Knicks · We paid Randle and barret 30*+ mm each (page 2)

MaTT4281 wrote:

martin wrote:Maybe I'm just not getting it. RJ 3pt% by year: 32%, 40%, 34%, this year 34%. Feels same'ish to me

Lol, have to tell you I did not expect RJ improving his 3pter to be a controversial point. I concede I thought his rookie % was lower than 32%, but taking more 3's, against tougher defense, and hitting at the same'ish clip would still signal to me he's improved. I wish I had a better stat for you, like % on uncontested 3's, but I'm striking out here. Running strictly on eye test and memory.

I withdraw the bullet point due to being unable to cite my sources. Please see revised listing:

But look back at the last 4 years. He's improved upon his 3 point shooting tremendously, put on strength to absorb contact, consistently able to get to the rim (finishing is another story...), improved his FT shooting, added some mid-post moves ala Julius, gets the bigs involved with those short alley oop passes, and is currently on pace for his second consecutive 20 ppg season at age 22.

martin wrote:Asking you about your thought process is controversial? I didn't understand what you meant

MaTT4281 wrote:

martin wrote:Maybe I'm just not getting it. RJ 3pt% by year: 32%, 40%, 34%, this year 34%. Feels same'ish to me

Lol, have to tell you I did not expect RJ improving his 3pter to be a controversial point. I concede I thought his rookie % was lower than 32%, but taking more 3's, against tougher defense, and hitting at the same'ish clip would still signal to me he's improved. I wish I had a better stat for you, like % on uncontested 3's, but I'm striking out here. Running strictly on eye test and memory.

I withdraw the bullet point due to being unable to cite my sources. Please see revised listing:

But look back at the last 4 years. He's improved upon his 3 point shooting tremendously, put on strength to absorb contact, consistently able to get to the rim (finishing is another story...), improved his FT shooting, added some mid-post moves ala Julius, gets the bigs involved with those short alley oop passes, and is currently on pace for his second consecutive 20 ppg season at age 22.

Ha, everything with RJ aside, I swear I had this same conversation with my wife last night (I lost that one, too)! "Debatable" a better word than "controversial"? No one is accusing me of being a cunning linguist.

Overall point of my original post was that RJ has improved over the last 4 years in a number of ways offensively, of which I include 3 point shooting. I am taking it that you have not seen the same improvement from 3, or at least not enough of it to be notable. Got it! We're good! Take that away and we're still in a place where paying the man was the right move, in my opinion.

MaTT4281 wrote:

martin wrote:Asking you about your thought process is controversial? I didn't understand what you meant

MaTT4281 wrote:

martin wrote:Maybe I'm just not getting it. RJ 3pt% by year: 32%, 40%, 34%, this year 34%. Feels same'ish to me

Lol, have to tell you I did not expect RJ improving his 3pter to be a controversial point. I concede I thought his rookie % was lower than 32%, but taking more 3's, against tougher defense, and hitting at the same'ish clip would still signal to me he's improved. I wish I had a better stat for you, like % on uncontested 3's, but I'm striking out here. Running strictly on eye test and memory.

I withdraw the bullet point due to being unable to cite my sources. Please see revised listing:

But look back at the last 4 years. He's improved upon his 3 point shooting tremendously, put on strength to absorb contact, consistently able to get to the rim (finishing is another story...), improved his FT shooting, added some mid-post moves ala Julius, gets the bigs involved with those short alley oop passes, and is currently on pace for his second consecutive 20 ppg season at age 22.

Ha, everything with RJ aside, I swear I had this same conversation with my wife last night (I lost that one, too)! "Debatable" a better word than "controversial"? No one is accusing me of being a cunning linguist.

Overall point of my original post was that RJ has improved over the last 4 years in a number of ways offensively, of which I include 3 point shooting. I am taking it that you have not seen the same improvement from 3, or at least not enough of it to be notable. Got it! We're good! Take that away and we're still in a place where paying the man was the right move, in my opinion.

BRIGGS wrote:We can’t be arguing we have to role with it. Randle needs to stay strong DONT over focus on3s try to get better shots and keep using the pass. We paid barret knowing he was a 40% player. Accept it and don’t make a mess out of it. Thank god we have Brunson. Pretty much the only good free agent signing since the original Randle contract

At a minimum it feels like 1 of RJ and Randle should be moved and Randle is the more talented player by far.

Where that would leave us - probably right back to where we are now.

LivingLegend wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:We can’t be arguing we have to role with it. Randle needs to stay strong DONT over focus on3s try to get better shots and keep using the pass. We paid barret knowing he was a 40% player. Accept it and don’t make a mess out of it. Thank god we have Brunson. Pretty much the only good free agent signing since the original Randle contract

At a minimum it feels like 1 of RJ and Randle should be moved and Randle is the more talented player by far.

Where that would leave us - probably right back to where we are now.

Randle has been in the league for almost 10 years. He's 28, and hasnt shown an ability to close games. Not a great playoff resume.

RJ is 6 years younger. Has been showing clutch shooting since his rookie season.

Randle has more of an offensive repertoire, but cant make use of it in the clutch. RJ has shown he's a strong 4th quarter player, but doesnt have the offensive repertoire yet.

I would keep RJ, because he's a lot younger in NBA years. Less wear and tear. And he's improving, albeit slower than I expected. If you want to add an All Star, Randle will get you more in a trade.

blkexec wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:We can’t be arguing we have to role with it. Randle needs to stay strong DONT over focus on3s try to get better shots and keep using the pass. We paid barret knowing he was a 40% player. Accept it and don’t make a mess out of it. Thank god we have Brunson. Pretty much the only good free agent signing since the original Randle contract

BRIGGS, when I agree with you I have to announce it because it rarely happens lol. But I agree. I see nothing wrong with fans saying, "I expect more from (fill in the blank)." When did this change? Is it just fans from the UK site? Are we arguing that RJ doesn't make 30mil when instead it's 29mil (lmao).

I don't care if Randle makes $1 per season. If his on court play doesn't produce into team victories, it's ok for fans to call him out. Especially Randle and RJ. Thats the added bonus of being the top paid players on the team. It comes with the territory.

If Randle and / or RJ have bad shooting nights we lose. But if Randle and RJ had more in the tool box, besides shooting jumpers, then our win totals will not be based on if Randle or RJ are shooting good or not shooting good. If they have a bad shooting night, they just keep shooting. Meanwhile, their defense also gets worse, and they pass less and shoot more. That means our season rest on the shooting percentage of these guys, which is not a good thing. We need to find ways to win game, regardless of their bad shooting nights. We have other players who can actually shoot. Thats why RJ was benched for IQ.

Thibs is trying, but he has his own weaknesses to deal with. Randle, RJ, Thibs. We go as far as these 3 guys takes us.

And personally, saying a player is good because he's making less than his piers is a bad approach to building a team with solid chemistry and player who improves each other. I don't see how RJ and Randle helps each other. But I can see JB's impact on the team.

Randle is turning into a jump shooting forward. I rather have bully ball Randle back, with occasional 3's. Because when his jumper not going in, he can rely on his bully ball style. But when you become a jump shooter, you tend to forget your core skill and only focus on shooting. RJ at least is a slasher and when he's off, he goes back to his slashing abilities. This is why I think RJ is easier to build around and young enough to fix old habbits. Randle is who he is. Very solid player. One of the best PF in the game. But I still think we could be smart with Randle and trade him for another equally solid player that fits next to RJ and JB. And no I have no idea who we should trade Randle for, just a hyperthetical trade idea. To be honest, I'm not stuck on trading Randle. It's all about whatever decision is best for the team. Staying the course doesn't seem to get us closer to a chip. Just a reminder we are an average team.

How far will Randle take us? How much will he improve or is this the best we will get? I'm not a fan of individual stats that are empty. I'll take a Deuce who can't shoot, but plays defense, moves the ball and has winning plays over a jump shooting big who's defense is below average and when it counts hes nowhere to be found. I respect Randle and RJ more than most people in this forum. We've had divas who made more money and played with less energy so I respect Randle and RJ for that. Both are solid players who brings it every game and rarely miss any games. Just wanted to give them their flowers before I poop poop all over them.

So there's always that risk of adding a player who might fit, but not available. I get it. But at the same time, you cant get mad at a fan for calling a player out. It's part of the game, just like the refs and their bull shet calls. Thats also part of the game.

Whats the moral of this post, who the hell knows. I'm just as punch drunk as the rest of you. Trying to figure out how we continue to lose games we should win. And don't say this is part of development. RJ, Randle and JB are not players still trying to develop. All 3 have enough experience at this point in their career to carrry a team. They are vets by default, compared to the yoots on this team. Are we saying those 3 need some development time? They need a whole year to finally see results? 4 yrs of Randle and RJ isn't enough? Thats a lot of patience from a NY fan base thats going on a 50 yr droubt. I'm reminded of that every birthday that comes up since I was born in February during their last championship run.

"Whats the moral of this post, who the hell knows." LMAO

Agree that a player should not be judged as "good" JUST because he makes less than someone else.
However, a player who produces more than most of his peers who are making more is ABSOLUTELY the players you want. It is the essence of how a Pro FO builds a successful roster.
Also disagree that the team should focus on just the better players to improve winning. Most good teams actually try to put the right smaller pieces around their good players. Sometimes the 7th or 8th man can mean more to many teams. Bucks a good example.
I know you would like to have guys like Deuce but I think the smaller pieces are the ones that matter most. Having one dimensional players on your second unit has as much of an affect on winning as bad play by the first unit. Deuce is just not at a level that one can say he would be part of a top playoff team.

GustavBahler wrote:FO needs to improve the roster, unless you believe we're a contender. Thibs needs to emphasize ball movement over isolation heavy
offense. Doesnt mean players like Grimes dont need to improve their ISO skills.

RJ is still very young for the league. 22. His footwork, his ability to attack the rim from different angles, has improved this season.

RJ/Randle/Brunson are the bulk of the offense. In the 4th quarter they're relied on heavily to win the game.

Randle has not shown himself careerwise (and this season) to be a reliable closer. Which means that if Randle is coming up short in the 4th, its mostly on RJ and Brunson.

RJ isnt ready to be that player, night in and night out. If he had a second option the team could count on, there wouldnt be as much riding on RJ to be a closer.

RJ has shown he can close a game, since his rookie season. I dont believe that skill has vanished.

To be honest, neither RJ, JR or JB are elite closers.
All three do not have the decision making.
JB struggles against taller guards and forces it at times.
JR forces it and has bad bball IQ.
RJ has blinders and thinks Kobe would just shoot the ball.
We need an elite closer.

Agree that we need to improve the roster.
Right now, we have RJ,JB, JR, MR, IQ, Grimes that would be in a playoff teams rotation.
Can't really say that of the rest of our guys.
We also need professional shooters. Looking at the top teams they have multiple guys that can hit a three. Yet they are still looking to add more.
Also agree that we need a better offensive scheme.
Trouble is that Thibs is the NBA. And the NBA is mostly PnR and Iso at end of games.
Would like to see an offensive minded assistant take over the offense.
But at the end of the day, most believe controlling clock and isolating your best player produces the least amount of turnovers and the best chance to put up a high percentage shot
It is ugly to watch but I am sure you have seen most NBA teams resort to the same.
Reason why most enjoy watching NCAA basketball more.

HofstraBBall wrote:

blkexec wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:We can’t be arguing we have to role with it. Randle needs to stay strong DONT over focus on3s try to get better shots and keep using the pass. We paid barret knowing he was a 40% player. Accept it and don’t make a mess out of it. Thank god we have Brunson. Pretty much the only good free agent signing since the original Randle contract

BRIGGS, when I agree with you I have to announce it because it rarely happens lol. But I agree. I see nothing wrong with fans saying, "I expect more from (fill in the blank)." When did this change? Is it just fans from the UK site? Are we arguing that RJ doesn't make 30mil when instead it's 29mil (lmao).

I don't care if Randle makes $1 per season. If his on court play doesn't produce into team victories, it's ok for fans to call him out. Especially Randle and RJ. Thats the added bonus of being the top paid players on the team. It comes with the territory.

If Randle and / or RJ have bad shooting nights we lose. But if Randle and RJ had more in the tool box, besides shooting jumpers, then our win totals will not be based on if Randle or RJ are shooting good or not shooting good. If they have a bad shooting night, they just keep shooting. Meanwhile, their defense also gets worse, and they pass less and shoot more. That means our season rest on the shooting percentage of these guys, which is not a good thing. We need to find ways to win game, regardless of their bad shooting nights. We have other players who can actually shoot. Thats why RJ was benched for IQ.

Thibs is trying, but he has his own weaknesses to deal with. Randle, RJ, Thibs. We go as far as these 3 guys takes us.

And personally, saying a player is good because he's making less than his piers is a bad approach to building a team with solid chemistry and player who improves each other. I don't see how RJ and Randle helps each other. But I can see JB's impact on the team.

Randle is turning into a jump shooting forward. I rather have bully ball Randle back, with occasional 3's. Because when his jumper not going in, he can rely on his bully ball style. But when you become a jump shooter, you tend to forget your core skill and only focus on shooting. RJ at least is a slasher and when he's off, he goes back to his slashing abilities. This is why I think RJ is easier to build around and young enough to fix old habbits. Randle is who he is. Very solid player. One of the best PF in the game. But I still think we could be smart with Randle and trade him for another equally solid player that fits next to RJ and JB. And no I have no idea who we should trade Randle for, just a hyperthetical trade idea. To be honest, I'm not stuck on trading Randle. It's all about whatever decision is best for the team. Staying the course doesn't seem to get us closer to a chip. Just a reminder we are an average team.

How far will Randle take us? How much will he improve or is this the best we will get? I'm not a fan of individual stats that are empty. I'll take a Deuce who can't shoot, but plays defense, moves the ball and has winning plays over a jump shooting big who's defense is below average and when it counts hes nowhere to be found. I respect Randle and RJ more than most people in this forum. We've had divas who made more money and played with less energy so I respect Randle and RJ for that. Both are solid players who brings it every game and rarely miss any games. Just wanted to give them their flowers before I poop poop all over them.

So there's always that risk of adding a player who might fit, but not available. I get it. But at the same time, you cant get mad at a fan for calling a player out. It's part of the game, just like the refs and their bull shet calls. Thats also part of the game.

Whats the moral of this post, who the hell knows. I'm just as punch drunk as the rest of you. Trying to figure out how we continue to lose games we should win. And don't say this is part of development. RJ, Randle and JB are not players still trying to develop. All 3 have enough experience at this point in their career to carrry a team. They are vets by default, compared to the yoots on this team. Are we saying those 3 need some development time? They need a whole year to finally see results? 4 yrs of Randle and RJ isn't enough? Thats a lot of patience from a NY fan base thats going on a 50 yr droubt. I'm reminded of that every birthday that comes up since I was born in February during their last championship run.

"Whats the moral of this post, who the hell knows." LMAO

Agree that a player should not be judged as good JUST because he makes less than someone else.
You stated that is not how a team should be put together.
However, a player who produces more than his peers making more us ABSOLUTELY the way all FO's try to put together teams. That is the essence of building successful tram.
Also disagree that one should focus on just better players. Or that any one here expects either of our big three to "take us anywhere". Most teams actually try to put the right smaller pieces around good players. Sometimes the 7th or 8th man can mean the most to many teams.
I know you would like to have guys like Deuce but I think the smaller pieces are the ones that matter. Having one dimensional players in your second unit has as much of an affect on winning as bad play in the first unit.

The team is filled with one dimensional players, which is why we are mediocre. Also why Grimes is so important, along with IQ. They impact the game on both ends (guarding the top guards), and they are 3 level scorers. Cam is another type of skill set we need (defense and score from anywhere). So as much as you love to focus on Deuce as the only player who you call one dimensional, look at these shooting numbers across the board, and count how many times someone blows by Randle or RJ, who are also 1 dimensitional (since Deuce is your definition of 1 dimensional).

Also when you say good players, that means nothing if all 3 good players have the same weaknesses. Thats why the in game play is up and down. We rely on our offense, which is shakey and built around stagnant ISO offensive plays. So you need someone with defensive skills off the bench to balance that out (1 dimensional the other way). Last time I checked, Thibs is far from Danphony 3 secs or less offense. We not winning consistently if we are depending on Thibs offense. We barely winning with Thibs defense.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/NBA_NewYork/status/1621299163060228096?s=19

Click here to view the Tweet

Awaiting RJ's first.

HofstraBBall wrote:

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/NBA_NewYork/status/1621299163060228096?s=19

Click here to view the Tweet

Awaiting RJ's first.

fishmike wrote:

MaTT4281 wrote:

martin wrote:Asking you about your thought process is controversial? I didn't understand what you meant

MaTT4281 wrote:

martin wrote:Maybe I'm just not getting it. RJ 3pt% by year: 32%, 40%, 34%, this year 34%. Feels same'ish to me

Lol, have to tell you I did not expect RJ improving his 3pter to be a controversial point. I concede I thought his rookie % was lower than 32%, but taking more 3's, against tougher defense, and hitting at the same'ish clip would still signal to me he's improved. I wish I had a better stat for you, like % on uncontested 3's, but I'm striking out here. Running strictly on eye test and memory.

I withdraw the bullet point due to being unable to cite my sources. Please see revised listing:

But look back at the last 4 years. He's improved upon his 3 point shooting tremendously, put on strength to absorb contact, consistently able to get to the rim (finishing is another story...), improved his FT shooting, added some mid-post moves ala Julius, gets the bigs involved with those short alley oop passes, and is currently on pace for his second consecutive 20 ppg season at age 22.

Ha, everything with RJ aside, I swear I had this same conversation with my wife last night (I lost that one, too)! "Debatable" a better word than "controversial"? No one is accusing me of being a cunning linguist.

Overall point of my original post was that RJ has improved over the last 4 years in a number of ways offensively, of which I include 3 point shooting. I am taking it that you have not seen the same improvement from 3, or at least not enough of it to be notable. Got it! We're good! Take that away and we're still in a place where paying the man was the right move, in my opinion.

I have the same opinion. Couldnt let him walk. They gave him a good deal and if it's a whiff for the Knicks it's not gonna be a John Wall albatross. I hope RJ levels up. My concern is we just havent seen much beyond a slight uptick at finishing at the rim

Agree.
Quick to point out RJ's weaknesses.
Mentioned how he MUST improve his passing and overall bball IQ.
However, extending him and giving him a couple more years at the age of 22 to develop was the right move. Even though I feel RJ is not a good fit with JR and JB due to his outside shooting and identical need of having the ball in his hands.
Feel in two years, the FO will have to decide if he is part of the solution.
Of course, if a big piece comes along, think FO would consider moving him.

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

MaTT4281 wrote:

martin wrote:Asking you about your thought process is controversial? I didn't understand what you meant

MaTT4281 wrote:

martin wrote:Maybe I'm just not getting it. RJ 3pt% by year: 32%, 40%, 34%, this year 34%. Feels same'ish to me

Lol, have to tell you I did not expect RJ improving his 3pter to be a controversial point. I concede I thought his rookie % was lower than 32%, but taking more 3's, against tougher defense, and hitting at the same'ish clip would still signal to me he's improved. I wish I had a better stat for you, like % on uncontested 3's, but I'm striking out here. Running strictly on eye test and memory.

I withdraw the bullet point due to being unable to cite my sources. Please see revised listing:

But look back at the last 4 years. He's improved upon his 3 point shooting tremendously, put on strength to absorb contact, consistently able to get to the rim (finishing is another story...), improved his FT shooting, added some mid-post moves ala Julius, gets the bigs involved with those short alley oop passes, and is currently on pace for his second consecutive 20 ppg season at age 22.

Ha, everything with RJ aside, I swear I had this same conversation with my wife last night (I lost that one, too)! "Debatable" a better word than "controversial"? No one is accusing me of being a cunning linguist.

Overall point of my original post was that RJ has improved over the last 4 years in a number of ways offensively, of which I include 3 point shooting. I am taking it that you have not seen the same improvement from 3, or at least not enough of it to be notable. Got it! We're good! Take that away and we're still in a place where paying the man was the right move, in my opinion.

I have the same opinion. Couldnt let him walk. They gave him a good deal and if it's a whiff for the Knicks it's not gonna be a John Wall albatross. I hope RJ levels up. My concern is we just havent seen much beyond a slight uptick at finishing at the rim

Agree.
Quick to point out RJ's weaknesses.
Mentioned how he MUST improve his passing and overall bball IQ.
However, extending him and giving him a couple more years at the age of 22 to develop was the right move. Even though I feel RJ is not a good fit with JR and JB due to his outside shooting and identical need of having the ball in his hands.
Feel in two years, the FO will have to decide if he is part of the solution.
Of course, if a big piece comes along, think FO would consider moving him.

The contract might have looked rich last year, but with new CBA and him improving it could be fair or a bargain. Im rooting for his success as does nothing but help the team on the court or as a trade asset.

Nalod wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

MaTT4281 wrote:

martin wrote:Asking you about your thought process is controversial? I didn't understand what you meant

MaTT4281 wrote:

martin wrote:Maybe I'm just not getting it. RJ 3pt% by year: 32%, 40%, 34%, this year 34%. Feels same'ish to me

Lol, have to tell you I did not expect RJ improving his 3pter to be a controversial point. I concede I thought his rookie % was lower than 32%, but taking more 3's, against tougher defense, and hitting at the same'ish clip would still signal to me he's improved. I wish I had a better stat for you, like % on uncontested 3's, but I'm striking out here. Running strictly on eye test and memory.

I withdraw the bullet point due to being unable to cite my sources. Please see revised listing:

But look back at the last 4 years. He's improved upon his 3 point shooting tremendously, put on strength to absorb contact, consistently able to get to the rim (finishing is another story...), improved his FT shooting, added some mid-post moves ala Julius, gets the bigs involved with those short alley oop passes, and is currently on pace for his second consecutive 20 ppg season at age 22.

Ha, everything with RJ aside, I swear I had this same conversation with my wife last night (I lost that one, too)! "Debatable" a better word than "controversial"? No one is accusing me of being a cunning linguist.

Overall point of my original post was that RJ has improved over the last 4 years in a number of ways offensively, of which I include 3 point shooting. I am taking it that you have not seen the same improvement from 3, or at least not enough of it to be notable. Got it! We're good! Take that away and we're still in a place where paying the man was the right move, in my opinion.

I have the same opinion. Couldnt let him walk. They gave him a good deal and if it's a whiff for the Knicks it's not gonna be a John Wall albatross. I hope RJ levels up. My concern is we just havent seen much beyond a slight uptick at finishing at the rim

Agree.
Quick to point out RJ's weaknesses.
Mentioned how he MUST improve his passing and overall bball IQ.
However, extending him and giving him a couple more years at the age of 22 to develop was the right move. Even though I feel RJ is not a good fit with JR and JB due to his outside shooting and identical need of having the ball in his hands.
Feel in two years, the FO will have to decide if he is part of the solution.
Of course, if a big piece comes along, think FO would consider moving him.

The contract might have looked rich last year, but with new CBA and him improving it could be fair or a bargain. Im rooting for his success as does nothing but help the team on the court or as a trade asset.

Love to get a bigtime 3 that moves RJ to SG and Grimes to the bench. Dont see alot of options outside of OG tho

MaTT4281 wrote:

Ha, everything with RJ aside, I swear I had this same conversation with my wife last night (I lost that one, too)! "Debatable" a better word than "controversial"? No one is accusing me of being a cunning linguist.

Overall point of my original post was that RJ has improved over the last 4 years in a number of ways offensively, of which I include 3 point shooting. I am taking it that you have not seen the same improvement from 3, or at least not enough of it to be notable. Got it! We're good! Take that away and we're still in a place where paying the man was the right move, in my opinion.

I just read this as:

blah blah blah wife blah blah blah argument blah blah blah cunninglinguist.

GustavBahler wrote:

LivingLegend wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:We can’t be arguing we have to role with it. Randle needs to stay strong DONT over focus on3s try to get better shots and keep using the pass. We paid barret knowing he was a 40% player. Accept it and don’t make a mess out of it. Thank god we have Brunson. Pretty much the only good free agent signing since the original Randle contract

At a minimum it feels like 1 of RJ and Randle should be moved and Randle is the more talented player by far.

Where that would leave us - probably right back to where we are now.

Randle has been in the league for almost 10 years. He's 28, and hasnt shown an ability to close games. Not a great playoff resume.

RJ is 6 years younger. Has been showing clutch shooting since his rookie season.

Randle has more of an offensive repertoire, but cant make use of it in the clutch. RJ has shown he's a strong 4th quarter player, but doesnt have the offensive repertoire yet.

I would keep RJ, because he's a lot younger in NBA years. Less wear and tear. And he's improving, albeit slower than I expected. If you want to add an All Star, Randle will get you more in a trade.

Not going to argue any of your points or views because I think it’s debatable which of 2 would be best to move.

I still choose RJ because I don’t like the athleticism (lack of quickness), lack of any real offensive game outside of layups and the D is just very poor. If someone could tell me RJ can make a major jump in his diet/conditioning where he can actually move his feet I’d feel better around him.

There is a selfishness in RJs game that I didn’t expect and don’t like. Julius for all of his faults impacts the game in many facets— even with some of his passing last night.

I can see Julius as a legit 4 in the league that is a matchup issue for teams — RJ I don’t see a true position or him being a big impact player. Hope I’m wrong don’t dislike RJ but his D specifically has really disappointed.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/ace_zullo/status/1621885648801075208?s=61&t=UKXFjb2nKLDhOtLP7v0wNw

Click here to view the Tweet

blkexec wrote:
The team is filled with one dimensional players, which is why we are mediocre. Also why Grimes is so important, along with IQ. They impact the game on both ends (guarding the top guards), and they are 3 level scorers. Cam is another type of skill set we need (defense and score from anywhere). So as much as you love to focus on Deuce as the only player who you call one dimensional, look at these shooting numbers across the board, and count how many times someone blows by Randle or RJ, who are also 1 dimensitional (since Deuce is your definition of 1 dimensional).

Also when you say good players, that means nothing if all 3 good players have the same weaknesses. Thats why the in game play is up and down. We rely on our offense, which is shakey and built around stagnant ISO offensive plays. So you need someone with defensive skills off the bench to balance that out (1 dimensional the other way). Last time I checked, Thibs is far from Danphony 3 secs or less offense. We not winning consistently if we are depending on Thibs offense. We barely winning with Thibs defense.

Randle averages a double double. By definition, multi dimensional accomplishment. Especially if we consider a defensive rebound is the last integral part of a defensive stop. He can also post up, can hit a three, draws double teams, has shown to be a willing passer (including some big pass outs in big moments) and can guard the tougher bigs. But yes, he can't guard quick SFs and does not rotate well at times. Not sure that is one dimensional.
RJ has been assigned best opposing wing many times. His defensive rotations need work but not as useless on defense as you seem to think.
Deuce does absolutely nothing on offense. His defense, although always shows great effort, is not lock down as you make it seem. Fact is better, taller players score on him at similar clicks.
Do think he has the skills offensively to not be one dimensional but something about his confidence or mental game keeps him from driving or putting up shots. That may be tougher to overcome than lack of skill. Ie. Frank. I have been right about the ability of most of our players over the years. My prediction is that Deuce will not be part of a rotation in the NBA if he does not improve his impact on offense.

I do agree that it would be nice to have more two way players. Especially 3pt shooting.
Did not mean to just call out Deuce. Obi is another. Bad defensively and even more one dimensional on offense.
You mentioned Cam, but two teams and coaches have disagreed that he is what they need to fulfill that metric. EF we know is another. Rose is as well.
I am hoping that either the kids we have improve on their weaknesses or that we trade them for guys that have a steady history of production on multiple skills.