GONYK wrote: NoDopeOnSundays wrote:
Yes, they extended him for significantly less than the MAX.
What's the alternative? Tanking?
If the Knicks cut Randle the day after the Hawks series, they would still need to put 15 players on the roster.
I don't understand how fielding a team that aims to be competitive with movable deals is synonymous with building around Julius Randle specifically.
You guys keep saying moveable deals, they are not movable until they are in the final year of the deal. The Magic gave Fournier away for 2 seconds, why would any team give up anything significant for him when he's got 2 full seasons left before a team option. The only tradeable players that teams may want are all our young players, even RJ, outside of that who is trading for these guys? The Sixers let Burks walk for nothing.
Who said anything about significant? These deals are easy to get off of if we need to, either as a pieces in a larger trade to fill salary or quickly clear cap space.
The Magic getting to move off of Fournier the minute they wanted to, at a similar salary to what he's making now, kind of proves that.
The team is built around Randle, them not committing to full 4 year deals doesn't make it any less true. These guys were brought in to help him as our featured player, and saying he took less than the max doesn't mean much when he's not even playing up to his current contract.
Do you think the Knicks think this is a contending roster with Randle as the alpha? That's really the only question that matters.
If the answer is yes, then sure, they f*cked up.
If the answer is no, which I think it is, then they didn't do anything other than try and be competitive with Julius while they bide their time for a bigger fish to hit the market.
But I'll ask again, what is the alternative? I concede that they could have held off on the extension. That's totally valid. But they probably would have still made all the other moves, because they want to remain competitive.
The Magic were able to dump Fournier because his contract was expiring at the end of the season, it gave the team trading for him a chance to see what he had, and they decided to move on. He has 2 full seasons left on his deal after this one, that is not an easily movable player.
The answer is no, and they should have let him play out this season, there was no reason to lock him up when we did. A shrewd/smart front office doesn't that, especially not after the playoff series he had. Nobody would have faulted the front office for taking a wait and see approach to Randle. The alternative was realizing he had a career year in a contract year and putting him in competition with the lottery pick who plays the same position as him. Do you think he'd be as lazy on defense right now if he weren't locked into a deal and had Obi breathing down his neck?
If your team isn't a contender with Randle, why build a competitive team around him? You're delaying the inevitable. If this season ends with us in the lottery then resigning him was a mistake, right?