Just realized I committed my pet peeve and misspelled his name ‘LaVine’ and can’t edit polls.
In the short run, perhaps Lavine would improve the offense but im thinking about the money due Lavine, his balky knee, and despite Barretts 4th season he is still 22 years old.
None of us are expert to really call his ceiling. Im not disputing or arguing the obvious over his efficiency.
The obvious upgrades are to either Barret or Grimes.
I know we all have our favorites and those we think are not up to task. Why not Lavine in place of Grimes to start his natural position of SG?
Then swing a trade for OG in place of Barrett makes sense at the same time.
Then we have to consider who goes out to accomplish this. Our second unit depth can be replicated but its key component to the current success. One that for all his faults includes Barrett. Barrett hits or or two more threes, and keeps tighting up his midrange his numbers get much better. He is not far off. Not the superstar we hoped he’d be, but not a detriment to team.
Knicks surged on this run by Randle and Brunson. This levels off we are good team but not contending.
I need more to endorse a Lavine inclusion.
I said no because of the cost... sub out RJ for Zach's eff% and the Knicks should be better, but not by much. He's hurt all the time and makes $40mm a year. No way... much rather focus on Grimes/IQ at that spot and I think we will be better.
If I am gonna move on from RJ I would want a legit 3. Ingram is 2 years younger and doesnt have Zach's bad contract. DeAndre Hunter is another one. Cam Thomas is another
If I'm trading RJ I want someone who can play better defense especially against wings like Oubre and Kuzma, who have killed us. I don't think LaVine is the answer. I would prefer someone like OG.
fishmike wrote:I said no because of the cost... sub out RJ for Zach's eff% and the Knicks should be better, but not by much. He's hurt all the time and makes $40mm a year. No way... much rather focus on Grimes/IQ at that spot and I think we will be better.If I am gonna move on from RJ I would want a legit 3. Ingram is 2 years younger and doesnt have Zach's bad contract. DeAndre Hunter is another one. Cam Thomas is another
Was going to post the same. In order for a team to be better, the cost/production ratio of ONE player must be accounted for. As you said, Lavine would add some clutch scoring but because of health and defensive concerns, value would not be there.
Knixkik wrote:Just realized I committed my pet peeve and misspelled his name ‘LaVine’ and can’t edit polls.
yeah, stupid polls, I'll help with title
martin wrote:Knixkik wrote:Just realized I committed my pet peeve and misspelled his name ‘LaVine’ and can’t edit polls.
yeah, stupid polls, I'll help with title
Thank you! In all my years here I didn’t realize you can’t edit polls.
Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:Knixkik wrote:Just realized I committed my pet peeve and misspelled his name ‘LaVine’ and can’t edit polls.
yeah, stupid polls, I'll help with title
Thank you! In all my years here I didn’t realize you can’t edit polls.
there are shortcomings all over the place but they well hidden 
For just this year, LaVine is a better shooter and those extra makes on 3's would make us better. But for the long run, thats hard to say.
Here, I think you are trading potential upside for likely downside. All for a marginal increase in offense at the cost of defense. SergioNYK's OG comment is where I am. I am not sold on moving Barrett. We lost last night, but I appreciated Barrett's game. Except for that ugly duck of a layup attempt. But his passing looked better.
But IF we were moving Barrett, it would be for a lower usage 3&D with length and athleticism. Somebody that shuts the Kelly Oubre-s of the NBA down and can hit the open 3 consistently.
EwingsGlass wrote:Here, I think you are trading potential upside for likely downside. All for a marginal increase in offense at the cost of defense. SergioNYK's OG comment is where I am. I am not sold on moving Barrett. We lost last night, but I appreciated Barrett's game. Except for that ugly duck of a layup attempt. But his passing looked better.But IF we were moving Barrett, it would be for a lower usage 3&D with length and athleticism. Somebody that shuts the Kelly Oubre-s of the NBA down and can hit the open 3 consistently.
It makes the most sense to replace Barrett with an elite 3&D guy like Anunoby. But it also makes sense to take heat off of Brunson and Randle, or in case someone misses time, having a like-for-like offensive replacement who can hold down the fort. Last night is a good example. Barrett can get his points with more usage, but it seems like LaVine would bail us out in 4th quarters when Brunson is out. Randle is great but buzzer beaters aside, he’s not a big 4th quarter guy. But I don’t know, maybe Quickley can continue to grow into that role.
With Zach's contract instead of Barrett, I am not sure IQ gets resigned instead of traded.
I would rather have Barrett and the financial flexibility that affords the team LaVine...
Too many negatives:
1. Injury issues
2. Contract
3. ****unknown impact on team Chemistry****
4. Is a terrible defender
Positive:
1. Amazing offense
If this was the case I would rather send R.J. to the Raptors and get some of their talent back while also doing Barrett a favor and sending him home...
Not many fans remember the Antonio McDyess trade, but a trade for LaVine would have the potential to be that disasterous..
No thank you...
fishmike wrote:I said no because of the cost... sub out RJ for Zach's eff% and the Knicks should be better, but not by much. He's hurt all the time and makes $40mm a year. No way... much rather focus on Grimes/IQ at that spot and I think we will be better.If I am gonna move on from RJ I would want a legit 3. Ingram is 2 years younger and doesnt have Zach's bad contract. DeAndre Hunter is another one. Cam Thomas is another
DeAndre Hunter is always hurt but his skill set would be perfect for us at the 3. He is a better defender and shooter than RJ, and he would not cost a lot. I would target him if Atlanta decides to breakup the team.
TheGame wrote:fishmike wrote:I said no because of the cost... sub out RJ for Zach's eff% and the Knicks should be better, but not by much. He's hurt all the time and makes $40mm a year. No way... much rather focus on Grimes/IQ at that spot and I think we will be better.If I am gonna move on from RJ I would want a legit 3. Ingram is 2 years younger and doesnt have Zach's bad contract. DeAndre Hunter is another one. Cam Thomas is another
DeAndre Hunter is always hurt but his skill set would be perfect for us at the 3. He is a better defender and shooter than RJ, and he would not cost a lot. I would target him if Atlanta decides to breakup the team.
I agree with Hunter.
Also, I prefer RJ's age, size and contract over Lavine and his massive contract. But this FO has pushed all the right buttons, so I would agree with whatever direction or decision they make, until proven otherwise.
Knixkik wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:Here, I think you are trading potential upside for likely downside. All for a marginal increase in offense at the cost of defense. SergioNYK's OG comment is where I am. I am not sold on moving Barrett. We lost last night, but I appreciated Barrett's game. Except for that ugly duck of a layup attempt. But his passing looked better.But IF we were moving Barrett, it would be for a lower usage 3&D with length and athleticism. Somebody that shuts the Kelly Oubre-s of the NBA down and can hit the open 3 consistently.
It makes the most sense to replace Barrett with an elite 3&D guy like Anunoby. But it also makes sense to take heat off of Brunson and Randle, or in case someone misses time, having a like-for-like offensive replacement who can hold down the fort. Last night is a good example. Barrett can get his points with more usage, but it seems like LaVine would bail us out in 4th quarters when Brunson is out. Randle is great but buzzer beaters aside, he’s not a big 4th quarter guy. But I don’t know, maybe Quickley can continue to grow into that role.
I think you have Quickley and Grimes as efficient scorers that can help with that scoring load -- potentially. I also think that Anunoby on his own has the ability to assist with scoring.
EwingsGlass wrote:Knixkik wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:Here, I think you are trading potential upside for likely downside. All for a marginal increase in offense at the cost of defense. SergioNYK's OG comment is where I am. I am not sold on moving Barrett. We lost last night, but I appreciated Barrett's game. Except for that ugly duck of a layup attempt. But his passing looked better.But IF we were moving Barrett, it would be for a lower usage 3&D with length and athleticism. Somebody that shuts the Kelly Oubre-s of the NBA down and can hit the open 3 consistently.
It makes the most sense to replace Barrett with an elite 3&D guy like Anunoby. But it also makes sense to take heat off of Brunson and Randle, or in case someone misses time, having a like-for-like offensive replacement who can hold down the fort. Last night is a good example. Barrett can get his points with more usage, but it seems like LaVine would bail us out in 4th quarters when Brunson is out. Randle is great but buzzer beaters aside, he’s not a big 4th quarter guy. But I don’t know, maybe Quickley can continue to grow into that role.
I think you have Quickley and Grimes as efficient scorers that can help with that scoring load -- potentially. I also think that Anunoby on his own has the ability to assist with scoring.
I’m glad you added the “potentially” part because neither quickley or grimes are efficient shooters. Quickley is getting there. Grimes still isn’t a “scorer” and he passes up a ton of shots.
TheGame wrote:fishmike wrote:I said no because of the cost... sub out RJ for Zach's eff% and the Knicks should be better, but not by much. He's hurt all the time and makes $40mm a year. No way... much rather focus on Grimes/IQ at that spot and I think we will be better.If I am gonna move on from RJ I would want a legit 3. Ingram is 2 years younger and doesnt have Zach's bad contract. DeAndre Hunter is another one. Cam Thomas is another
DeAndre Hunter is always hurt but his skill set would be perfect for us at the 3. He is a better defender and shooter than RJ, and he would not cost a lot. I would target him if Atlanta decides to breakup the team.
Ack! Conceptually, the 25 year old Hunter sounds like a good idea based on reputation. Hunter was DPOTY in college (as voted by coaches). Like Reddish, he looks the part - 6'8-6'9", long arms, quick... but to this point it hasn't played out in the NBA when you look at the numbers.
This season and for his career, he has a worse DRating than RJ. To top it off, he was an old rookie and his upside doesn't seem quite as bright. Other than his 3pt %, he's basically a little worse than RJ in just about every possible way.
What I appreciate about RJ is his willingness to adjust his game for the good of the team.
Now Ingram - he's a little more interesting. He's also 25, but he already has a nice mature game - he can shoot, distribute, switch between SG-PF... If you look at his stats and career arc, he's basically the player you'd hope RJ evolves into over the next 2-3 years. What I don't like about Ingram is that he's rail thin and pretty fragile. He's quite good, but this is what you get out of him as a #1 or #2 option. On the Knicks, I don't see him doing what he does in RJ's role.
I think we have a nice 3rd start in RJ. He has upside, he steps up and produces bigger #s if he's your #1st or 2nd option, he can step up if your top 2 options are out. And he really works on his game.
Im really curious what our FO and Coaches REALLY think of Barrett. This season and his potential trajectory. Perhaps disappointed this season but are they discouraged?
Its fair to say Brunson and a refreshed Randle have changed the dynamic of the team somewhat. RJ is being asked to playmake on the second unit and all the while IQ has demonstrated also a different (for the better) level of play. Grimes insertion matters. This team really has changed year over year.
Team is winning more. Not a detriment.
What is the team telling him to do?
We fans can't answer.
We need guys that play.
OG and Levine are always injured.
Look at KD. The guy just injured himself in layup lines. I don’t like any trade where the future can potentially disappear with an injury. He blows out his knee and we have an Allan Houston situation.
Mikal Bridges for RJ and Obi that’s a good move.
MS wrote:We need guys that play.OG and Levine are always injured.
Look at KD. The guy just injured himself in layup lines. I don’t like any trade where the future can potentially disappear with an injury. He blows out his knee and we have an Allan Houston situation.
Mikal Bridges for RJ and Obi that’s a good move.
Can't think of a compelling reason the Nets do that.
Nalod wrote:Im really curious what our FO and Coaches REALLY think of Barrett. This season and his potential trajectory. Perhaps disappointed this season but are they discouraged?
Its fair to say Brunson and a refreshed Randle have changed the dynamic of the team somewhat. RJ is being asked to playmake on the second unit and all the while IQ has demonstrated also a different (for the better) level of play. Grimes insertion matters. This team really has changed year over year.
Team is winning more. Not a detriment.
What is the team telling him to do?
We fans can't answer.
Well, I'd be curious about what other team's FO and coaches think of Barrett. According to Alan Hahn (and despite other media reports saying contrary), RJ was absolutely the key player Utah wanted + draft picks. The Knicks made other offers with other names.
