Knicks · Knicks finalizing trade for OG: It’s bad - badass for Knicks, bad for rest of league BOO YA (page 30)
martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:I still would have rather built around RJ & Brunson vs Randle.Its been a great 10-2 stretch but i'm not so sure we don't have a similar stretch with this schedule anyway.
Still not a huge fan of the trade, i understand it, but RJ is showing what he can do in a more free flowing offense. Maybe he reverts, who knows, but he was a workhorse and a hard worker and he was huge in the 1st round against CLE.
We went from having FOUR dependable scorers/creators to just two, and we are too reliant on Brunson more than ever now. Ultimately unless there is a follow up move this team is really lacking a 3rd scorer/creator right now. So until then the trade doesn't make sense to me.
You and I usually agree on a lot of high level stuff, why RJ over Randle? I am on the opposite side of that
I don't trust Randle's mental... RJ at 22 last year already showed more poise under playoff pressure.
Randle is more talented. But RJ played very well WITH Brunson during the playoffs, where as alot of the time I feel like Randle and Brunson just take turns on offense. RJ was the main screener on the pick and roll at times and it worked beautifully.
People talk about spacing and RJ but Randle hasn't been a good shooter either.
I would have taken the 23 year old that isn't at times a mental headcase.
And we don't see RJ just completely take plays off on defense when he's not getting the whistle.
Either way I don't think either RJ or Randle were going to be top dogs to win a chip with, I think we need that DM type player either way, but RJ I think is a better supporting piece.
nycericanguy wrote:DLeethal wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.This is really just semantics and labeling. His impact is all star worthy. But defense-first guys rarely make all star teams. And in the rare case they do it's usually because the team wins 60+ games and they decide to give them multiple all stars. OG is a championship caliber defensive starter. Is RJ or IQ a championship caliber offensive starter?
we'll see.
it's a quantity vs quality thing, but it's also a question of did we take ourselves out of the running for a superstar by trading for OG?
OG + DM was always something discussed here. but we used the two main DM trade pieces to get OG.
My entire points was this trade doesn't make sense without a follow up one. If we get DM or maybe even DJM then it could all come together.
IMO its all about fit. Not sure having too many ball dominant players on the court at the same time works - especially if there are defensive deficiencies. I was skeptical but OG seems to fit perfectly with the Knicks roster and scheme. He made RJ redundant..... Excellent defender who can go up against all 5 positions, willing passer, moves/cuts well, very good spot up from certain places beyond the arc. The open issue is not RJ but rather replacing IQ as a creator/ someone who can be 6th man and also provide back-up scoring support. The Knicks know this so we need to be a bit more patient to see what/if they are able to do by the deadline.
I previously posted Burks/Gallo - but if Lowry gets bought out, could see the team going in that direction. At a higher cost obviously Brogden/DJM might fit nicely as well.
I just don't see the Cavs moving DM by the deadline with them being in the 4/5 playoff spot.....nor do I see the Nets giving us Bridges. Maybe in the offseason.
BigDaddyG wrote:fishmike wrote:nycericanguy wrote:RJ & IQ were the two big chips we had for a star trade like DM. we used them on a role player instead, it's going to be hard to put together a package for a legit star now. DJM might be as close as we can get.are we being serious? OG is a role player? What is the role? Defend the best player, help the Knicks win every game, play 40 minutes and elevate the team from first round fight to conference finals contender? I love OG's role!Just wait till you see how this role player gets paid..
OG isn't a role player, he's a "star"... in his role.
And his role is incredibly important. I like that a lot.
nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.
Because 99% of the weight of that is offense instead of defense. But the odd Gobert and Rodman do make the teams.
IMHO OG is a star. Cause there are 2 ends to the court and maybe I weigh what star is differently than grading on a curve that favors offensive stats.
Championships don't care about star, they care about what goes into winning.
nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:I still would have rather built around RJ & Brunson vs Randle.Its been a great 10-2 stretch but i'm not so sure we don't have a similar stretch with this schedule anyway.
Still not a huge fan of the trade, i understand it, but RJ is showing what he can do in a more free flowing offense. Maybe he reverts, who knows, but he was a workhorse and a hard worker and he was huge in the 1st round against CLE.
We went from having FOUR dependable scorers/creators to just two, and we are too reliant on Brunson more than ever now. Ultimately unless there is a follow up move this team is really lacking a 3rd scorer/creator right now. So until then the trade doesn't make sense to me.
You and I usually agree on a lot of high level stuff, why RJ over Randle? I am on the opposite side of that
I don't trust Randle's mental... RJ at 22 last year already showed more poise under playoff pressure.
Randle is more talented. But RJ played very well WITH Brunson during the playoffs, where as alot of the time I feel like Randle and Brunson just take turns on offense. RJ was the main screener on the pick and roll at times and it worked beautifully.
People talk about spacing and RJ but Randle hasn't been a good shooter either.
I would have taken the 23 year old that isn't at times a mental headcase.
And we don't see RJ just completely take plays off on defense when he's not getting the whistle.
Either way I don't think either RJ or Randle were going to be top dogs to win a chip with, I think we need that DM type player either way, but RJ I think is a better supporting piece.
We agree that RJ and Randle were never a fit and we agree that Randle's psyche is not really trust worthy. I think part of this maneuver is surrounding Randle by high IQ players who know how to fit themselves into the game without needing the ball. More DDV, OG, Hart, iHart has really transformed how this team looks. RJ and IQ were not really those types.
Time to will if Randle can harness his enormous talent in the playoffs the way he can do for huge chunks of an NBA season. What Randle's done this year is above anything RJ will ever do, I think at this point of RJ's career we can say that definitively. Warts and all, he's played like a top 25 player and he and Brunson currently form one of the most potent duo's in the league. RJ's playoff performance last year after a poor 5 game start was admirable but it wasn't anything THAT special that would make anyone choose him over Randle as someone to build around.
Right now, the Brunson + Randle duo, surrounded by the right types who play defense don't need the ball, allowing those two to drop 30 a night and our team look as good as it has looked in a long time. We need another B-level scorer but I don't think we need a DM anymore.
martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.Because 99% of the weight of that is offense instead of defense. But the odd Gobert and Rodman do make the teams.
IMHO OG is a star. Cause there are 2 ends to the court and maybe I weigh what star is differently than grading on a curve that favors offensive stats.
OG has single handedly transformed the identity of the team. Similar to what Brunson did, just in a different way. That’s the definition of a star for sure.
It was pretty easy to predict Randle would suck in the playoffs last couple years because he always sucked late in games when the defense clamped up and the refs stopped blowing the whistle. That's basically how a playoff game is for 48 mins. He's much better in pressure moments this year.
Knicks win everyone is happy.
What star we talking about? We keep doing this but it don't happen.
Stars? Amare was a star. Problem was he was a star for 18 months of his 5 year deal.
Melo was as star.
Stars don't always yield results.
Brunson and Randle are stars. But we paid nothing for them. They became Stars.
Right now Randle is playing like a star.
To the moment in the age of parity only Boston looks great. There greatness hangs on KP.
They are great because they drafted their two stars.
At worst OG moved us up a notch. How far? Depends on how other improved teams fair.
Indy got better from last year and now Siakim.
Philly does not suck like we thought.
Miwaukee 2nd best record in the east and they kick our ass.
Miami got Rozier. "Fuck Miami". True, but dude avg's 23 pts per game. They got better.
Nalod wrote:Love this kind of argument. If knicks don't win its "Told you we need a STAR"!!!!
Knicks win everyone is happy.
What star we talking about? We keep doing this but it don't happen.
Stars? Amare was a star. Problem was he was a star for 18 months of his 5 year deal.
Melo was as star.
Stars don't always yield results.
Brunson and Randle are stars. But we paid nothing for them. They became Stars.
Right now Randle is playing like a star.
To the moment in the age of parity only Boston looks great. There greatness hangs on KP.
They are great because they drafted their two stars.
At worst OG moved us up a notch. How far? Depends on how other improved teams fair.
Indy got better from last year and now Siakim.
Philly does not suck like we thought.
Miwaukee 2nd best record in the east and they kick our ass.
Miami got Rozier. "Fuck Miami". True, but dude avg's 23 pts per game. They got better.
I'm starting to believe Brunson/Randle is good enough with the right cast. We need a 6MOY type to maximize this team IMO. Brunson is capable of playing at a top 10 level and Randle is like Amare as a sidekick to Brunson (Nash). OG is Shawn Marion. There are no dynasty Spurs in our conference. Gotta find a spark plug bench scorer though.
Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.Because 99% of the weight of that is offense instead of defense. But the odd Gobert and Rodman do make the teams.
IMHO OG is a star. Cause there are 2 ends to the court and maybe I weigh what star is differently than grading on a curve that favors offensive stats.
OG has single handedly transformed the identity of the team. Similar to what Brunson did, just in a different way. That’s the definition of a star for sure.
this was already a good defensive team that won 47 games and was 1 shot away from a game 7 at MSG with a chance to go to the ECF's.
no question he's had a big impact, but we're also comparing a stretch where we lost Mitch and had a really difficult schedule, to now a 12 game stretch where we've been at home almost every game and have had a really easy schedule.
so I think he changes our defense for sure, but I don't think he makes us take a huge leap over 47 wins either. I think this was and is a 45-50 win team depending on how luck breaks. I don't think our ceiling is any higher necessarily with OG right now.
It COULD be with a follow up trade, but this is like the DDV signing, it didn't make sense, you knew someone had to go. It ended up being IQ. Same situation now, we need to ADD someone now... will we? we'll see... until then it's a TBD is all i'm saying.
DLeethal wrote:Nalod wrote:Love this kind of argument. If knicks don't win its "Told you we need a STAR"!!!!
Knicks win everyone is happy.
What star we talking about? We keep doing this but it don't happen.
Stars? Amare was a star. Problem was he was a star for 18 months of his 5 year deal.
Melo was as star.
Stars don't always yield results.
Brunson and Randle are stars. But we paid nothing for them. They became Stars.
Right now Randle is playing like a star.
To the moment in the age of parity only Boston looks great. There greatness hangs on KP.
They are great because they drafted their two stars.
At worst OG moved us up a notch. How far? Depends on how other improved teams fair.
Indy got better from last year and now Siakim.
Philly does not suck like we thought.
Miwaukee 2nd best record in the east and they kick our ass.
Miami got Rozier. "Fuck Miami". True, but dude avg's 23 pts per game. They got better.I'm starting to believe Brunson/Randle is good enough with the right cast. We need a 6MOY type to maximize this team IMO. Brunson is capable of playing at a top 10 level and Randle is like Amare as a sidekick to Brunson (Nash). OG is Shawn Marion. There are no dynasty Spurs in our conference. Gotta find a spark plug bench scorer though.
DDV is ignored?
Im not saying knicks are complete. they are not. But they moved the ceiling with OG. I get the argument, just don't agree with it.
Nalod wrote:Funny to see OG next to Bridges last night. Mikal looked like a child next to him.
Everyone does. Except Embiid and Jokic
nycericanguy wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.Because 99% of the weight of that is offense instead of defense. But the odd Gobert and Rodman do make the teams.
IMHO OG is a star. Cause there are 2 ends to the court and maybe I weigh what star is differently than grading on a curve that favors offensive stats.
OG has single handedly transformed the identity of the team. Similar to what Brunson did, just in a different way. That’s the definition of a star for sure.
this was already a good defensive team that won 47 games and was 1 shot away from a game 7 at MSG with a chance to go to the ECF's.
no question he's had a big impact, but we're also comparing a stretch where we lost Mitch and had a really difficult schedule, to now a 12 game stretch where we've been at home almost every game and have had a really easy schedule.
so I think he changes our defense for sure, but I don't think he makes us take a huge leap over 47 wins either. I think this was and is a 45-50 win team depending on how luck breaks. I don't think our ceiling is any higher necessarily with OG right now.
It COULD be with a follow up trade, but this is like the DDV signing, it didn't make sense, you knew someone had to go. It ended up being IQ. Same situation now, we need to ADD someone now... will we? we'll see... until then it's a TBD is all i'm saying.
The bold does not take into account the NBA is not the same as last season. Every good east team got better. Also the team we have now is missing what was our defensive anchor in Mitch. The fact that we are this good on defense without mitch can not be pushed aside. We was giving up 120pts a game directly before the trade and now give up around 100. That is a major impact.
Clean wrote:nycericanguy wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.Because 99% of the weight of that is offense instead of defense. But the odd Gobert and Rodman do make the teams.
IMHO OG is a star. Cause there are 2 ends to the court and maybe I weigh what star is differently than grading on a curve that favors offensive stats.
OG has single handedly transformed the identity of the team. Similar to what Brunson did, just in a different way. That’s the definition of a star for sure.
this was already a good defensive team that won 47 games and was 1 shot away from a game 7 at MSG with a chance to go to the ECF's.
no question he's had a big impact, but we're also comparing a stretch where we lost Mitch and had a really difficult schedule, to now a 12 game stretch where we've been at home almost every game and have had a really easy schedule.
so I think he changes our defense for sure, but I don't think he makes us take a huge leap over 47 wins either. I think this was and is a 45-50 win team depending on how luck breaks. I don't think our ceiling is any higher necessarily with OG right now.
It COULD be with a follow up trade, but this is like the DDV signing, it didn't make sense, you knew someone had to go. It ended up being IQ. Same situation now, we need to ADD someone now... will we? we'll see... until then it's a TBD is all i'm saying.
The bold does not take into account the NBA is not the same as last season. Every good east team got better. Also the team we have now is missing what was our defensive anchor in Mitch. The fact that we are this good on defense without mitch can not be pushed aside. We was giving up 120pts a game directly before the trade and now give up around 100. That is a major impact.
we were on pace for 45 wins this season as well when we made the trade, despite the schedule. we were 14-1 against sub .500 teams. So this team likely goes on a nice run regardless with the schedule easing up.
nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:I still would have rather built around RJ & Brunson vs Randle.Its been a great 10-2 stretch but i'm not so sure we don't have a similar stretch with this schedule anyway.
Still not a huge fan of the trade, i understand it, but RJ is showing what he can do in a more free flowing offense. Maybe he reverts, who knows, but he was a workhorse and a hard worker and he was huge in the 1st round against CLE.
We went from having FOUR dependable scorers/creators to just two, and we are too reliant on Brunson more than ever now. Ultimately unless there is a follow up move this team is really lacking a 3rd scorer/creator right now. So until then the trade doesn't make sense to me.
You and I usually agree on a lot of high level stuff, why RJ over Randle? I am on the opposite side of that
I don't trust Randle's mental... RJ at 22 last year already showed more poise under playoff pressure.
Randle is more talented. But RJ played very well WITH Brunson during the playoffs, where as alot of the time I feel like Randle and Brunson just take turns on offense. RJ was the main screener on the pick and roll at times and it worked beautifully.
People talk about spacing and RJ but Randle hasn't been a good shooter either.
I would have taken the 23 year old that isn't at times a mental headcase.
And we don't see RJ just completely take plays off on defense when he's not getting the whistle.
Either way I don't think either RJ or Randle were going to be top dogs to win a chip with, I think we need that DM type player either way, but RJ I think is a better supporting piece.
I have the opposite takeaway.
RJ barely ever shows a conscious. Ever. That bro could be 2-20 and he is still shooting with confidence and not thinking twice about it. That's his MO and he talks about it and it shows.
You and I will agree that RJ performance from month to month and within year is up and down? Consistently up and down and his shooting has been consistently on the below average side? Hot one month and then migraine territory for another month?
IMHO That is called being not consistent, ie. not proven enough, ie. not to be counted on until he can do it consistently cause he can also duck out for ~8 of the 11 playoffs games like he did last year depending on how you judge each of his performances.
So, was RJ showing poise under pressure or was that just his norm and he had a good game or a few good moments at some key times? That guy shot 33% from 3, 50% efg% overall. So, his regular season numbers over an 11 game playoff stretch.
So, poise or just more of the same?
Randle, he is whack and an emotional nutball under pressure. But Joyful-Locked-In JuJu is very very very good and can carry a team to the ~4-6th seed all by himself AND is already good enough to draw double teams all the time and carry an offense for months at a time. All during the regular season to make that explicit, he got some good work to prove in playoffs. Randle can be an integral part of your regular season to get you to 4th seed or better. Randle goes off his proverbial meds, he can throw a cloud over your team for sure. Team and him gotta work to minimize those situations, they know that.
You NEED that regular season Randle guy on your team cause someone like RJ - in his stead - is not yet poised to do it on a regular basis by himself. He has never shown that IMO.
You make Randle your regular season horse cause he can single-handedly dominate his position against 80% of the league (RJ cannot), especially on his Joyful nights. Pair Joyful with Brunson, and the Randle character only shows up a couple games a month instead of every third game without Brunson (and we can quibble with how often it occurs). The trick is to keep Randle joyful and focused; not easy but easier than betting on RJ becoming an above average shooter and defender. Brunson is good at making Randle joyful (so are all the Villanova boys TBH). So is OG as he makes it such that Randle don't have to worry about defense; for me, that OG thing is not a joke, he is literally covering for Randle and both guys are better for it and so is team. OG's defense and cutting and corner 3point% and usage is turning Randle in Joyful JuJu; you can see it, bro is throwing dodgeball passes, smiling, dunking, giving post game emotional speaks that bring tears to our eyes. Dude is in a good mental place and PERFORMING.
Are guys like Brunson and OG... are they Joyful JuJu team leaders? Yep, IMO. Knicks will mostly likely surround their team with one more guy like Donovan or Mikal type that can help Brunson help Randle more. Or trade Mitch, Randle for Embiid.
That's how I see it.
nycericanguy wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.Because 99% of the weight of that is offense instead of defense. But the odd Gobert and Rodman do make the teams.
IMHO OG is a star. Cause there are 2 ends to the court and maybe I weigh what star is differently than grading on a curve that favors offensive stats.
OG has single handedly transformed the identity of the team. Similar to what Brunson did, just in a different way. That’s the definition of a star for sure.
this was already a good defensive team that won 47 games and was 1 shot away from a game 7 at MSG with a chance to go to the ECF's.
no question he's had a big impact, but we're also comparing a stretch where we lost Mitch and had a really difficult schedule, to now a 12 game stretch where we've been at home almost every game and have had a really easy schedule.
so I think he changes our defense for sure, but I don't think he makes us take a huge leap over 47 wins either. I think this was and is a 45-50 win team depending on how luck breaks. I don't think our ceiling is any higher necessarily with OG right now.
It COULD be with a follow up trade, but this is like the DDV signing, it didn't make sense, you knew someone had to go. It ended up being IQ. Same situation now, we need to ADD someone now... will we? we'll see... until then it's a TBD is all i'm saying.
I haven't read this entire thread, but it was clear that IQ wasn't going to stay to be Brunson's backup. This was an RJ for OG trade, and while it doesn't make the Knicks championship contenders, it gives them better D and makes it (slightly) less likely they will be crushed in the first round of the playoffs. During last night's game the announcers mentioned the Knicks were 18-0 against sub .500 teams but only 8-17 against .500 or better teams. What does that tell you about their chances in the playoffs? In the NBA, the playoff game and the regular season game are two very different games.
I was mixed on giving up both IQ and RJ tbh but can’t complain now.
It’s bad. 
HowieKomives wrote:nycericanguy wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.Because 99% of the weight of that is offense instead of defense. But the odd Gobert and Rodman do make the teams.
IMHO OG is a star. Cause there are 2 ends to the court and maybe I weigh what star is differently than grading on a curve that favors offensive stats.
OG has single handedly transformed the identity of the team. Similar to what Brunson did, just in a different way. That’s the definition of a star for sure.
this was already a good defensive team that won 47 games and was 1 shot away from a game 7 at MSG with a chance to go to the ECF's.
no question he's had a big impact, but we're also comparing a stretch where we lost Mitch and had a really difficult schedule, to now a 12 game stretch where we've been at home almost every game and have had a really easy schedule.
so I think he changes our defense for sure, but I don't think he makes us take a huge leap over 47 wins either. I think this was and is a 45-50 win team depending on how luck breaks. I don't think our ceiling is any higher necessarily with OG right now.
It COULD be with a follow up trade, but this is like the DDV signing, it didn't make sense, you knew someone had to go. It ended up being IQ. Same situation now, we need to ADD someone now... will we? we'll see... until then it's a TBD is all i'm saying.
I haven't read this entire thread, but it was clear that IQ wasn't going to stay to be Brunson's backup. This was an RJ for OG trade, and while it doesn't make the Knicks championship contenders, it gives them better D and makes it (slightly) less likely they will be crushed in the first round of the playoffs. During last night's game the announcers mentioned the Knicks were 18-0 against sub .500 teams but only 8-17 against .500 or better teams. What does that tell you about their chances in the playoffs? In the NBA, the playoff game and the regular season game are two very different games.
even if you felt IQ was leaving, you could have traded him for something else really good, he had value, the value of at least 2 firsts, so its not just RJ for OG.