Knicks reportedly remain open to trading Julius Randle

[thebuzzardman]

the 4 million hit in year 3 is actually what bothers me the most. it was purposeless.

It's purpose was for him to take 2 years instead of 3.

It's not the end of the world.

[god shammgod]

the 4 million hit in year 3 is actually what bothers me the most. it was purposeless.

It's purpose was for him to take 2 years instead of 3.

It's not the end of the world.

that 4 mill wasn't needed to make him sign. he was not gonna turn down the deal without it. and it makes the contract unwieldy. if it was 1 or 2 mill he would basically be an expiring but the 4 makes him harder to trade.

[3toheadmelo]

To Melo's post about Randle's use, one of the things, among many, that drove me up a tree about Fizdale is that he didn't run enough sets that worked to Randle's strength, but it's possible he did it and I over focused on the bad.

In that clip, I THINK Miller is HC, but even if he is, it could be a play from Fiz anyway.

Anyhow, it was retroactive, but once Miller took over, it just validated for me that Fiz that wasn't that great as Miller just adding a few wrinkles to some similar stuff and the Knicks looked better. Not great, but obviously better.

This is quite impressive.

Read on Twitter

Randles numbers under Miller were better too. He averaged 21 PPG 10.4 rebounds 3 assists. That’s pretty good. Those are really good numbers. He’s not a bum like people think he is, and Kanter never put up numbers like that. I expect his numbers to look even better with a proper PG and shooters around him.

Under Fizdale he averaged 16.5 PPG 8.5 rebounds and 3.3 assists. Fizdale is probably the worst coach of all time

[thebuzzardman]

the 4 million hit in year 3 is actually what bothers me the most. it was purposeless.

It's purpose was for him to take 2 years instead of 3.

It's not the end of the world.

that 4 mill wasn't needed to make him sign. he was not gonna turn down the deal without it. and it makes the contract unwieldy. if it was 1 or 2 mill he would basically be an expiring but the 4 makes him harder to trade.

We don't know that.
If we REALLY knew he'd take two, than sure, you are correct.
But we don't.
Maybe he wouldn't have signed after all, or wanted more per year and they didn't want to do that, though, again, IF he would have taken 22 million per year for two, yeah, that's a better idea.

Kind of a "Mills special" with that 3rd year stuff, but not his worst gaffe and I don't think holds the team back in a significant way. IB4dakomish23 bitching about Noah.

I posted somewhere else that in effect it makes his contract a 15 million expiring instead of 19 million, if I was correct the other team owns his 3rd year buyout, assuming it would.

[Deeeez Knicks]

the 4 million hit in year 3 is actually what bothers me the most. it was purposeless.

Yea, the entire offseason was pointless. But especially Randle and the extra $4mil.

[Richard4444]

To Melo's post about Randle's use, one of the things, among many, that drove me up a tree about Fizdale is that he didn't run enough sets that worked to Randle's strength, but it's possible he did it and I over focused on the bad.

In that clip, I THINK Miller is HC, but even if he is, it could be a play from Fiz anyway.

Anyhow, it was retroactive, but once Miller took over, it just validated for me that Fiz that wasn't that great as Miller just adding a few wrinkles to some similar stuff and the Knicks looked better. Not great, but obviously better.

This is quite impressive.

Read on Twitter

Randles numbers under Miller were better too. He averaged 21 PPG 10.4 rebounds 3 assists. That’s pretty good. Those are really good numbers. He’s not a bum like people think he is, and Kanter never put up numbers like that. I expect his numbers to look even better with a proper PG and shooters around him.

Under Fizdale he averaged 16.5 PPG 8.5 rebounds and 3.3 assists. Fizdale is probably the worst coach of all time

Nodody says Randle is not a good player. He is a good scorer, great rebounder and average passer.

The problem that he makes the team worse. He is a bad rim protector what makes the team need a second Big to defend the rim. We had Mitch/Taj as rim protectors. All of these players sucks from long range what clogs the paint and disrupts the performance of drivers.

[Ris_44]

You guys need to stop focusing on the negatives. Trading Randle just because would be a mistake. He has plenty of talents that would make him invaluable to a good team.

The main problem is he commits turnovers with his over dribbling. A good coach can limit this by simply taking the ball away and making him a finisher in pick an roll situations. Our biggest issue is we don't have any defense breaking guards. It forces us to try to use Randle to break his defender as a primary ball handler because at the PF position we have the best match ups.

Bring in one or two above average ball handlers that can penetrate and are threats to get to the rim from the pick and roll along with some floor spacers at the perimeter positions and it will open up things for everyone else. We can then take advantage of one of Randle's most overlooked skills, which is that he is an elite screen setter.

[mpharris36]

You guys need to stop focusing on the negatives. Trading Randle just because would be a mistake. He has plenty of talents that would make him invaluable to a good team.

The main problem is he commits turnovers with his over dribbling. A good coach can limit this by simply taking the ball away and making him a finisher in pick an roll situations. Our biggest issue is we don't have any defense breaking guards. It forces us to try to use Randle to break his defender as a primary ball handler because at the PF position we have the best match ups.

Bring in one or two above average ball handlers that can penetrate and are threats to get to the rim from the pick and roll along with some floor spacers at the perimeter positions and it will open up things for everyone else. We can then take advantage of one of Randle's most overlooked skills, which is that he is an elite screen setter.

then why hasn't he ever been on a good team?

[Ris_44]

Same Question could be asked of many players. Booker, Young, Fox, KAT (without Butler) among others have never been or made their teams better. Would you say they suck because of that? If you focus on the negatives you can never build a positive winning culture.

Lets also not forget that the Lakers should have signed Randle back and chose to keep Larry Nance over him which was a mistake. And Had Anthony Davis not been Holding out and asking for a trade that team would have probably been much better. Those are two situations where He would have been in good teams...

You expect Randle to carry a team and get upset when he can't do it on his own. This is the biggest knicks fans and front office problem. Instead of building around players strengths, they expect more than a player is capable off and then use said player as an escape goat for the whole team. Shipping Randle for nothing or a downgrade would be a mistake.

[mpharris36]

Same Question could be asked of many players. Booker, Young, Fox, KAT (without Butler) among others have never been or made their teams better. Would you say they suck because of that? If you focus on the negatives you can never build a positive winning culture.

Lets also not forget that the Lakers should have signed Randle back and chose to keep Larry Nance over him which was a mistake. And Had Anthony Davis not been Holding out and asking for a trade that team would have probably been much better. Those are two situations where He would have been in good teams...

You expect Randle to carry a team and get upset when he can't do it on his own. This is the biggest knicks fans and front office problem. Instead of building around players strengths, they expect more than a player is capable off and then use said player as an escape goat for the whole team. Shipping Randle for nothing or a downgrade would be a mistake.

Once you pay a guy $20 MM you expect him to be a core player. You don't pay a man $20 million in a 6th man role. You just can't allocate your funds there.

And the reason that most of the guys you listed above don't win is because they pretty much all suck on defense. They aren't 2 way stars.

And in the fact Randle doesn't warrant his usage on offense, he also is a bad defender. So all in all you can't build around a Randle.

You are much better off paying someone like Bertans or someone like that who fits into the modern day NBA and has a distinct role and can thrive in it.

[HEZI]

Speaking of Larry Nance, I would take him off the Cavs with the quickness. He's a much better role playing forward than fake star Randle.

[Ris_44]

Randle is getting 18 mill this year not 20. Which is basically the going rate for a decent starter(which he definetaly is) Stars and superstars are getting 30+ million. Also 20 million is not a high price to pay for someone who is almost averaging 20 and 10 with 3 assists. Again if you want to focus on the negatives you will always find something to complain about. Get him better guards and better shooters to create space Use him to his strenghts and Randle can flourish.

[Ris_44]

Speaking of Larry Nance, I would take him off the Cavs with the quickness. He's a much better role playing forward than fake star Randle.

So you would take a less talented player to replace a "fake Star"? What sense does this make? Why not keep said "fake star" and put more talented players around him to make the team better.

[mpharris36]

Randle is getting 18 mill this year not 20. Which is basically the going rate for a decent starter(which he definetaly is) Stars and superstars are getting 30+ million. Also 20 million is not a high price to pay for someone who is almost averaging 20 and 10 with 3 assists. Again if you want to focus on the negatives you will always find something to complain about. Get him better guards and better shooters to create space Use him to his strenghts and Randle can flourish.

Enes Kanter also put up good numbers (on much better efficiency) but still someone I wouldn't pay either.

Also don't give me the 3 assist crap. If you turn the ball over as much as you get an assist that isn't a valuable statistic.

He is a high usage player that doesn't defend or space the floor. its the reason teams continue to not see him as a piece to build around because those are "empty" stats.

[HEZI]

Speaking of Larry Nance, I would take him off the Cavs with the quickness. He's a much better role playing forward than fake star Randle.

So you would take a less talented player to replace a "fake Star"? What sense does this make? Why not keep said "fake star" and put more talented players around him to make the team better.

Randle isn't more talented, he's just more selfish. Nance is a better outside shooter, better defender, good passer without the dumb turnovers, more athletic as a leaper, etc.

Getting more talented players around Randle means reducing his role, which basically means asking him to turn into Larry Nance

[Ris_44]

Who says to build around him? I'm not saying for him to be our star player. I'm saying he can most definitely be a starter for us.

Take the ball away from him as a primary ball handler and make him a finisher and his turnovers will decrease.

[mpharris36]

Who says to build around him? I'm not saying for him to be our star player. I'm saying he can most definitely be a starter for us.

Take the ball away from him as a primary ball handler and make him a finisher and his turnovers will decrease.

but Mitch is a better finisher than Randle.

So he's not a better rim runner finisher than Mitch. He can't space the floor so if you take the ball away from his what does he actually do well?

[knicksNOTslick]

the 4 million hit in year 3 is actually what bothers me the most. it was purposeless.

It's purpose was for him to take 2 years instead of 3.

It's not the end of the world.

that 4 mill wasn't needed to make him sign. he was not gonna turn down the deal without it. and it makes the contract unwieldy. if it was 1 or 2 mill he would basically be an expiring but the 4 makes him harder to trade.

The 4 million hit is the typical Knicks move of overbidding yourself. It was not necessary to make the deal but we do it anyways, just because we can. It's terrible business decision making from THJ's trade kicker, Melo's No Trade Clause, Amare's uninsured contract, overpaying Jerome James for 5 years because of one playoff series, overpaying Eddy Curry despite the health and weight risks, and it all started when we overpaid Allan Houston.

[DOT]

but Mitch is a better finisher than Randle.

So he's not a better rim runner finisher than Mitch. He can't space the floor so if you take the ball away from his what does he actually do well?

Issue is he's a C on offense and a PF on defense

I mean, f*ck's sake, Knox played like half as many minutes and got 6 more blocks

He has things he does well, but not well enough to make up for his shortcomings. And building around him takes way too much effort to make it worthwhile

[mpharris36]

but Mitch is a better finisher than Randle.

So he's not a better rim runner finisher than Mitch. He can't space the floor so if you take the ball away from his what does he actually do well?

Issue is he's a C on offense and a PF on defense

I mean, f*ck's sake, Knox played like half as many minutes and got 6 more blocks

He has things he does well, but not well enough to make up for his shortcomings. And building around him takes way too much effort to make it worthwhile

correct so when you already have core pieces like RJ and Mitch that don't mesh well with Randles skillset (no one is calling him a bum) he just doesn't really have a role on our team outside of racking up pts and rebs in losses.

We would be better off trying to build a semblance of an NBA roster. If we want Mitch/RJ to thrive we need to give them pieces that will compliment them and having Randle on the books just doesn't make a sense value wise. Like you said he would need a perfect environment to be successful but it makes no sense to tailor your team to his skillset which as you put it is a Center on offense but he provides no rim protection or interior defense to play that position on defense.

And most center can't shoot so right off the bat you would have two positions that limit your spacing...which is not good.