Official RJ Barrett Thread

[VanWest82]

I recall many declaring Wiggins no good with little to no chance of ever being part of a winning rotation, and then suddenly he was arguably the second or third most important player during Warriors 22 title run.

RJ is a distressed asset with untapped potential. He clearly has some strengths if he can ever learn to put it together. Capping him as some random bench player you're stuck with seems very short-sighted.

Let's not forget that most players are negative value for their second contract in the beginning. It's not impossible or even unlikely that he becomes an actual trade asset or someone we might look to re-sign at some point further down the road. Culture + pedigree is often a winning combination.

[everdiso]

Like i said these dudes are number readers. Posting advanced meteics they don’t understand cause they have to die on the hill of said young player is a bust.

Why dont these stats apply to the rest of the roster? Narratives, narratives.

a) these stats do apply to the rest of the roster.

b) Darko doesn't have RJ in his closing lineups for good reason. RJ sat for the last 9 minutes last night while the Raps made their comeback, for a reason. The Knicks' starting lineup looks way better without RJ for a reason.

Your drawing conclusions rather quickly.

Schroeder earned the final nine minutes. The Kings started actually missing shots. Pascal and Barnes started actually playing D in the 4th. That matters. RJ seemed like the only guy playing hard to start the game. I'd call those numbers coincidental.

We've played significantly better without OG. Is that because OG sucked?

We have been worse defensively and better offensively with Quickley over OG, as expected.

The Knicks have been better offensively and defensively with OG in the starting lineup over RJ.

[James_Raptors]

He's a -73 over his last 7 NBA games, and a - in every single one of those games including 3 wins.
He hasn't lived up to his draft position and he's currently overpaid for what he brings to the table.

That being said, he's still young, with a new coach and a new system.
For our sake, hopefully he learns to refine his strengths and avoid trying to do things on the court that his body is incapable of accomplishing. I'm not counting him out and I'm certainly willing to see if he can improve. It's not like this team is anything more than a pretender, or play-in 1st round fodder atm. So we might as well see what we have with these guys over the next few weeks, and then make more serious decisions on their longevity with the club, down the road.

He brought Quickley to the table. Without taking RJ's contract, we might not have Immanuel. Everything else is bonus.

Yup, and I've been saying that since day 1. I don't have any unrealistic expectations for RJ. The prize was IR, who i've coveted for nearly 2 yrs. I firmly believe he'll be the most talented prize of the 3 when all i said and done.

[ItsDanger]

While OG provided huge flexibility to lineup options, RJ is on the other extreme.

[HarthorneWingo]

I see RJ is already whipping boy for a lot of people.

He scores a little better from 3 and the guy can average 20. He's got mobility on D, and hustles. He'll be fine. Chill people.

This man is not FVV driving into three taller players or dribbling the clock out. Did I not see him dish it off to Scottie on a fast break who then got it to the corner for a Pascal three? Where was the tunnel vision on that? I was told the man had incurable tunnel vision?

That play where he got hit in the face, the man jumped up and sprinted the floor to receive a long pass for an easy dunk. The man had court awareness while checking out his face. Notice the word sprint.

This man is not FVV and he is not Hedo Turkoglu.

Shabaz Mohammed?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

a) these stats do apply to the rest of the roster.

b) Darko doesn't have RJ in his closing lineups for good reason. RJ sat for the last 9 minutes last night while the Raps made their comeback, for a reason. The Knicks' starting lineup looks way better without RJ for a reason.

Your drawing conclusions rather quickly.

Schroeder earned the final nine minutes. The Kings started actually missing shots. Pascal and Barnes started actually playing D in the 4th. That matters. RJ seemed like the only guy playing hard to start the game. I'd call those numbers coincidental.

We've played significantly better without OG. Is that because OG sucked?

We have been worse defensively and better offensively with Quickley over OG, as expected.

The Knicks have been better offensively and defensively with OG in the starting lineup over RJ.

Too small a sample size, and different variables at play. We had 2 players change in the starting lineuo, they had one. And as I posted early, NY bball pundits already noticing over reliance on Brunson and Randle, and their increase in minutes. https://nypost.com/2024/01/04/sports/knicks-relying-on-jalen-brunson-julius-randle-more-since-trade/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17044702888183&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2024%2F01%2F04%2Fsports%2Fknicks-relying-on-jalen-brunson-julius-randle-more-since-trade%2F

[everdiso]

Your drawing conclusions rather quickly.

Schroeder earned the final nine minutes. The Kings started actually missing shots. Pascal and Barnes started actually playing D in the 4th. That matters. RJ seemed like the only guy playing hard to start the game. I'd call those numbers coincidental.

We've played significantly better without OG. Is that because OG sucked?

We have been worse defensively and better offensively with Quickley over OG, as expected.

The Knicks have been better offensively and defensively with OG in the starting lineup over RJ.

Too small a sample size, and different variables at play. We had 2 players change in the starting lineuo, they had one. And as I posted early, NY bball pundits already noticing over reliance on Brunson and Randle, and their increase in minutes. https://nypost.com/2024/01/04/sports/knicks-relying-on-jalen-brunson-julius-randle-more-since-trade/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17044702888183&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2024%2F01%2F04%2Fsports%2Fknicks-relying-on-jalen-brunson-julius-randle-more-since-trade%2F

yeah their starting lineup looks way better with Brunson and Randle taking more shots and RJ not chucking up at a 27usg%.

[Dennis 37]

a) these stats do apply to the rest of the roster.

b) Darko doesn't have RJ in his closing lineups for good reason. RJ sat for the last 9 minutes last night while the Raps made their comeback, for a reason. The Knicks' starting lineup looks way better without RJ for a reason.

Your drawing conclusions rather quickly.

Schroeder earned the final nine minutes. The Kings started actually missing shots. Pascal and Barnes started actually playing D in the 4th. That matters. RJ seemed like the only guy playing hard to start the game. I'd call those numbers coincidental.

We've played significantly better without OG. Is that because OG sucked?

We have been worse defensively and better offensively with Quickley over OG, as expected.

The Knicks have been better offensively and defensively with OG in the starting lineup over RJ.

The most important metric is that our games are far more enjoyable to watch.

Was really losing interest before.

[ConSarnit]

I recall many declaring Wiggins no good with little to no chance of ever being part of a winning rotation, and then suddenly he was arguably the second or third most important player during Warriors 22 title run.

RJ is a distressed asset with untapped potential. He clearly has some strengths if he can ever learn to put it together. Capping him as some random bench player you're stuck with seems very short-sighted.

Let's not forget that most players are negative value for their second contract in the beginning. It's not impossible or even unlikely that he becomes an actual trade asset or someone we might look to re-sign at some point further down the road. Culture + pedigree is often a winning combination.

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

[VanWest82]

I recall many declaring Wiggins no good with little to no chance of ever being part of a winning rotation, and then suddenly he was arguably the second or third most important player during Warriors 22 title run.

RJ is a distressed asset with untapped potential. He clearly has some strengths if he can ever learn to put it together. Capping him as some random bench player you're stuck with seems very short-sighted.

Let's not forget that most players are negative value for their second contract in the beginning. It's not impossible or even unlikely that he becomes an actual trade asset or someone we might look to re-sign at some point further down the road. Culture + pedigree is often a winning combination.

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

Not great evidence, no. As you know, guys are poison pill once they extend and so trades become much more difficult. I don't know of a study that's been done looking at trades in the first year of an extention vs. second or third.

I'd suggest, anecedotally, that there are more trades involving guys in the second or third years of their extensions than first though that could be for a variety of reasons.

My best evidence would be to go to the GB and search for threads announcing the new deals of guys coming off their rookie contracts. I think you're going to find a lot of dumbfounded posters, which in all seriousness could just be because they're dumb, but also because they're looking at deals based on what that player was at the time of signing as appose to that player's potential which is more often than not why they got the contract they did.

To be clear, I'm not saying every contract type is negative value in the beginning, but rookie extensions tend to be negative for most excepting stars already worthy of a 25% max, and it's because they're being paid for potential.

[Dennis 37]

I recall many declaring Wiggins no good with little to no chance of ever being part of a winning rotation, and then suddenly he was arguably the second or third most important player during Warriors 22 title run.

RJ is a distressed asset with untapped potential. He clearly has some strengths if he can ever learn to put it together. Capping him as some random bench player you're stuck with seems very short-sighted.

Let's not forget that most players are negative value for their second contract in the beginning. It's not impossible or even unlikely that he becomes an actual trade asset or someone we might look to re-sign at some point further down the road. Culture + pedigree is often a winning combination.

I remember the outrage when Amir Johnson got a 20 million dollar contract. By the end of the contract it was a bargain.

[billy_hoyle]

I recall many declaring Wiggins no good with little to no chance of ever being part of a winning rotation, and then suddenly he was arguably the second or third most important player during Warriors 22 title run.

RJ is a distressed asset with untapped potential. He clearly has some strengths if he can ever learn to put it together. Capping him as some random bench player you're stuck with seems very short-sighted.

Let's not forget that most players are negative value for their second contract in the beginning. It's not impossible or even unlikely that he becomes an actual trade asset or someone we might look to re-sign at some point further down the road. Culture + pedigree is often a winning combination.

I remember the outrage when Amir Johnson got a 20 million dollar contract. By the end of the contract it was a bargain.

How about DeMar? People hated that contract on here.
Massive bargain.

[Los_29]

RJ is really bad. I can see why Knicks fans turned on him. Low IQ player which is surprising given his dad’s pedigree.

Luckily he is 23 so hopefully he can turn it around. He does have skills.

[AkelaLoneWolf]

I recall many declaring Wiggins no good with little to no chance of ever being part of a winning rotation, and then suddenly he was arguably the second or third most important player during Warriors 22 title run.

RJ is a distressed asset with untapped potential. He clearly has some strengths if he can ever learn to put it together. Capping him as some random bench player you're stuck with seems very short-sighted.

Let's not forget that most players are negative value for their second contract in the beginning. It's not impossible or even unlikely that he becomes an actual trade asset or someone we might look to re-sign at some point further down the road. Culture + pedigree is often a winning combination.

great point here. he actually has a chance of being a successful reclamation project. he has the athleticism and he's a hard worker; hopefully he puts the work in here to continue to develop his skillset.

[AkelaLoneWolf]

I recall many declaring Wiggins no good with little to no chance of ever being part of a winning rotation, and then suddenly he was arguably the second or third most important player during Warriors 22 title run.

RJ is a distressed asset with untapped potential. He clearly has some strengths if he can ever learn to put it together. Capping him as some random bench player you're stuck with seems very short-sighted.

Let's not forget that most players are negative value for their second contract in the beginning. It's not impossible or even unlikely that he becomes an actual trade asset or someone we might look to re-sign at some point further down the road. Culture + pedigree is often a winning combination.

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

a lot of young players are 'overpaid' on their second contract to account for expected development in the latter years of the contract.

[ConSarnit]

I recall many declaring Wiggins no good with little to no chance of ever being part of a winning rotation, and then suddenly he was arguably the second or third most important player during Warriors 22 title run.

RJ is a distressed asset with untapped potential. He clearly has some strengths if he can ever learn to put it together. Capping him as some random bench player you're stuck with seems very short-sighted.

Let's not forget that most players are negative value for their second contract in the beginning. It's not impossible or even unlikely that he becomes an actual trade asset or someone we might look to re-sign at some point further down the road. Culture + pedigree is often a winning combination.

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

Not great evidence, no. As you know, guys are poison pill once they extend and so trades become much more difficult. I don't know of a study that's been done looking at trades in the first year of an extention vs. second or third.

I'd suggest, anecedotally, that there are more trades involving guys in the second or third years of their extensions than first though that could be for a variety of reasons.

My best evidence would be to go to the GB and search for threads announcing the new deals of guys coming off their rookie contracts. I think you're going to find a lot of dumbfounded posters, which in all seriousness could just be because they're dumb, but also because they're looking at deals based on what that player was at the time of signing as appose to that player's potential which is more often than not why they got the contract they did.

To be clear, I'm not saying every contract type is negative value in the beginning, but rookie extensions tend to be negative for most excepting stars already worthy of a 25% max, and it's because they're being paid for potential.

I went back and looked at rookie extensions over the past 13 years. I tried to remove injuries as a reason for poor performance (doesn't really apply to RJ). It wasn't easy to parse out all of the data but for rookie extension contracts that were considered "bad" in their first year I'd estimate 25% of those deals became "neutral" (or better) by the end of the contract. For the most part, if you were identified as a "bad" deal the second pen hits paper, it's likely to remain bad for the duration of the contract. These non-max rookie extension guys are probably the least likely to turn it around because they are the type of player teams have jumped the gun on. The max extension guys are often already all-stars (or close to it) and most 2nd contract guys get their deal after their 4th season when teams have more information to make a decision based off of. Non-max rookie extension contracts might be considered negative value early on more so than other rookie contracts but they are a smaller section of all rookie contracts. If we are looking at all rookie contracts then I believe the majority would not be considered negative value in their 1st year of their new contract.

As far as getting traded in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd year of a contract I would think that getting traded later into a contract is the norm for every contract. Most teams are not signing players with the intention of trading them within the 1st year of their deal (and in some cases are prohibited from doing so). If they are on a good contract teams will want to keep said player. If they are on a bad contract teams will be forced to pay to get off of said player earlier in their deal (salary dump). Most scenarios probably point to teams keeping players earlier in their contracts (because they want to or are forced to).

[ConSarnit]

I recall many declaring Wiggins no good with little to no chance of ever being part of a winning rotation, and then suddenly he was arguably the second or third most important player during Warriors 22 title run.

RJ is a distressed asset with untapped potential. He clearly has some strengths if he can ever learn to put it together. Capping him as some random bench player you're stuck with seems very short-sighted.

Let's not forget that most players are negative value for their second contract in the beginning. It's not impossible or even unlikely that he becomes an actual trade asset or someone we might look to re-sign at some point further down the road. Culture + pedigree is often a winning combination.

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

a lot of young players are 'overpaid' on their second contract to account for expected development in the latter years of the contract.

I don't disagree that some are. But most?

[AkelaLoneWolf]

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

a lot of young players are 'overpaid' on their second contract to account for expected development in the latter years of the contract.

I don't disagree that some are. But most?

barrett's a 3rd pick with obvious talent which hasn't necessarily translated to a reliable skillset. its a reasonable bet to expect on improvement.
having said that, he's locked into a reasonable contract with the increasing cap and is an easily moveable contract if we need to. not sure everyone's got a bug up their ass about it.
before the trade our 4th option was schroder/poeltl/trent. now its barnes which is a meaningful improvement. i can't speak for everyone but i'm fine if barrett tops out at a harrison barnes level.

[ItsDanger]

This isn't an easily traded contract if no improvement is made. If that is something to be highlighted, team has a problem.

[ash_k]

This isn't an easily traded contract if no improvement is made. If that is something to be highlighted, team has a problem.

Jimmy Butler could not shoot until he was 25(at 23 a loss cause for many, "will never improve") .
While RJ was averaging 20ppg at 20 under the bright lights of MSG. He has been a big game player.

He has been away way too streaky so far, however there is a high probability that he gets that consistency thus potentially turning him into a cornerstone of the franchise with Scottie being just one year younger than Scottie is.

His contract will be cheap in a year.