Jalen Brunson obsession

[RHODEY]

Dude is like 18 and 6 as a starter, arguably the 2nd best player for a playoff to team. When did we become so good that we could turn our noses up at that?

Well we did turn our noses on a dude that was 24, 10 and 6 as a starter, unquestioningly the best player for a playoff team. So not sure that the stats says it all when it comes to a long term big dollar committment. Brunson on a contract like what Dallas has been paying him? No question bring it. Brunson at $20+ million per over 4 or 5 years? Yeah that's a different type of view.

Even @ 20 million I'd do it. He's not 32 and he's a PG and he's still improving.

[moocow007]

Brunson for Randle looking like a real possibility now

I mean yeah if you actually look at the Mavs roster their biggest need (now that Porzingis is gone) is a guy in the front court that can actually score. Unless you consider Dorian Finney Smith (who barely averages 10ppg as it is) a traditional "big" instead of what he is "a wing" they have absolutely no one that can score at either the PF or C positions. Maxi Kleber and Dwight Powell are pretty much it for them and neither guy has averaged even 10ppg in their careers. Now not sure if Dallas would want Randle given how bad this season has gone for him but technically Randle removed from the need to have to run an offense and be the no.1 option may actually fit with the Mavericks and Luka nor do the Mavs really have a lot of assets to move to get someone better. And it's probably not hard to argue that Randle would fit better with Luka than Porzingis did. So, yeah, not that farfetched if you really look at it.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Well we did turn our noses on a dude that was 24, 10 and 6 as a starter, unquestioningly the best player for a playoff team. So not sure that the stats says it all when it comes to a long term big dollar committment. Brunson on a contract like what Dallas has been paying him? No question bring it. Brunson at $20+ million per over 4 or 5 years? Yeah that's a different type of view.

Isn't that what people were saying ab0ut FVF? A poor man's Lillard. And how have Lillard's teams done lately?

Remember when the board was dreaming of KD and Kyrie? [not to mention adding Harden too!] How's that worked out for them? NY Nets FOUR games over .500. Just traded Harden for Simmons who still doesn't want to play (just get paid).

Mavs are TWENTY games over .500. Is Doncik alone 5 times better than ALL of them combined? If not, maybe Brunson would be a start here.

20M too much for a PG? Okay, back to washed Kemba, Mudiay, Burke, Burks, Jose Ole, Payton...the list goes on!

Actually, I think Brunson stays with Dallas. Knicks would HAVE to offer $5M more than anyone else to get him to come to this mess.

You're spinning that pretty strong aren't you? FVF wasn't worth it then and he's not worth it now so that doesn't really help the argument for Brunson. If anything that works against Brunson. And if you'd rather have FVF or Brunson over Lillard then I don't know what else to say. You put FVF and Brunson on the Blazers teams and you'd think the Blazers would be better? Seriously? That's what you're saying here right?

And the Knicks would still be better off with KD and Kyrie than the gaggle of whatever they have right now so that also doesn't help. If they decide to trade KD or Kyrie they'll get back more than the entire Knicks team in terms of value. So yeah better record and better assets is what the Nets have.

20M to much for a PG? Yeah...if he's not a real PG and not worth 20M. The trash the Knicks have had means absolutely nothing to justify Brunson at $20+ million per over 4 to 5 years. 80% of the PG's in the NBA are better than what the Knicks have had and it doesn't mean that we should pay them excessively to be better than trash here does it? Him being better than trash doesn't mean he's worth that much money.

Knick fans LOVE building up other teams players as more than they are and then pretty much like clockwork turn on them when they realize seeing them up close they have plenty of worts and holes in their game. Grass is greener, the other teams players are better...

You guys were doing this same spin with Patty Mills when he was on those GREAT Spurs teams. Some of you were going nuts about how the Knicks should get him cause look how good the Spurs are and Mills can be that PG that the Knicks have been missing.

You didn't want Fred, you don't want Brunson, but you want Westbrook and to feature him unironically? Anyone that has wanted Westbrook for the last two years shouldn't be talking about Knick fans building up other players, you want him even after the awful season he's had with the hopes of resigning him too

[RHODEY]

Dude is like 18 and 6 as a starter, arguably the 2nd best player for a playoff to team. When did we become so good that we could turn our noses up at that?

Well we did turn our noses on a dude that was 24, 10 and 6 as a starter, unquestioningly the best player for a playoff team. So not sure that the stats says it all when it comes to a long term big dollar committment. Brunson on a contract like what Dallas has been paying him? No question bring it. Brunson at $20+ million per over 4 or 5 years? Yeah that's a different type of view.

Isn't that what people were saying ab0ut FVF? A poor man's Lillard. And how have Lillard's teams done lately?

Remember when the board was dreaming of KD and Kyrie? [not to mention adding Harden too!] How's that worked out for them? NY Nets FOUR games over .500. Just traded Harden for Simmons who still doesn't want to play (just get paid).

Mavs are TWENTY games over .500. Is Doncik alone 5 times better than ALL of them combined? If not, maybe Brunson would be a start here.

20M too much for a PG? Okay, back to washed Kemba, Mudiay, Burke, Burks, Jose Ole, Payton...the list goes on!

Actually, I think Brunson stays with Dallas. Knicks would HAVE to offer $5M more than anyone else to get him to come to this mess.

Yea..only thing with Dumwoodie (or however you spell it) working out for them, Dallas might be able to afford to lose Brunson in a sign and trade for a piece that would fit.

[moocow007]

Isn't that what people were saying ab0ut FVF? A poor man's Lillard. And how have Lillard's teams done lately?

Remember when the board was dreaming of KD and Kyrie? [not to mention adding Harden too!] How's that worked out for them? NY Nets FOUR games over .500. Just traded Harden for Simmons who still doesn't want to play (just get paid).

Mavs are TWENTY games over .500. Is Doncik alone 5 times better than ALL of them combined? If not, maybe Brunson would be a start here.

20M too much for a PG? Okay, back to washed Kemba, Mudiay, Burke, Burks, Jose Ole, Payton...the list goes on!

Actually, I think Brunson stays with Dallas. Knicks would HAVE to offer $5M more than anyone else to get him to come to this mess.

You're spinning that pretty strong aren't you? FVF wasn't worth it then and he's not worth it now so that doesn't really help the argument for Brunson. If anything that works against Brunson. And if you'd rather have FVF or Brunson over Lillard then I don't know what else to say. You put FVF and Brunson on the Blazers teams and you'd think the Blazers would be better? Seriously? That's what you're saying here right?

And the Knicks would still be better off with KD and Kyrie than the gaggle of whatever they have right now so that also doesn't help. If they decide to trade KD or Kyrie they'll get back more than the entire Knicks team in terms of value. So yeah better record and better assets is what the Nets have.

20M to much for a PG? Yeah...if he's not a real PG and not worth 20M. The trash the Knicks have had means absolutely nothing to justify Brunson at $20+ million per over 4 to 5 years. 80% of the PG's in the NBA are better than what the Knicks have had and it doesn't mean that we should pay them excessively to be better than trash here does it? Him being better than trash doesn't mean he's worth that much money.

Knick fans LOVE building up other teams players as more than they are and then pretty much like clockwork turn on them when they realize seeing them up close they have plenty of worts and holes in their game. Grass is greener, the other teams players are better...

You guys were doing this same spin with Patty Mills when he was on those GREAT Spurs teams. Some of you were going nuts about how the Knicks should get him cause look how good the Spurs are and Mills can be that PG that the Knicks have been missing.

You didn't want Fred, you don't want Brunson, but you want Westbrook and to feature him unironically?

? I want to trade for Westbrooks expiring (by moving Randle and the bulk of the vets clogging up rotation spots and playing time) and not waive him, use him as a shield to help deflect media attention from the young guys so they have another year to develop (in peace) while getting more minutes. How does that translate into "want Westbrook and feature him"?



This is like folks that assume I'm a Randle fan cause I don't think he's the anti-christ.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

You're spinning that pretty strong aren't you? FVF wasn't worth it then and he's not worth it now so that doesn't really help the argument for Brunson. If anything that works against Brunson. And if you'd rather have FVF or Brunson over Lillard then I don't know what else to say. You put FVF and Brunson on the Blazers teams and you'd think the Blazers would be better? Seriously? That's what you're saying here right?

And the Knicks would still be better off with KD and Kyrie than the gaggle of whatever they have right now so that also doesn't help. If they decide to trade KD or Kyrie they'll get back more than the entire Knicks team in terms of value. So yeah better record and better assets is what the Nets have.

20M to much for a PG? Yeah...if he's not a real PG and not worth 20M. The trash the Knicks have had means absolutely nothing to justify Brunson at $20+ million per over 4 to 5 years. 80% of the PG's in the NBA are better than what the Knicks have had and it doesn't mean that we should pay them excessively to be better than trash here does it? Him being better than trash doesn't mean he's worth that much money.

Knick fans LOVE building up other teams players as more than they are and then pretty much like clockwork turn on them when they realize seeing them up close they have plenty of worts and holes in their game. Grass is greener, the other teams players are better...

You guys were doing this same spin with Patty Mills when he was on those GREAT Spurs teams. Some of you were going nuts about how the Knicks should get him cause look how good the Spurs are and Mills can be that PG that the Knicks have been missing.

You didn't want Fred, you don't want Brunson, but you want Westbrook and to feature him unironically?

? I want to trade for Westbrooks expiring (by moving Randle and the bulk of the vets clogging up rotation spots and playing time) and not waive him, use him as a shield to help deflect attention from the young guys so they have another year to develop while getting more minutes. How does that translate into "want Westbrook and feature him"?

You wanted Westbrook LAST YEAR and even made a thread on it about pairing him with Randle, you simply want Westbrook and are unwavering on that. You are the last person that should be speaking about Knick fans propping up other players. Westbrook is not going to help anyone develop either, he'd be featured here and have the ball in his hands at OKC levels.

[moocow007]

You didn't want Fred, you don't want Brunson, but you want Westbrook and to feature him unironically?

? I want to trade for Westbrooks expiring (by moving Randle and the bulk of the vets clogging up rotation spots and playing time) and not waive him, use him as a shield to help deflect attention from the young guys so they have another year to develop while getting more minutes. How does that translate into "want Westbrook and feature him"?

You wanted Westbrook LAST YEAR and even made a thread on it about pairing him with Randle, you simply want Westbrook and are unwavering on that. You are the last person that should be speaking about Knick fans propping up other players. Westbrook is not going to help anyone develop either, he'd be featured here and have the ball in his hands at OKC levels.

I wanted Westbrook before he looked awful in the fit with the Lakers and instead of resigning these vets to overpriced salaries because I'd rather have his contract and play on a shorter term deal than having to suffer through extra years of these vets. That's what we are talking about now right? Most of you jamokes were yammering about how those vet contracts were not that bad and that they should be easily moved weren't ya? LOL. How'd that turn out? Wait, wait...that wasn't you guys right?

Who said anything about develop? Him being a shield to deflect the negative attention away from the Knicks team when they suck again next season is what I'm after. Or do you really want to media and you fans to start jumping on RJ when he can't pull gold out his ass? It's going to happen. Fans do that. NY media does that. You cut him and now RJ is the guy that will be wearing that target on his back. You really want that to happen? It will if he because the center of attention for blame.

As far as shots go...the most shots a game Westbrook has ever averaged in a season is 24. The last 2 seasons he's averaged 16.5 attempts a game. Randle, Fournier and Burks combined to take 3 roster spots and 43 shots a game. Having Westbrook on this team instead of those guys is NOT going to take shots away from the young guys despite the natural reaction otherwise. What it will do is create 2 roster spots for the young guys and the shots the come along with what Burks and Fournier was taking.

[moocow007]

Dude is like 18 and 6 as a starter, arguably the 2nd best player for a playoff to team. When did we become so good that we could turn our noses up at that?

Well we did turn our noses on a dude that was 24, 10 and 6 as a starter, unquestioningly the best player for a playoff team. So not sure that the stats says it all when it comes to a long term big dollar committment. Brunson on a contract like what Dallas has been paying him? No question bring it. Brunson at $20+ million per over 4 or 5 years? Yeah that's a different type of view.

Even @ 20 million I'd do it. He's not 32 and he's a PG and he's still improving.

And what if placed in a bigger role than he's ever been in and in a media spotlight where blame will go his way results in him not being able to handle the magnifying glass and, in return, results in him not improving? Not everyone improves. We have first hand example of that front and center right? At least with Randle you knew the talent was there and it was just whether he can handle the pressure (apparently he can't). With Brunson both are question marks. I mean if they have to and they feel the need to, ok, Brunson is better than anything they've had in a long time. But it's not something that is clearly a good idea is my point (ergo my fat chick analogy a few pages back).

[RHODEY]

Well we did turn our noses on a dude that was 24, 10 and 6 as a starter, unquestioningly the best player for a playoff team. So not sure that the stats says it all when it comes to a long term big dollar committment. Brunson on a contract like what Dallas has been paying him? No question bring it. Brunson at $20+ million per over 4 or 5 years? Yeah that's a different type of view.

Even @ 20 million I'd do it. He's not 32 and he's a PG and he's still improving.

And what if placed in a bigger role than he's ever been in and in a media spotlight where blame will go his way results in him not being able to handle the magnifying glass results in him not improving? Not everyone improves. We have first hand example of that front and center right? At least with Randle you knew the talent was there and it was just whether he can handle the pressure (apparently he can't). With Brunson both are question marks. I mean if they have to and they feel the need to, ok. But it's not something that is clearly a good idea is my point.

I think with Randle he capitalized on one outlier season. Before that I was not excited about him or his mistake prone momentum killing play.
Brunson isn't CP3 but he's consistently improved on his consistent, efficient and heady play every season. He's even put up good numbers during extended stretches as a starter and without Luka in the lineup

Those questions have been in answered in my eyes. Speaking of questions, every time I post this :



It gets quiet in here? Why is that?

[moocow007]

Even @ 20 million I'd do it. He's not 32 and he's a PG and he's still improving.

And what if placed in a bigger role than he's ever been in and in a media spotlight where blame will go his way results in him not being able to handle the magnifying glass results in him not improving? Not everyone improves. We have first hand example of that front and center right? At least with Randle you knew the talent was there and it was just whether he can handle the pressure (apparently he can't). With Brunson both are question marks. I mean if they have to and they feel the need to, ok. But it's not something that is clearly a good idea is my point.

I think with Randle he capitalized on one outlier season. Before that I was not excited about him or his mistake prone momentum killing play.
Brunson isn't CP3 but he's consistently improved on his consistent, efficient and heady play every season. He's even put up good numbers during extended stretches as a starter and without Luka in the lineup

Those questions have been in answered in my eyes. Speaking of questions, every time I post this :



It gets quiet in here? Why is that?

Sorry I haven't seen that but I'll take a crack...

That's just a small stretch of games. I mean Randle had a full season of games that made him look like a top 10 player. You can also find a stretch of games Obi has played in that Randle has not that makes Obi look like a legit NBA starting PF as well right? Would you bank your wad on it? I would not. Alec Burks has had stretches of games that says he should be a great guard. Tim Hardaway Jr had that as well when he was with the Knicks.

Also, it's one thing to have a strong set of games as a lead guard when you know that the "big dog" will be back eventually than to know that it is all now up to you. Pressure factors into things and it's a different dynamic. And when it comes to pressure, we would be dumping Brunson into arguably the biggest pressure spot in the NBA. That's why I have a tendency to lean towards guys that have shown they can carry the load (example would be me preferring they signed Derozan over adding lesser guys like Fournier) when it comes to players to add to this team (also applies to college players that have shown the type of mentality that says they may be tough enough mentally to handle it here).

Does it mean that he can't continue that on a new team where he will have to average that for an entire season and an entire stay with that team? No. He might. But it's not proof positive is the thing. Proof positive is looking at guys that have already shown they can. That's not Brunson. That is the risk of committing big bucks and big years on Brunson. Again doesn't mean we shouldn't but it's not something that I'd be jumping up and down about.

A stretch of games evidence is kinda like the Per 36 stats used as evidence. Based on that during their primes you could have argued that some backup caliber players were better than some all-star caliber players. Royal Ivey for example would have been a better player than Stephon Marbury was one famous example that a bunch of us went through a long time ago on this board. And as much as we hated Marbury, that still would not have been true.

At the end of the day, I'm not an over reactionary type guy. I'm not a glass is half full or glass is half empty guy. I'm a guy that says the glass has half the water it can hold and that's all it is. So don't take what I say as big a negative as it may seem.

[8516knicks]

Brunson for Randle looking like a real possibility now

I mean yeah if you actually look at the Mavs roster their biggest need (now that Porzingis is gone) is a guy in the front court that can actually score. Unless you consider Dorian Finney Smith (who barely averages 10ppg as it is) a traditional "big" instead of what he is "a wing" they have absolutely no one that can score at either the PF or C positions. Maxi Kleber and Dwight Powell are pretty much it for them and neither guy has averaged even 10ppg in their careers. Now not sure if Dallas would want Randle given how bad this season has gone for him but technically Randle removed from the need to have to run an offense and be the no.1 option may actually fit with the Mavericks and Luka nor do the Mavs really have a lot of assets to move to get someone better. And it's probably not hard to argue that Randle would fit better with Luka than Porzingis did. So, yeah, not that farfetched if you really look at it.

Seems like your making the case Doncick (and trash) is 5 times better then KD and Kyrie (and trash) COMBINED. TWENTY games over .500 is less than FOUR games over .500 - got it! Or perhaps Brunson is a pretty decent pg. But $20M for a decent PG? No way.

[moocow007]

Brunson for Randle looking like a real possibility now

I mean yeah if you actually look at the Mavs roster their biggest need (now that Porzingis is gone) is a guy in the front court that can actually score. Unless you consider Dorian Finney Smith (who barely averages 10ppg as it is) a traditional "big" instead of what he is "a wing" they have absolutely no one that can score at either the PF or C positions. Maxi Kleber and Dwight Powell are pretty much it for them and neither guy has averaged even 10ppg in their careers. Now not sure if Dallas would want Randle given how bad this season has gone for him but technically Randle removed from the need to have to run an offense and be the no.1 option may actually fit with the Mavericks and Luka nor do the Mavs really have a lot of assets to move to get someone better. And it's probably not hard to argue that Randle would fit better with Luka than Porzingis did. So, yeah, not that farfetched if you really look at it.

Seems like your making the case Doncick (and trash) is 5 times better then KD and Kyrie (and trash) COMBINED. TWENTY games over .500 is less than FOUR games over .500 - got it! Or perhaps Brunson is a pretty decent pg. But $20M for a decent PG? No way.

Donic wasn't 5 times better than KD and Kyrie last season is the thing. So does that mean that Doncic wasn't who he is last season or that KD and Kyrie isn't the players they are this season? You can't always base things on the record. As far as $20 million for a decent PG? No, it's not something I'd jump at. Example....IF Ricky Rubio didn't blow out his knee, I can argue that $12-13 million for Rubio (a decent PG) over 2-3 years would be better than 4 or 5 years of Brunson at $20+ million per. Yes Rubio is older than Brunson but that really matters if you buy into Brunson being so good that he can be a foundation piece for the Knicks for the next 5-8 years. I don't know that I feel that about Brunson.

[moocow007]

Brunson for Randle looking like a real possibility now

I mean yeah if you actually look at the Mavs roster their biggest need (now that Porzingis is gone) is a guy in the front court that can actually score. Unless you consider Dorian Finney Smith (who barely averages 10ppg as it is) a traditional "big" instead of what he is "a wing" they have absolutely no one that can score at either the PF or C positions. Maxi Kleber and Dwight Powell are pretty much it for them and neither guy has averaged even 10ppg in their careers. Now not sure if Dallas would want Randle given how bad this season has gone for him but technically Randle removed from the need to have to run an offense and be the no.1 option may actually fit with the Mavericks and Luka nor do the Mavs really have a lot of assets to move to get someone better. And it's probably not hard to argue that Randle would fit better with Luka than Porzingis did. So, yeah, not that farfetched if you really look at it.

Seems like your making the case Doncick (and trash) is 5 times better then KD and Kyrie (and trash) COMBINED. TWENTY games over .500 is less than FOUR games over .500 - got it! Or perhaps Brunson is a pretty decent pg. But $20M for a decent PG? No way.

Donic wasn't 5 times better than KD and Kyrie last season is the thing. So does that mean that Doncic wasn't who he is last season or that KD and Kyrie isn't the players they are this season? You can't always base things on the record. As far as $20 million for a decent PG? No, it's not something I'd jump at. Example....IF Ricky Rubio didn't blow out his knee, I can argue that $12-13 million for Rubio (a decent PG) over 2-3 years would be better than 4 or 5 years of Brunson at $20+ million per. Yes Rubio is (much) older than Brunson but that really matters if you buy into Brunson being so good that he can be a foundation piece for the Knicks for the next 5-8 years. I don't know that I feel that about Brunson. Otherwise, the focus are on guys like RJ and whomever else among the young guys you have to put them in the best positions to shine and a guy like Rubio (or similar) may be better suited to do that. Now I don't know if there's anyone else similar that could be a better option than $20+ million for Brunson. But it's just that I'm not thrilled with Brunson to the degree that I'd be happy about it.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

? I want to trade for Westbrooks expiring (by moving Randle and the bulk of the vets clogging up rotation spots and playing time) and not waive him, use him as a shield to help deflect attention from the young guys so they have another year to develop while getting more minutes. How does that translate into "want Westbrook and feature him"?

You wanted Westbrook LAST YEAR and even made a thread on it about pairing him with Randle, you simply want Westbrook and are unwavering on that. You are the last person that should be speaking about Knick fans propping up other players. Westbrook is not going to help anyone develop either, he'd be featured here and have the ball in his hands at OKC levels.

I wanted Westbrook before he looked awful in the fit with the Lakers and instead of resigning these vets to overpriced salaries because I'd rather have his contract and play on a shorter term deal than having to suffer through extra years of these vets. That's what we are talking about now right? Most of you jamokes were yammering about how those vet contracts were not that bad and that they should be easily moved weren't ya? LOL. How'd that turn out? Wait, wait...that wasn't you guys right?

Who said anything about develop? Him being a shield to deflect the negative attention away from the Knicks team when they suck again next season is what I'm after. Or do you really want to media and you fans to start jumping on RJ when he can't pull gold out his ass? It's going to happen. Fans do that. NY media does that. You cut him and now RJ is the guy that will be wearing that target on his back. You really want that to happen? It will if he because the center of attention for blame.

As far as shots go...the most shots a game Westbrook has ever averaged in a season is 24. The last 2 seasons he's averaged 16.5 attempts a game. Randle, Fournier and Burks combined to take 3 roster spots and 43 shots a game. Having Westbrook on this team instead of those guys is NOT going to take shots away from the young guys despite the natural reaction otherwise. What it will do is create 2 roster spots for the young guys and the shots the come along with what Burks and Fournier was taking.

You can't be in here criticizing Knick fans for wanting Brunson, while penning love letters to us acquiring Westbrook.

We would be a better team moving forward with Brunson, just as we would have been had we gotten FVV, you were wrong about FVV not being worth $20 million per season, just like you will be wrong about Brunson getting that kind of money. Sorry, but nobody who is defending the position of acquiring Westbrook can tell me differently.

[RHODEY]

And what if placed in a bigger role than he's ever been in and in a media spotlight where blame will go his way results in him not being able to handle the magnifying glass results in him not improving? Not everyone improves. We have first hand example of that front and center right? At least with Randle you knew the talent was there and it was just whether he can handle the pressure (apparently he can't). With Brunson both are question marks. I mean if they have to and they feel the need to, ok. But it's not something that is clearly a good idea is my point.

I think with Randle he capitalized on one outlier season. Before that I was not excited about him or his mistake prone momentum killing play.
Brunson isn't CP3 but he's consistently improved on his consistent, efficient and heady play every season. He's even put up good numbers during extended stretches as a starter and without Luka in the lineup

Those questions have been in answered in my eyes. Speaking of questions, every time I post this :



It gets quiet in here? Why is that?

Sorry I haven't seen that but I'll take a crack...

That's just a small stretch of games. I mean Randle had a full season of games that made him look like a top 10 player. You can also find a stretch of games Obi has played in that Randle has not that makes Obi look like a legit NBA starting PF as well right? Would you bank your wad on it? I would not. Alec Burks has had stretches of games that says he should be a great guard. Tim Hardaway Jr had that as well when he was with the Knicks.

Also, it's one thing to have a strong set of games as a lead guard when you know that the "big dog" will be back eventually than to know that it is all now up to you. Pressure factors into things and it's a different dynamic. And when it comes to pressure, we would be dumping Brunson into arguably the biggest pressure spot in the NBA. That's why I have a tendency to lean towards guys that have shown they can carry the load (example would be me preferring they signed Derozan over adding lesser guys like Fournier) when it comes to players to add to this team (also applies to college players that have shown the type of mentality that says they may be tough enough mentally to handle it here).

Does it mean that he can't continue that on a new team where he will have to average that for an entire season and an entire stay with that team? No. He might. But it's not proof positive is the thing. Proof positive is looking at guys that have already shown they can. That's not Brunson. That is the risk of committing big bucks and big years on Brunson. Again doesn't mean we shouldn't but it's not something that I'd be jumping up and down about.

A stretch of games evidence is kinda like the Per 36 stats used as evidence. Based on that during their primes you could have argued that some backup caliber players were better than some all-star caliber players. Royal Ivey for example would have been a better player than Stephon Marbury was one famous example that a bunch of us went through a long time ago on this board. And as much as we hated Marbury, that still would not have been true.

At the end of the day, I'm not an over reactionary type guy. I'm not a glass is half full or glass is half empty guy. I'm a guy that says the glass has half the water it can hold and that's all it is. So don't take what I say as big a negative as it may seem.

None of this is a sure thing. There is no guaranteeing of anything - which is why he might be available. I agree 16 games isn't necessarily a long stint, but I do think is a long enough to be called a "significant" stretch - a stretch that occurred during a non bubble season. In those game he was the same Brunson, just with more minutes and responsibly. There was nothing flukey about it.

I think Randle proved that he could have one good season in the bubble, with no crowd in the stands ...but did that prove anything? It just proved that he could have that one good year. Once people got back into the arena he lost his lunch. Why? Because that is what he does. If you look at his entire body of work, its the same old story.

Same goes for Brunson, when given minutes, he's been the same efficient heady PG who continues to improve. He's never not improved and he's never lost his head the way Randy does constantly. He averaged those numbers with people in the stands, without Luka- to me that's pressure - sure Luka will come back - but playing in the game the pressure is there.

And I don't think he has to drop 20 and 8to be successful. He's not replacing prime CP3. We've had no one that fits the mold and by default even if he gives us 15-6 while playing solid PG that would be huge for us.

[RHODEY]

You wanted Westbrook LAST YEAR and even made a thread on it about pairing him with Randle, you simply want Westbrook and are unwavering on that. You are the last person that should be speaking about Knick fans propping up other players. Westbrook is not going to help anyone develop either, he'd be featured here and have the ball in his hands at OKC levels.

I wanted Westbrook before he looked awful in the fit with the Lakers and instead of resigning these vets to overpriced salaries because I'd rather have his contract and play on a shorter term deal than having to suffer through extra years of these vets. That's what we are talking about now right? Most of you jamokes were yammering about how those vet contracts were not that bad and that they should be easily moved weren't ya? LOL. How'd that turn out? Wait, wait...that wasn't you guys right?

Who said anything about develop? Him being a shield to deflect the negative attention away from the Knicks team when they suck again next season is what I'm after. Or do you really want to media and you fans to start jumping on RJ when he can't pull gold out his ass? It's going to happen. Fans do that. NY media does that. You cut him and now RJ is the guy that will be wearing that target on his back. You really want that to happen? It will if he because the center of attention for blame.

As far as shots go...the most shots a game Westbrook has ever averaged in a season is 24. The last 2 seasons he's averaged 16.5 attempts a game. Randle, Fournier and Burks combined to take 3 roster spots and 43 shots a game. Having Westbrook on this team instead of those guys is NOT going to take shots away from the young guys despite the natural reaction otherwise. What it will do is create 2 roster spots for the young guys and the shots the come along with what Burks and Fournier was taking.

You can't be in here criticizing Knick fans for wanting Brunson, while penning love letters to us acquiring Westbrook.

We would be a better team moving forward with Brunson, just as we would have been had we gotten FVV, you were wrong about FVV not being worth $20 million per season, just like you will be wrong about Brunson getting that kind of money. Sorry, but nobody who is defending the position of acquiring Westbrook can tell me differently.

Westbrook works as a salary dump for us...expect anything more and you'll be disappointed I think. That said, that would be some salary dump...

[moocow007]

I think with Randle he capitalized on one outlier season. Before that I was not excited about him or his mistake prone momentum killing play.
Brunson isn't CP3 but he's consistently improved on his consistent, efficient and heady play every season. He's even put up good numbers during extended stretches as a starter and without Luka in the lineup

Those questions have been in answered in my eyes. Speaking of questions, every time I post this :



It gets quiet in here? Why is that?

Sorry I haven't seen that but I'll take a crack...

That's just a small stretch of games. I mean Randle had a full season of games that made him look like a top 10 player. You can also find a stretch of games Obi has played in that Randle has not that makes Obi look like a legit NBA starting PF as well right? Would you bank your wad on it? I would not. Alec Burks has had stretches of games that says he should be a great guard. Tim Hardaway Jr had that as well when he was with the Knicks.

Also, it's one thing to have a strong set of games as a lead guard when you know that the "big dog" will be back eventually than to know that it is all now up to you. Pressure factors into things and it's a different dynamic. And when it comes to pressure, we would be dumping Brunson into arguably the biggest pressure spot in the NBA. That's why I have a tendency to lean towards guys that have shown they can carry the load (example would be me preferring they signed Derozan over adding lesser guys like Fournier) when it comes to players to add to this team (also applies to college players that have shown the type of mentality that says they may be tough enough mentally to handle it here).

Does it mean that he can't continue that on a new team where he will have to average that for an entire season and an entire stay with that team? No. He might. But it's not proof positive is the thing. Proof positive is looking at guys that have already shown they can. That's not Brunson. That is the risk of committing big bucks and big years on Brunson. Again doesn't mean we shouldn't but it's not something that I'd be jumping up and down about.

A stretch of games evidence is kinda like the Per 36 stats used as evidence. Based on that during their primes you could have argued that some backup caliber players were better than some all-star caliber players. Royal Ivey for example would have been a better player than Stephon Marbury was one famous example that a bunch of us went through a long time ago on this board. And as much as we hated Marbury, that still would not have been true.

At the end of the day, I'm not an over reactionary type guy. I'm not a glass is half full or glass is half empty guy. I'm a guy that says the glass has half the water it can hold and that's all it is. So don't take what I say as big a negative as it may seem.

None of this is a sure thing. There is no guaranteeing of anything - which is why he might be available. I agree 16 games isn't necessarily a long stint, but I do think is a long enough to be called a "significant" stretch - a stretch that occurred during a non bubble season. In those game he was the same Brunson, just with more minutes and responsibly. There was nothing flukey about it.

I think Randle proved that he could have one good season in the bubble, with no crowd in the stands ...but did that prove anything? It just proved that he could have that one good year. Once people got back into the arena he lost his lunch. Why? Because that is what he does. If you look at his entire body of work, its the same old story.

Same goes for Brunson, when given minutes, he's been the same efficient heady PG who continues to improve. He's never not improved and he's never lost his head the way Randy does constantly. He averaged those numbers with people in the stands, without Luka- to me that's pressure - sure Luka will come back - but playing in the game the pressure is there.

And I don't think he has to drop 20 and 8to be successful. He's not replacing prime CP3. We've had no one that fits the mold and by default even if he gives us 15-6 while playing solid PG that would be huge for us.

I'll use the Yankees vs Rays analogy here. There is no question that the Yankees have a deep team that has a lot of very good player. Same with the Rays. The difference is that the Yankees actually pay their very good players at or above value while the Rays find their best players and pay them well below value. That way the Rays can sustain their competitive edge despite having a tiny budget. Baseball has no hard cap. Basketball does. So when you factor in that contracts absolutely do matter in the NBA, the notion of giving a very good but not great player $20-23 million a year when the salary cap is still only about $110 million is a bit of a stretch for me. It's not about disagreeing that Brunson is a very good player. Rather it's about his value and what he may need to get signed and looking at how then do you build a team that can compete with said salary on the books. Again, folks were calling me crazy and saying I was over reacting about what the Knicks FO gave every single one of the guys they added (brought back) in the offseason. And now? Nobody's saying a thing right? Cause I was right and it matters.

[spree2kawhi]

Sorry I haven't seen that but I'll take a crack...

That's just a small stretch of games. I mean Randle had a full season of games that made him look like a top 10 player. You can also find a stretch of games Obi has played in that Randle has not that makes Obi look like a legit NBA starting PF as well right? Would you bank your wad on it? I would not. Alec Burks has had stretches of games that says he should be a great guard. Tim Hardaway Jr had that as well when he was with the Knicks.

Also, it's one thing to have a strong set of games as a lead guard when you know that the "big dog" will be back eventually than to know that it is all now up to you. Pressure factors into things and it's a different dynamic. And when it comes to pressure, we would be dumping Brunson into arguably the biggest pressure spot in the NBA. That's why I have a tendency to lean towards guys that have shown they can carry the load (example would be me preferring they signed Derozan over adding lesser guys like Fournier) when it comes to players to add to this team (also applies to college players that have shown the type of mentality that says they may be tough enough mentally to handle it here).

Does it mean that he can't continue that on a new team where he will have to average that for an entire season and an entire stay with that team? No. He might. But it's not proof positive is the thing. Proof positive is looking at guys that have already shown they can. That's not Brunson. That is the risk of committing big bucks and big years on Brunson. Again doesn't mean we shouldn't but it's not something that I'd be jumping up and down about.

A stretch of games evidence is kinda like the Per 36 stats used as evidence. Based on that during their primes you could have argued that some backup caliber players were better than some all-star caliber players. Royal Ivey for example would have been a better player than Stephon Marbury was one famous example that a bunch of us went through a long time ago on this board. And as much as we hated Marbury, that still would not have been true.

At the end of the day, I'm not an over reactionary type guy. I'm not a glass is half full or glass is half empty guy. I'm a guy that says the glass has half the water it can hold and that's all it is. So don't take what I say as big a negative as it may seem.

None of this is a sure thing. There is no guaranteeing of anything - which is why he might be available. I agree 16 games isn't necessarily a long stint, but I do think is a long enough to be called a "significant" stretch - a stretch that occurred during a non bubble season. In those game he was the same Brunson, just with more minutes and responsibly. There was nothing flukey about it.

I think Randle proved that he could have one good season in the bubble, with no crowd in the stands ...but did that prove anything? It just proved that he could have that one good year. Once people got back into the arena he lost his lunch. Why? Because that is what he does. If you look at his entire body of work, its the same old story.

Same goes for Brunson, when given minutes, he's been the same efficient heady PG who continues to improve. He's never not improved and he's never lost his head the way Randy does constantly. He averaged those numbers with people in the stands, without Luka- to me that's pressure - sure Luka will come back - but playing in the game the pressure is there.

And I don't think he has to drop 20 and 8to be successful. He's not replacing prime CP3. We've had no one that fits the mold and by default even if he gives us 15-6 while playing solid PG that would be huge for us.

I'll use the Yankees vs Rays analogy here. There is no question that the Yankees have a deep team that has a lot of very good player. Same with the Rays. The difference is that the Yankees actually pay their very good players at or above value while the Rays find their best players and pay them well below value. That way the Rays can sustain their competitive edge despite having a tiny budget. Baseball has no hard cap. Basketball does. So when you factor in that contracts absolutely do matter in the NBA, the notion of giving a very good but not great player $20-23 million a year when the salary cap is still only about $110 million is a bit of a stretch for me. It's not about disagreeing that Brunson is a very good player. Rather it's about his value and what he may need to get signed and looking at how then do you build a team that can compete with said salary on the books. Again, folks were calling me crazy and saying I was over reacting about what the Knicks FO gave every single one of the guys they added (brought back) in the offseason. And now? Nobody's saying a thing right? Cause I was right and it matters.

Randle > Brunson. It’s sad but true.

[RHODEY]

Sorry I haven't seen that but I'll take a crack...

That's just a small stretch of games. I mean Randle had a full season of games that made him look like a top 10 player. You can also find a stretch of games Obi has played in that Randle has not that makes Obi look like a legit NBA starting PF as well right? Would you bank your wad on it? I would not. Alec Burks has had stretches of games that says he should be a great guard. Tim Hardaway Jr had that as well when he was with the Knicks.

Also, it's one thing to have a strong set of games as a lead guard when you know that the "big dog" will be back eventually than to know that it is all now up to you. Pressure factors into things and it's a different dynamic. And when it comes to pressure, we would be dumping Brunson into arguably the biggest pressure spot in the NBA. That's why I have a tendency to lean towards guys that have shown they can carry the load (example would be me preferring they signed Derozan over adding lesser guys like Fournier) when it comes to players to add to this team (also applies to college players that have shown the type of mentality that says they may be tough enough mentally to handle it here).

Does it mean that he can't continue that on a new team where he will have to average that for an entire season and an entire stay with that team? No. He might. But it's not proof positive is the thing. Proof positive is looking at guys that have already shown they can. That's not Brunson. That is the risk of committing big bucks and big years on Brunson. Again doesn't mean we shouldn't but it's not something that I'd be jumping up and down about.

A stretch of games evidence is kinda like the Per 36 stats used as evidence. Based on that during their primes you could have argued that some backup caliber players were better than some all-star caliber players. Royal Ivey for example would have been a better player than Stephon Marbury was one famous example that a bunch of us went through a long time ago on this board. And as much as we hated Marbury, that still would not have been true.

At the end of the day, I'm not an over reactionary type guy. I'm not a glass is half full or glass is half empty guy. I'm a guy that says the glass has half the water it can hold and that's all it is. So don't take what I say as big a negative as it may seem.

None of this is a sure thing. There is no guaranteeing of anything - which is why he might be available. I agree 16 games isn't necessarily a long stint, but I do think is a long enough to be called a "significant" stretch - a stretch that occurred during a non bubble season. In those game he was the same Brunson, just with more minutes and responsibly. There was nothing flukey about it.

I think Randle proved that he could have one good season in the bubble, with no crowd in the stands ...but did that prove anything? It just proved that he could have that one good year. Once people got back into the arena he lost his lunch. Why? Because that is what he does. If you look at his entire body of work, its the same old story.

Same goes for Brunson, when given minutes, he's been the same efficient heady PG who continues to improve. He's never not improved and he's never lost his head the way Randy does constantly. He averaged those numbers with people in the stands, without Luka- to me that's pressure - sure Luka will come back - but playing in the game the pressure is there.

And I don't think he has to drop 20 and 8to be successful. He's not replacing prime CP3. We've had no one that fits the mold and by default even if he gives us 15-6 while playing solid PG that would be huge for us.

I'll use the Yankees vs Rays analogy here. There is no question that the Yankees have a deep team that has a lot of very good player. Same with the Rays. The difference is that the Yankees actually pay their very good players at or above value while the Rays find their best players and pay them well below value. That way the Rays can sustain their competitive edge despite having a tiny budget. Baseball has no hard cap. Basketball does. So when you factor in that contracts absolutely do matter in the NBA, the notion of giving a very good but not great player $20-23 million a year when the salary cap is still only about $110 million is a bit of a stretch for me. It's not about disagreeing that Brunson is a very good player. Rather it's about his value and what he may need to get signed and looking at how then do you build a team that can compete with said salary on the books. Again, folks were calling me crazy and saying I was over reacting about what the Knicks FO gave every single one of the guys they added (brought back) in the offseason. And now? Nobody's saying a thing right? Cause I was right and it matters.

I have another analogy for your analogy. You get into a relationship with someone who has been cheated on. They make you pay for their previous partner's indiscretions.

It's baggage.

I think you might be doing the same thing here with Brunson. Brunson is no Randle,no Fournier or Noel. He's always been reliable and faithful and he can still improve but he's being treated like the low down dirty scalawags we are used to messing with.

[8516knicks]

[quow007"]

I mean yeah if you actually look at the Mavs roster their biggest need (now that Porzingis is gone) is a guy in the front court that can actually score. Unless you consider Dorian Finney Smith (who barely averages 10ppg as it is) a traditional "big" instead of what he is "a wing" they have absolutely no one that can score at either the PF or C positions. Maxi Kleber and Dwight Powell are pretty much it for them and neither guy has averaged even 10ppg in their careers. Now not sure if Dallas would want Randle given how bad this season has gone for him but technically Randle removed from the need to have to run an offense and be the no.1 option may actually fit with the Mavericks and Luka nor do the Mavs really have a lot of assets to move to get someone better. And it's probably not hard to argue that Randle would fit better with Luka than Porzingis did. So, yeah, not that farfetched if you really look at it.

Seems like your making the case Doncick (and trash) is 5 times better then KD and Kyrie (and trash) COMBINED. TWENTY games over .500 is less than FOUR games over .500 - got it! Or perhaps Brunson is a pretty decent pg. But $20M for a decent PG? No way.

Donic wasn't 5 times better than KD and Kyrie last season is the thing. So does that mean that Doncic wasn't who he is last season or that KD and Kyrie isn't the players they are this season? You can't always base things on the record. As far as $20 million for a decent PG? No, it's not something I'd jump at. Example....IF Ricky Rubio didn't blow out his knee, I can argue that $12-13 million for Rubio (a decent PG) over 2-3 years would be better than 4 or 5 years of Brunson at $20+ million per. Yes Rubio is older than Brunson but that really matters if you buy into Brunson being so good that he can be a foundation piece for the Knicks for the next 5-8 years. I don't know that I feel that Fair enouabout Brunson.[/quote]
Fair enough