offensively - and too easy/predictable to guard due to his play style. He's good enough to make you respectable and can beat lesser teams most of the time. He is exposed when we face better teams (eg Nets, Bucks) with team-oriented defenses and requires a perfect roster fit to negate his shortcummings. My bias includes sharing the ball so really not a fan of Randle and RJ's play this season - that is more of a Thibs issue though.
So there are my known biases. I would be open to not moving Randle but believe strongly that him or Thibs needs a change as our offense is middle of the road with a low ceiling. If we parted with Thibs and played semi up tempo I'd be open to seeing how Randle responds... but after watching him for 4 seasons we have a situation where Randle's default is to play slow, hold the ball, struggle when doubled and act out periodically when things get tough. Yes he's shooting better and making better decisions overall this year. I do think a coach holding him accountable could do wonders but see JR and Thibs sticking (or going down) together.
"Let's try to stay on subject" lmao
The subject is the same as every fourth thread and every other thread where Randle detractors need to take over and mention their personal biases vs our best player. But I'll play. Again.You said his value was 1 first. I mentioned you had no concept of current market conditions or acknowledged how how well he is playing. Judging by OG rumored to be in the ball park of 3 picks, that would be a good comp.
Everything you feel a front office would do in terms of Randle is based on your bias. Which was my point. Just take a look at most of your reasoning and explanations above.
A true professional FO, which we have, will not consider a player who plays at an All Star level 2 out of 4 contract years as "inconsistent". Nor will they consider a career per 36 20/10 player inconsistent. which he did those years you and other detractors as "bad". They also don't factor in how JSkinny and other fans prefers Randle to play like. You also keep dodging my questions. Mainly, who are we trading him for? Are you trading an All Star just for picks? Why? We rebuilding? If so, why trade just Randle? Also disagree with you that we should trade Randle just because he will not be the next LBJ? That rational points to trading everyone as well. But again, I am all for getting an LBJ type for Randle. Who is he?Look, this is the same convo as every other Randle convo in the last year. Admire you for having the same gusto despite Randle proving you completely wrong. Respect "a couple" guys on here, who wanted Randle traded for scraps, this summer. and admitted they were wrong. Many others egos can't let them do the same.
My points with you on Randle were:
1. Not worth just one first.
2. People that mention trades never have an actual scenario. Luka is not that.
3. Randle detractors focus on their own personal reasons and ignore production when it comes to Randle. And yes, this includes wanting him to be their idea of perfect.
So I write my reasons why a good FO would consider moving a productive player and you come back with "how JSkinny and other fans prefers Randle to play like"? You really don't have to make things personal when they don't need to be. As for your other reasons I mostly see them differently. I do believe at least some in the FO organization weren't so keen on JR at the end of last season but prob couldn't argue much because his value was pretty low (vs now). If you truly believe we could get 3 1st rounders for Randle and still seem so incensed that I present an alternative view/argument on how to upgrade (if he actually has anywhere near that value)...not sure what to think about that?
I believe his value is likely somewhere in between our two views. I also wonder if other teams really see his value the same way as nobody seems to be calling now (when he's super productive) or even after his All-Star season before. I think more posters here would at least consider obtaining 3 first rounders if poss without acting like that would be pointless when we are an average team. I think the truth on Randle is likely in the middle and that's why there are so many polarizing perspectives.
I did present actual scenarios for the better part of the last 3 seasons - they included Lauri M (when on Bulls), to GS for young players and picks 2 seasons ago, lateral move for J. Collins (when Randle's value was low/attitude poor at end of last season), etc... it's fine if you didn't agree or like any of them.
Rebuilding? Depends on the move/players but if you believe you're good but not good enough - then all options should be on the table to get us down the right path IMO. When I see how easily an injury-riddled Nets team handles us it just reaffirms that no one on our team is good enough to not consider any available option to improve. If there is a move to retool I would do it but just don't think adding a G. Allen or Bullock or supporting defensive shooter will do that much in the big picture.
Eventually Randle or RJ (or both) will be moved IMO.
Time will tell
So I write my reasons why a good FO would consider moving a productive player and you come back with "how JSkinny and other fans prefers Randle to play like"? You really don't have to make things personal when they don't need to be.
How is it personal by saying that a professional FO does not care about what YOU or any fan thinks a player should play like? They only care about a players production, contract, fit and how they contribute to winning.
I do believe at least some in the FO organization weren't so keen on JR at the end of last season but prob couldn't argue much because his value was pretty low (vs now). Disagree. That is what YOU believe. A professional FO is not going to trade a recent All Star who still had close to 20/10 despite not having a true PG and who they recently extended. They did what they did and added Brunson. They were smart. Can you confirm the FO was looking to trade him?
If you truly believe we could get 3 1st rounders for Randle and still seem so incensed that I present an alternative view/argument on how to upgrade (if he actually has anywhere near that value)...not sure what to think about that? Think that not everyone thinks like you. One who is biased about Randle's true value. So we trade Randle for 3 firsts then what? Get someone like OG? who is due a pay raise and is not as good as a player? Trade for Luka with those picks? We have a crap load of picks. Who besides DM did we have a chance to get?
I believe his value is likely somewhere in between our two views. I also wonder if other teams really see his value the same way as nobody seems to be calling now (when he's super productive) or even after his All-Star season before. I think more posters here would at least consider obtaining 3 first rounders if poss without acting like that would be pointless when we are an average team. I think the truth on Randle is likely in the middle and that's why there are so many polarizing perspectives. Why would I argue true value with someone who has an admitted bias to Randle? Of course you can't comprehend that he may have more value to us.
I did present actual scenarios for the better part of the last 3 seasons - they included Lauri M (when on Bulls), to GS for young players and picks 2 seasons ago, lateral move for J. Collins (when Randle's value was low/attitude poor at end of last season), etc... it's fine if you didn't agree or like any of them. Bulls gave up on Lauri. Claimed he was soft and one dimensional. Cavs gave up on him to get a true superstar. But you are claiming Knicks should have traded their best player for him. One who was having an All Start season? You saying we could have traded Randle for him is typical retrospective management. https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/grading-bulls-lauri-markkanen-sign-and-trade-cavs-blazers#:~:text=Bulls%20make%20out%20like%20bandits%20in%20Markkanen%20sign%2Dand%2Dtrade&text=Friday%20morning%2C%20the%20Bulls%2C%20Cavaliers,Larry%20Nance%20Jr.%20to%20Portland. You wanting Collins for Randle further proves my point.
Rebuilding? Depends on the move/players but if you believe you're good but not good enough - then all options should be on the table to get us down the right path IMO. When I see how easily an injury-riddled Nets team handles us it just reaffirms that no one on our team is good enough to not consider any available option to improve. If there is a move to retool I would do it but just don't think adding a G. Allen or Bullock or supporting defensive shooter will do that much in the big picture. You keep saying the same thing despite what I am writing. I am open to anything that makes us better. NO ONE is untradeable. What is frustrating is guys not taking into account the obvious parts of a trade. It's not just trade this guy because I don't like the way he plays. There are many aspects. First and foremost, what do we get in return. No move makes sense if it puts us in a worse position financially, restricts future moves or we do not replace the traded production.
Eventually Randle or RJ (or both) will be moved IMO.
Probably. Hopefully its for better assets.
HofstraBBall wrote:@JskinnySo I write my reasons why a good FO would consider moving a productive player and you come back with "how JSkinny and other fans prefers Randle to play like"? You really don't have to make things personal when they don't need to be.
How is it personal by saying that a professional FO does not care about what YOU or any fan thinks a player should play like? They only care about a players production, contract, fit and how they contribute to winning.I do believe at least some in the FO organization weren't so keen on JR at the end of last season but prob couldn't argue much because his value was pretty low (vs now). Disagree. That is what YOU believe. A professional FO is not going to trade a recent All Star who still had close to 20/10 despite not having a true PG and who they recently extended. They did what they did and added Brunson. They were smart. Can you confirm the FO was looking to trade him?
If you truly believe we could get 3 1st rounders for Randle and still seem so incensed that I present an alternative view/argument on how to upgrade (if he actually has anywhere near that value)...not sure what to think about that? Think that not everyone thinks like you. One who is biased about Randle's true value. So we trade Randle for 3 firsts then what? Get someone like OG? who is due a pay raise and is not as good as a player? Trade for Luka with those picks? We have a crap load of picks. Who besides DM did we have a chance to get?
I believe his value is likely somewhere in between our two views. I also wonder if other teams really see his value the same way as nobody seems to be calling now (when he's super productive) or even after his All-Star season before. I think more posters here would at least consider obtaining 3 first rounders if poss without acting like that would be pointless when we are an average team. I think the truth on Randle is likely in the middle and that's why there are so many polarizing perspectives. Why would I argue true value with someone who has an admitted bias to Randle? Of course you can't comprehend that he may have more value to us.
I did present actual scenarios for the better part of the last 3 seasons - they included Lauri M (when on Bulls), to GS for young players and picks 2 seasons ago, lateral move for J. Collins (when Randle's value was low/attitude poor at end of last season), etc... it's fine if you didn't agree or like any of them. Bulls gave up on Lauri. Claimed he was soft and one dimensional. Cavs gave up on him to get a true superstar. But you are claiming Knicks should have traded their best player for him. One who was having an All Start season? You saying we could have traded Randle for him is typical retrospective management. https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/grading-bulls-lauri-markkanen-sign-and-trade-cavs-blazers#:~:text=Bulls%20make%20out%20like%20bandits%20in%20Markkanen%20sign%2Dand%2Dtrade&text=Friday%20morning%2C%20the%20Bulls%2C%20Cavaliers,Larry%20Nance%20Jr.%20to%20Portland. You wanting Collins for Randle further proves my point.
Rebuilding? Depends on the move/players but if you believe you're good but not good enough - then all options should be on the table to get us down the right path IMO. When I see how easily an injury-riddled Nets team handles us it just reaffirms that no one on our team is good enough to not consider any available option to improve. If there is a move to retool I would do it but just don't think adding a G. Allen or Bullock or supporting defensive shooter will do that much in the big picture. You keep saying the same thing despite what I am writing. I am open to anything that makes us better. NO ONE is untradeable. What is frustrating is guys not taking into account the obvious parts of a trade. It's not just trade this guy because I don't like the way he plays. There are many aspects. First and foremost, what do we get in return. No move makes sense if it puts us in a worse position financially, restricts future moves or we do not replace the traded production.
Eventually Randle or RJ (or both) will be moved IMO.
Probably. Hopefully its for better assets.
HofstraBBall wrote:@JskinnySo I write my reasons why a good FO would consider moving a productive player and you come back with "how JSkinny and other fans prefers Randle to play like"? You really don't have to make things personal when they don't need to be.
How is it personal by saying that a professional FO does not care about what YOU or any fan thinks a player should play like? They only care about a players production, contract, fit and how they contribute to winning.You asked why would our FO consider trading Randle. I write back why I think they would - listing my reasons - "A FO would trade a consistent producing player because he's only been producing consistently well this season - and they are unsure he will continue to do so. They would have doubt based on last season's and his first season's poor play. They would consider a trade if they are unsure if a 9 year veteran would be likely to adapt and adjust his play style enough (eg sharing the ball more). They would consider if this veteran player has finally matured (eg no outbursts like last season) or if he's just managing better because he's playing well so far this season. A good FO would see his entire body of work and not focus solely on the current play - as best predictor of future behavior is often the past behavior. And at the end of all this they would say regardless of numbers and improved play - do we think JR can either a) lead us to become a top tier team or b) if not and we need to upgrade - would JR's trade value be higher and easier to move in an effort to upgrade to a higher level of player."
You write back about the FO not caring about fans and use my handle. Where does this come from instead of responding to what I wrote? You could have simply refuted what I wrote about why I think the FO would consider it. You chose not to.
I do believe at least some in the FO organization weren't so keen on JR at the end of last season but prob couldn't argue much because his value was pretty low (vs now). Disagree. That is what YOU believe. A professional FO is not going to trade a recent All Star who still had close to 20/10 despite not having a true PG and who they recently extended. They did what they did and added Brunson. They were smart. Can you confirm the FO was looking to trade him?
This is what I believe based on what I read and heard - per Ian Begley. There are many cooks in the FO at NY and there were reports that some (not all or a consensus) in the FO were doubting Randle and his future at the end of last season. Begley also said it was doubtful they would trade him then because it would be selling at a low point.
If you truly believe we could get 3 1st rounders for Randle and still seem so incensed that I present an alternative view/argument on how to upgrade (if he actually has anywhere near that value)...not sure what to think about that? Think that not everyone thinks like you. One who is biased about Randle's true value. So we trade Randle for 3 firsts then what? Get someone like OG? who is due a pay raise and is not as good as a player? Trade for Luka with those picks? We have a crap load of picks. Who besides DM did we have a chance to get?
Sure - don't think everyone thinks like me. This is a board to express our views. I am biased... as are you it seems. Pretty sure bias is everywhere if you really think about it. So does having a bias mean I shouldn't express my perspectives? Pretty sure that would eliminate most of the board. You fast forward by saying for OG as an example - as if I have to present the entire plan. I don't and never said anything about OG so it's confusing when you keep adding things that were not said. So to be clear - if Randle could net us 3 1st round picks I would do it in a heartbeat. What comes next could be a retooling by using that pick for another player deemed better for us. It could be a rebuild of sorts by using it on draft night to upgrade. Either way I think it gives us more opportunity. You don't have to agree with this but please stop with adding your hypotheticals (see bolded above).
I believe his value is likely somewhere in between our two views. I also wonder if other teams really see his value the same way as nobody seems to be calling now (when he's super productive) or even after his All-Star season before. I think more posters here would at least consider obtaining 3 first rounders if poss without acting like that would be pointless when we are an average team. I think the truth on Randle is likely in the middle and that's why there are so many polarizing perspectives. Why would I argue true value with someone who has an admitted bias to Randle? Of course you can't comprehend that he may have more value to us.
Umm.. because everyone has a bias and it doesn't mean having bias = ideas won't work.
I did present actual scenarios for the better part of the last 3 seasons - they included Lauri M (when on Bulls), to GS for young players and picks 2 seasons ago, lateral move for J. Collins (when Randle's value was low/attitude poor at end of last season), etc... it's fine if you didn't agree or like any of them. Bulls gave up on Lauri. Claimed he was soft and one dimensional. Cavs gave up on him to get a true superstar. But you are claiming Knicks should have traded their best player for him. One who was having an All Start season? You saying we could have traded Randle for him is typical retrospective management. https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/grading-bulls-lauri-markkanen-sign-and-trade-cavs-blazers#:~:text=Bulls%20make%20out%20like%20bandits%20in%20Markkanen%20sign%2Dand%2Dtrade&text=Friday%20morning%2C%20the%20Bulls%2C%20Cavaliers,Larry%20Nance%20Jr.%20to%20Portland. You wanting Collins for Randle further proves my point.
Yes the Bulls have up on him because he was injured a lot and didn't get along with the coach. I liked him due to the talent, potential and thought pairing him with RJ would fit better and open up the court more (posted two seasons ago). Not sure how that looks bad right now but you can disagree. Cavs giving up on him was more about already having Mobley, Allen, Love and really wanting DM IMO. Funny that now we probably couldn't even get him but it was not worthwhile prior...
Rebuilding? Depends on the move/players but if you believe you're good but not good enough - then all options should be on the table to get us down the right path IMO. When I see how easily an injury-riddled Nets team handles us it just reaffirms that no one on our team is good enough to not consider any available option to improve. If there is a move to retool I would do it but just don't think adding a G. Allen or Bullock or supporting defensive shooter will do that much in the big picture. You keep saying the same thing despite what I am writing. I am open to anything that makes us better. NO ONE is untradeable. What is frustrating is guys not taking into account the obvious parts of a trade. It's not just trade this guy because I don't like the way he plays. There are many aspects. First and foremost, what do we get in return. No move makes sense if it puts us in a worse position financially, restricts future moves or we do not replace the traded production.
I agree with this, except that this is not coming primarily from a way that he plays. True I don't like it but you can't really argue that we will beat elite teams without upgrading our talent - so it's kind of a moot point whether I like it or not. If we win 65% of our games and do well in the playoffs then it doesn't matter if he holds the ball 23 seconds and takes a hook shot. The reality is in between where his play has taken us to a respectable level and he deserves credit for that. I just don't see relying on him in a vital role as the means to get to the next level. And to his credit he has pumped up his value to a good level that I think he could possibly be our best asset to upgrade. I really expected this conversation with those who disagreed to say things like "we should try to move RJ instead" or "premature thinking - Randle's value may get higher - let's wait until after the playoffs to see how well we do"...
Eventually Randle or RJ (or both) will be moved IMO.
Probably. Hopefully its for better assets.
We agree on this!
ccch wrote:Hopefully the front office will realize we need shooters. You need shooters to win in BB and we have only 1. X's and O's can not win you games when the player can't make the shot. If your off one night that's ok, but when you shoots don't even hit the rim, then your not a shooter. We have plenty of them. We haven't had any real shooter since the days of Starks, Houston, Ward, Crawford,Davis, Ewing...and that's when we were good.
I’d take a look at signing Yuta Watanabe in the offseason. He’s been at or near the top of the nba in 3 point percentage the entire season and is UFA next offseason.