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.
nycericanguy wrote: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.
IQ is highly regarded throughout the league. He could have been an important piece used in a trade for DM or another star. Glad we got OG, but we did pay too much. The Knicks tax strikes again.
Garrett2010PSD wrote:nycericanguy wrote: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.
IQ is highly regarded throughout the league. He could have been an important piece used in a trade for DM or another star. Glad we got OG, but we did pay too much. The Knicks tax strikes again.
OG's price was high. Raptors turned down 4 first round picks from the Grizzlies on draft night.
DLeethal wrote:Garrett2010PSD wrote:nycericanguy wrote: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.
IQ is highly regarded throughout the league. He could have been an important piece used in a trade for DM or another star. Glad we got OG, but we did pay too much. The Knicks tax strikes again.
OG's price was high. Raptors turned down 4 first round picks from the Grizzlies on draft night.
That's the old price though. This year it wasn't as high.
These reverse jinx threads are insanely incredible, they seem to always work. Thank you and great job!
martin wrote:How’s it goink?
I repressed this. It is hitting my OCD hard.
martin wrote:These reverse jinx threads are insanely incredible, they seem to always work. Thank you and great job!
The trade Grimes thread double inverted reverse jinxed. Game on.
MS ever just say, “Glad to be wrong?”
In the world of plug and play the trade was one thing, but here in the real world chemistry is 1+1=3.
We not winning a chip this year and we might not go far but this team is better than before the trade.
If this “bad”, I don’t want it to be “good”….LOL.
MS, jump on up here and have enjoy it. WE all want a chip but unil that happens enjoy this level of play. Its fun!!!
martin wrote:
No one gives this team s#*t! They take it!
@Martin. I don’t make this request often. My last one was for the D’antoni Pringles guy. But given how OG has performed this last month and my absolute adoration for OG - stemming from an embarrassing affectation going on 2 years. Followed by my standing against the overwhelming crowd here that hated this trade. I would be grateful. No, indebted, if you could create an emoticon in honor of OG Anunoby that captures the above image. I respect the work you put into this site and don’t mean to ask for more. But… the crow. It is time to mark its place in immortality.
DLeethal wrote:Garrett2010PSD wrote:nycericanguy wrote: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.
IQ is highly regarded throughout the league. He could have been an important piece used in a trade for DM or another star. Glad we got OG, but we did pay too much. The Knicks tax strikes again.
OG's price was high. Raptors turned down 4 first round picks from the Grizzlies on draft night.
Yes, no doubt there still is a "Knick tax". But I appreciate the attempt to become a playoff winning team rather than just a regular season winning team, and that is how I see this trade. Look at the Nuggets tonight. They know the goal of top teams for the regular season is to get home court advantage in the playoffs while saving the highest level of effort for the playoffs. Some regular season games have to be sacrificed along the way. I doubt any team in the playoffs will out-hustle them the way the Knicks did tonight. The stupidest move I've seen in recent NBA history was the all-out effort of the 2015-16 Warriors to break the regular season wins record. It cost them in the end.
HowieKomives wrote:DLeethal wrote:Garrett2010PSD wrote:nycericanguy wrote: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.
IQ is highly regarded throughout the league. He could have been an important piece used in a trade for DM or another star. Glad we got OG, but we did pay too much. The Knicks tax strikes again.
OG's price was high. Raptors turned down 4 first round picks from the Grizzlies on draft night.
Yes, no doubt there still is a "Knick tax". But I appreciate the attempt to become a playoff winning team rather than just a regular season winning team, and that is how I see this trade. Look at the Nuggets tonight. They know the goal of top teams for the regular season is to get home court advantage in the playoffs while saving the highest level of effort for the playoffs. Some regular season games have to be sacrificed along the way. I doubt any team in the playoffs will out-hustle them the way the Knicks did tonight. The stupidest move I've seen in recent NBA history was the all-out effort of the 2015-16 Warriors to break the regular season wins record. It cost them in the end.
Bad karma from Zaza taking out Kawhi.
I think any of review of the trade has to start with accepting that getting out of Russian contract was huge, Precious fills an immediate need, and Knicks don't have the roster spots for 3 guys in the 15-35 range of the draft.
Most posters liked the player, not the deal. RJ and IQ was a high price, we gave up a lot of production.
But as I pointed out early on, it doesnt matter if the cost for OG was 2 good, young, players, and no picks. And the deal for another star is mostly about 1st rounders and some cap relief. Its the end result that matters, what the roster looks like after its been largely assembled, not how we got there.
I'd rather read a hot take from MS (or anyone else) than nothing but a lot of boring ass groupthink.
blkexec wrote:nycericanguy wrote:put it like this, trading for KP would have made us better than this while still keeping RJ & IQ.
If Leon had this decision again , knowing what he knows now, he pulls that KP trade.
Keep in mind Leon was a rookie GM learning on the job. I think Isiah Thomas was the last GM I remember coming on a job and making a huge controversial trade for Marbury. Leon is more conservative and calculated. He waits for the right time and I’m sure he sees some past mistakes.
With that said I think this is a nice deal. Knicks did not want either player. IQ too expensive and no starting role. RJ played his way off the team. OG is 30mil and RJ/IQ is well north of that. And these are two guards out the rotation. Plus too many damn left handed slashers on one team.
IQ hurts but there’s a lot of opportunities now to improve short term and still set up for a superstar trade.
Just looking at my earlier posts and glad I didn’t fall for MS trap on talking down about this trade. I thought it was good from the start. We got rid of two ball dominate players for one unselfish defender who can guard 5 positions.
MS………we all make mistakes. Fans don’t know everything. Look at me I said trade Randle instead of RJ and that was a mistake. Even though I may dislike his defense, Randle is an all star caliber player period. Glad the FO didn’t listen to me.
OG is playing himself into a valuable contract. Hope we can keep him and still add a superstar. Question………do we need a superstar? If we get burks for the bench and Mitch comes back, OG signs a new contract, why can’t we win a chip with this roster fully healthy plus burks / brogdon off the bench.
DDV is playing his role to perfection. Why do we need to move him to the bench? He’s not hurting us on defense and especially not on offense. Would D.Mitch make us better at this point? I have my doubts about that. DDV is a better defender. Both can score from all over.
GustavBahler wrote:Most posters liked the player, not the deal. RJ and IQ was a high price, we gave up a lot of production. But as I pointed out early on, it doesnt matter if the cost for OG was 2 good, young, players, and no picks. And the deal for another star is mostly about 1st rounders and some cap relief. Its the end result that matters, what the roster looks like after its been largely assembled, not how we got there.
I'd rather read a hot take from MS (or anyone else) than nothing but a lot of boring ass groupthink.
I think the key point is just to ignore what other people say and stay firmly committed to your views. Since before the season started I have been saying that the key for this team to improve is to get rid of RJ. In the post just previous I restated the point, yet you still consider RJ as part of the "high price" rather than realizing that including RJ vs EF's salary is likely the reason we had to give up a third mid level draft pick we don't have a roster spot for in a weak draft.
Not sure about "groupthink" comment. This site exists because it's a lot of independent thinkers taking time to develop arguments about the team they love rather than a single journalist and a bunch of comments.
