dakomish23 wrote: Chanel Bomber wrote:
dakomish23 wrote:Bullock yes. That’s why nobody was against the 2nd version of his contract. We could of used all the cap space on assets and still signed him - it was an exception. A some 3 & some D guy is always a solid small investment.
Burks is a gunner given too big a role. Reduce his role and id like him a 100x better. He’s not that good for the role he’s given.
Noel is a rim protector and literally nothing else. He’s a huge detriment on offense. One of the worst PnR men in the NBA. Not just eye test, stats back that up. He’s not a good rebounder. He can block shots. That’s it.
They haven’t done wonders. They sometimes meet their inflated roles and more often have not. We won’t miss them when they’re gone.
Just like we didn’t miss any of the other journeymen who’ve been here the last few years.
There is no world I would rather have the journeymen vets than the assets.
It appears I agree about the idea of accumulating assets but I disagree about the extent to which you're willing to go in order to accomplish that. For me it's all about finding the right balance and identifying the right type of vets that you're willing to bring in.
Young players need to have vets around them to guide them on the court and off the court and also to help them be competitive so they can play in games that matter.
Burks fills a role that no one else on the roster can take on: a guard who can create his own shot in any situation and also spot-up and hit threes. His role isn't inflated, he's just the only player who's proven he can fill this role. Not to mention, the team plays well with him on the court, as evidenced by his +5.4 net rating
, third best mark on the team among rotation players. You say he's a gunner yet he has a very respectable TS% of 56.3
. What do you want, Thibs to reduce his role because he's actually making the team better within his role? What sort of precedent does this set? I don't know, I sense some form of cognitive dissonance here.
You want someone better than Burks for his role? Then you're gonna have to spend more than $6 million a year, maybe triple that amount. Are you willing to do that? Burks is a bargain for his level of production.
Noel might be a weak rebounder, and he might have terrible hands on offense, but he's doing an admirable job on defense and he's passable on offense, since he barely takes any shots. Yes, Mitch is better, but Mitch is injured, and Noel - as a back-up (which he should be) was simply upgraded to a starter. I really don't understand the complaint about Noel. Whose path is he blocking? Obi's? He's not an NBA center at this stage in his career, not until he can defend in space and protect the rim.
His outlier performances are what are propping his shooting numbers. Just like Austin Rivers, who has a 55% TS mark on the year. They get super hot from 3 a few games and skews the season average. Most nights they’re mediocre from deep. How many games is this guy a no show? Doesn’t stop him from gunning. Take a look at the game log. The 30 games after returning from injury he shot 41% from the field.
I’m not saying spend every dime on assets. I’m saying we had clear opportunities but instead chose bums like Portis, a decision a lot defended when it happened. You could see that train wreck from a mile away. We gave up on a first to pay that bench journeymen 15 mil. It’s not the only one, it’s just one of the more egregious. Don’t get me started on THJ.
Burks won’t be missed IMO. Gunners come and go. He’s fine at the price tag but my problem is with his role. Watch how many iso chucks this guy does in crunch time.
As always, time will be the judge.
I mean you can say that about a lot of players, including RJ and Quickley. In a way, that's why we use averages.
And if you're gonna use TS% for Austin Rivers, then use it for Burks as well instead of conveniently referring to FG%. Bro you know damn well Burks takes a lot of 3s and shoots them well, hence his FG% is not indicative of his scoring efficiency. I'm not letting you get away with this
The team was playing terribly with Rivers, that's the biggest difference between him and Burks. Everybody knew Rivers was playing like trash. Very few people are actually critical of Burks's play or his role, because the team functions well when he's out on the court.
Rivers: -5.1 net rating (lowest among rotation players), -5.7 per 100 on/off.
Burks: +5.4 net rating (3rd highest among rotation players), +7.5 per 100 on/off.
Again, the Knicks don't have a guard who can create his own shot besides Burks. He's the most qualified. RJ and Quickley don't have that in their skill set yet, they aren't ready. Randle is a frontcourt player who can easily get crowded and who - to put it mildly - has struggled in the clutch. So who do you want taking on that role, especially down the stretch? Someone on the team? A free agent signing? Then at what cost?
Reasonably, you have to acknowledge that there's a significant gap between your description of Burks as a "gunner" and as an "iso chucker" and the actual team stats when he's on the floor. The numbers unequivocally show that the team (including RJ, Quickley and Randle) performs significantly better when he plays.