Post game : the **** mid continues...

[Fat Kat]

Read on Twitter

[Buttah304]

it was a good win but can't help but feel like we're really stuck

rj had a decent 2nd half but the 1st was so bad that it doesn't begin to make up for it. his contract is an albatross. he's not a good basketball player let alone anything resembling a star. anyone saying we made a smart decision re-signing him is out of their mind.

julius is who he is. a low defensive effort, turnover prone iso scorer that isn't good enough to give your team too many wins. another contract that isn't going to be desired much around the league.

kids like cam and obi who everyone got excited about early have turned back into being pretty much worthless.

the contracts of rose, evan and hart are just a complete waste and 2 of them have guaranteed money for next year too.

we have some good defensive pieces - mitch, grimes, iq, mcbride. but grimes, iq and mcbride all can't really shoot from the outside. mcbride is to be expected but iq is shooting 30 percent and grimes is shooting 27 percent from 3. dear lord.

it's a mess. i feel bad for the next guy who has to fix this. because this front office won't be the ones who do. they're obviously terrible and everyone is starting to see it.

I literally agree with everything you wrote.

For whatever reason a lot of fans are of the mindset that we can make this season more enjoyable by (a) moving Randle (b) giving Obi 32min at the 4 (c) playing Grimes and Cam next to each-other for legitimate stretches (d) smaller “death” lineups like Brunson-IQ-Grimes with RJ at the 4 (e) Randle + Obi pairing for small increments.

I just don’t believe that any of the above will add to the win column or somehow make watching them more desirable as they possibly rack up a few extra Ls. The Knicks gave the fanbase an early Christmas present by legitimately removing Fournier from the rotation just a few games in. I despise Evan but what exactly did that solve or unlock?

A trash product and a roster devoid of talent is who we are. I don’t know why a reluctance to accept that comes with if only we did “XYZ” things would be better. I guess I’m negative but this collection of players feels like a tunnel with no light at the end.

[Clyde_Style]

Terrible win, but I don't want to hear any Donovan Mitchell whining for a few months, all that dick eating yall do for him in game threads should be on quiet mode for a few weeks.

Brunson was better than DM

[dakomish23]

Jalen Williams, Griffin, Eason all looking pretty good. Of course Knicks would have drafted somebody bad anyway

Refresh my memory, since the thousand pages of it during the summer apparently didn't stick.

Did the Knicks trade out of the draft to free up space for Brunson? Was moving that pick part of that effort?

I like Brunson and I think it was a good move, in spite of his 2 huge detractors on here, but passing on a talented wing like the guy on the Hawks, that's pretty f*cking ret*rded.

That's a guy who suddenly makes it easy to trade RJ and/or Grimes, IQ

Yea, they traded it to free up space for Brunson. Brunson was a really nice signing in a vacuum and I like him a lot. He is our best player. But they shouldnt have been in a position where they needed to trade a lottery pick to sign him. It was really all the bad decisions before that.

I mean, typical Knicks in that even when they make a good move, there is some bad to it

Special shout out to everyone who downplayed giving these bum ass role players a guaranteed 2nd year

[sol537]

If we dump Randle, if we bench/buyout Fournier & Rose, we'd be a much better defensive team.

More time to Grimes, McBride, IQ means a stronger defensive wall at the point of attack and better rotations, like we saw against CLE. Most of their shots were rushed/contested which wasn't the case the last time.

[ibraheim718]

Read on Twitter

Pretty impressive to see a player his size get over screens like that.

[thebuzzardman]

Refresh my memory, since the thousand pages of it during the summer apparently didn't stick.

Did the Knicks trade out of the draft to free up space for Brunson? Was moving that pick part of that effort?

I like Brunson and I think it was a good move, in spite of his 2 huge detractors on here, but passing on a talented wing like the guy on the Hawks, that's pretty f*cking ret*rded.

That's a guy who suddenly makes it easy to trade RJ and/or Grimes, IQ

Yea, they traded it to free up space for Brunson. Brunson was a really nice signing in a vacuum and I like him a lot. He is our best player. But they shouldnt have been in a position where they needed to trade a lottery pick to sign him. It was really all the bad decisions before that.

I mean, typical Knicks in that even when they make a good move, there is some bad to it

To be fair, the Knicks got 3 1sts for the 1st they traded, right?

That deal may have been done with an eye on freeing up space for Brunson, both because they traded one of them to Detroit and because they didn't want a rookie salary on the books this year, but that is also good trade in a vacuum.

Ok. So that fits in the stated FO plan (again, which I think is conceptually ok but the execution not so much) of collecting picks, which they see as more valuable to teams trading stars.

Again, I'm not sure it's the best plan within the concept, but I get trading a pick into future picks IN THEORY, since once you pick a player, you have to roster that player, pay him (though rookie scale) and a player is maybe attractive to half the league but not the other, where a pick they get to choose.

So their stated goal was to manage the salaries, not be under the cap, but have players they could move, along with picks, to be in the conversation when a star is available for trade, and eventually close the deal.

The worst part of the execution isn't that they are capped out for 4 years, it's that they are capped out with players, minus Brunson, that won't be that easy to move.

And while they have all their picks and extras, it's not like they possess picks that are wowing teams either.

Again, I don't think it's a bad idea that they signed some vets, drafted or have several young players competing and theoretically developing behind them, so they have some depth and can trade players and still retain decent depth, but it's the overall quality of the bigger contracts and honestly, the quality of the youth that make the execution poor.

And it's not like Obi, Grimes, IQ, Sims, RJ, Mitch are awful (well, maybe RJ and Obi are) but that they need to absolutely crush the drafts and they didn't, and then signing RJ after Randle...just a terrible idea. Not because RJ is bad, but because of fit/ability with Randle.



The tiny spark of optimism I have left is if they somehow add an elite wing. If they do, then Randle or RJ being on the team might not be so bad.

But logic and past experience tells me they'll f*ck that up

[Clyde_Style]

Quick has also become an elite defender. You didn't need to even look at the advance metrics to see that tonight.

I think our backcourt is coming along nicely. Grimes played the D we needed. IQ is also boarding really well and his drives lately are quality ones where he has adapted his lazy floater into kiss the glass scoops and swoops and it is very hard to stop.

[ibraheim718]

If we dump Randle, Fournier & Rose, we'd be a much better team to watch.

[Iron Mantis]

I want I see this type of defense on a nightly basis.

Rose and Fournier's terrible defense are out of the rotation. Randle is the worst defender left that plays 20+ minutes a night. They will not DNP him, so he must be traded.

Realistically, what can the Knicks get in a Randle trade?

[Deeeez Knicks]

Refresh my memory, since the thousand pages of it during the summer apparently didn't stick.

Did the Knicks trade out of the draft to free up space for Brunson? Was moving that pick part of that effort?

I like Brunson and I think it was a good move, in spite of his 2 huge detractors on here, but passing on a talented wing like the guy on the Hawks, that's pretty f*cking ret*rded.

That's a guy who suddenly makes it easy to trade RJ and/or Grimes, IQ

Yea, they traded it to free up space for Brunson. Brunson was a really nice signing in a vacuum and I like him a lot. He is our best player. But they shouldnt have been in a position where they needed to trade a lottery pick to sign him. It was really all the bad decisions before that.

I mean, typical Knicks in that even when they make a good move, there is some bad to it

To be fair, the Knicks got 3 1sts for the 1st they traded, right?

That deal may have been done with an eye on freeing up space for Brunson, both because they traded one of them to Detroit and because they didn't want a rookie salary on the books this year, but that is also good trade in a vacuum.

There was still a cost to move bad contracts. They ended up with 3 firsts, but they are all pretty heavily protected/ late picks. The cost to move Kemba was pick #13 for the Bucks pick.

It just would have been easier if they planned it better

[GONYK]

Yea, they traded it to free up space for Brunson. Brunson was a really nice signing in a vacuum and I like him a lot. He is our best player. But they shouldnt have been in a position where they needed to trade a lottery pick to sign him. It was really all the bad decisions before that.

I mean, typical Knicks in that even when they make a good move, there is some bad to it

To be fair, the Knicks got 3 1sts for the 1st they traded, right?

That deal may have been done with an eye on freeing up space for Brunson, both because they traded one of them to Detroit and because they didn't want a rookie salary on the books this year, but that is also good trade in a vacuum.

Ok. So that fits in the stated FO plan (again, which I think is conceptually ok but the execution not so much) of collecting picks, which they see as more valuable to teams trading stars.

Again, I'm not sure it's the best plan within the concept, but I get trading a pick into future picks IN THEORY, since once you pick a player, you have to roster that player, pay him (though rookie scale) and a player is maybe attractive to half the league but not the other, where a pick they get to choose.

So their stated goal was to manage the salaries, not be under the cap, but have players they could move, along with picks, to be in the conversation when a star is available for trade, and eventually close the deal.

The worst part of the execution isn't that they are capped out for 4 years, it's that they are capped out with players, minus Brunson, that won't be that easy to move.

And while they have all their picks and extras, it's not like they possess picks that are wowing teams either.

Again, I don't think it's a bad idea that they signed some vets, drafted or have several young players competing and theoretically developing behind them, so they have some depth and can trade players and still retain decent depth, but it's the overall quality of the bigger contracts and honestly, the quality of the youth that make the execution poor.

And it's not like Obi, Grimes, IQ, Sims, RJ, Mitch are awful (well, maybe RJ and Obi are) but that they need to absolutely crush the drafts and they didn't, and then signing RJ after Randle...just a terrible idea. Not because RJ is bad, but because of fit/ability with Randle.

The tiny spark of optimism I have left is if they somehow add an elite wing. If they do, then Randle or RJ being on the team might not be so bad.

But logic and past experience tells me they'll f*ck that up

I think their draft strategy is like their overall asset management strategy.

They look at each asset, whether it be a player or a pick, as a singular unit of value and they manage it as such without regard for the larger picture.

That's why it's a little crazy that, out of all the players on the roster, the rumors are that we're open to trading IQ. I'd say he's probably been a top 3 player for us this season, if not our second best player outright.

But, they might view him just as a singular asset to sell high on rather than taking in all he does for the team. That's poor perspective IMO and that is what has been plaguing them.

Getting a star is not a strategy in and of itself. Building a team requires more than that.

[GONYK]

Yea, they traded it to free up space for Brunson. Brunson was a really nice signing in a vacuum and I like him a lot. He is our best player. But they shouldnt have been in a position where they needed to trade a lottery pick to sign him. It was really all the bad decisions before that.

I mean, typical Knicks in that even when they make a good move, there is some bad to it

To be fair, the Knicks got 3 1sts for the 1st they traded, right?

That deal may have been done with an eye on freeing up space for Brunson, both because they traded one of them to Detroit and because they didn't want a rookie salary on the books this year, but that is also good trade in a vacuum.

There was still a cost to move bad contracts. They ended up with 3 firsts, but they are all pretty heavily protected/ late picks. The cost to move Kemba was pick #13 for the Bucks pick.

It just would have been easier if they planned it better

Of course, but that is a bit different than what I'm saying.

I think they would have traded 1 first for 3 firsts either way, even if Brunson wasn't an option. That's how they operate. Each asset is managed by itself, and thus, that is a great value for that asset.

[Jimmit79]

Bunch of haters on this board. If you don't want to see the Knicks win switch over & go root for the Nets.

Bunch of idiots like this one here if you don't want Knicks to become contender in your lifetime go root for the timberwolves.

[KnicksGadfly]

Bunch of haters on this board. If you don't want to see the Knicks win switch over & go root for the Nets.

Bunch of idiots like this one here if you don't want Knicks to become contender in your lifetime go root for the timberwolves.

damn, Jimmit, take my +1

[Deeeez Knicks]

To be fair, the Knicks got 3 1sts for the 1st they traded, right?

That deal may have been done with an eye on freeing up space for Brunson, both because they traded one of them to Detroit and because they didn't want a rookie salary on the books this year, but that is also good trade in a vacuum.

There was still a cost to move bad contracts. They ended up with 3 firsts, but they are all pretty heavily protected/ late picks. The cost to move Kemba was pick #13 for the Bucks pick.

It just would have been easier if they planned it better

Of course, but that is a bit different than what I'm saying.

I think they would have traded 1 first for 3 firsts either way, even if Brunson wasn't an option. That's how they operate. Each asset is managed by itself, and thus, that is a great value for that asset.

I think the primary objective was to free up cap space. But maybe they would have traded out of the draft anyway. Hopefully the picks pan out. Hard to say where they will end up.

I mean each asset is ok. But as a whole it seems like we are left with a roster glut of mediocre pieces that dont fit. Its messy.

[oldshoolballer]

Read on Twitter

Pretty impressive to see a player his size get over screens like that.

Grimes effort is a 10. Wish other players would give effort like this.

[El Poochio]

Looks like Thibs was reading my posts from the last game and trot out Deuce - IQ - Grimes all together for extra ball pressure

[El Poochio]

Read on Twitter

QUENTIN GRIMES FOLKS QUENTINNNN GRIMESSSS

[sol537]

Read on Twitter

Pretty impressive to see a player his size get over screens like that.

Grimes effort is a 10. Wish other players would give effort like this.

Grimes had like 5 successful swipes/deflections in the game which is highly disruptive. He, McBride and IQ are pests on the defense. Love to see it.