OG wanted to shoot more & we said NO

[Mattatron]

I can't believe OG actually complained about wanting more of an offensive role without having any offensive game

I can't believe that you believe the media lmao

[nikster]

OG is more valuable to a team than Barnes so its actually not an overpay when you put it in perspective.

Nah, when you start paying role players 40 million it's not economically sound. I think they can make it work only because players are giving them discount deals. Bridges seems like a similar player and gets paid way less.. He'll look at OG and want similar money. Will be a huge problem in the future for a team that will never win a championship.

OG at 40M sounds a lot better than IQ at 30M.

For a team like new York sure. I'm not sure for us, especially as that gap will grow to about $16 million by the end of OGs contract. We'd already be significantly over the cap with that contract.

[PushDaRock]

Trent was a role player. Any player that isn’t part of carrying the team is a role player. Basically a supporting piece. So for example if og didn’t have Kat or Brunson would he be the guy that carries your team to wins? No. Then he’s a role player. If you had kat and Brunson on the team and og was hurt you’d still be a decent team. On the flip side, if you didn’t have one of those guys but still had og, you wouldn’t be as good.

OG is averaging 23 ppg and has a 10-6 record without Brunson this season.

So if Brunson goes down in the playoffs, you can confidently say that the knicks will be fine because og is still there?

Is any playoff team "fine" if they lose their top scorer?

If SGA goes down, is OKC fine? Are JDub and Chet role players just because they wouldn't win without SGA?

[Boogie!]

OG is averaging 23 ppg and has a 10-6 record without Brunson this season.

So if Brunson goes down in the playoffs, you can confidently say that the knicks will be fine because og is still there?

Is any playoff team "fine" if they lose their top scorer?

If SGA goes down, is OKC fine? Are JDub and Chet role players just because they wouldn't win without SGA?

If sga goes down then okc is not fine. Just like now that curry is down the warriors are not fine. That’s the point. Og is not winning without a star carrying the team. He is a role player.

[TheGeneral99]

What?

OG is literally averaging almost identical numbers and shot attempts to what he was averaging here in 2022 and 2023.

2022 - 17ppg on 14.5 shot attempts
2023 - 17ppg on 13.2 shot attempts
2025 - 18ppg on 13.9 shot attempts

His role is the same, he just has a great supporting cast with Brunson, Towns, Bridges etc.

He is the premier 3+D player and a great 3rd or 4th option and glue guy on a contender, but that is his ceiling.

Also, great trade for both teams. Knicks got a really good guy in his prime that fits in their timeline with Brunson and Towns, and we got two young up and coming studs in RJ and Quickley who are both under 25 and fit our rebuilding timeline.

[TheGeneral99]

OG is more valuable to a team than Barnes so its actually not an overpay when you put it in perspective.

Nah, when you start paying role players 40 million it's not economically sound. I think they can make it work only because players are giving them discount deals. Bridges seems like a similar player and gets paid way less.. He'll look at OG and want similar money. Will be a huge problem in the future for a team that will never win a championship.

All-NBA Defenders who can also score 18 ppg efficiently are not role players.

He is an elite role player.

He is not a star by any means.

His best comparables are Dillon Brooks, Lue Dort and Jaden McDaniels...guys that are efficient shooters, fit in any system, and guard the other teams best player.

Anunoby - 18ppg on 47%fg and 37%3fg

Brooks - 14ppg on 43%fg and 40%3fg (remember Brooks averaged 18ppg in 2022)

[PushDaRock]

So if Brunson goes down in the playoffs, you can confidently say that the knicks will be fine because og is still there?

Is any playoff team "fine" if they lose their top scorer?

If SGA goes down, is OKC fine? Are JDub and Chet role players just because they wouldn't win without SGA?

If sga goes down then okc is not fine. Just like now that curry is down the warriors are not fine. That’s the point. Og is not winning without a star carrying the team. He is a role player.

Ok, so there's maybe like 10 or 15 non role players in the league?

[PushDaRock]

Nah, when you start paying role players 40 million it's not economically sound. I think they can make it work only because players are giving them discount deals. Bridges seems like a similar player and gets paid way less.. He'll look at OG and want similar money. Will be a huge problem in the future for a team that will never win a championship.

All-NBA Defenders who can also score 18 ppg efficiently are not role players.

He is an elite role player.

He is not a star by any means.

His best comparables are Dillon Brooks, Lue Dort and Jaden McDaniels...guys that are efficient shooters, fit in any system, and guard the other teams best player.

Anunoby - 18ppg on 47%fg and 37%3fg

Brooks - 14ppg on 43%fg and 40%3fg (remember Brooks averaged 18ppg in 2022)

18 ppg on 59 TS% on a good team is not role player status imo

Those guys have come nowhere to that type of efficiency when they scored 17-18 ppg, McDaniels hasn't broken 12 ppg any season.

[TheGeneral99]

All-NBA Defenders who can also score 18 ppg efficiently are not role players.

He is an elite role player.

He is not a star by any means.

His best comparables are Dillon Brooks, Lue Dort and Jaden McDaniels...guys that are efficient shooters, fit in any system, and guard the other teams best player.

Anunoby - 18ppg on 47%fg and 37%3fg

Brooks - 14ppg on 43%fg and 40%3fg (remember Brooks averaged 18ppg in 2022)

18 ppg on 59 TS% on a good team is not role player status imo

Those guys have come nowhere to that type of efficiency when they scored 17-18 ppg, McDaniels hasn't broken 12 ppg any season.

Again, a guy like Brooks averages 14ppg on decent efficiency on a 54 win team.

Nevertheless, I think it depends on your definition of role player.

I would characterize it as follows:

Superstar level players (undisputed 1st option): Jokic, Luka, Giannis, Shai, Tatum, Edwards, Steph, KD, Kawhi etc.
Perennial All-star level players (1st or 2nd option but better suited as a 2nd option): Mitchell, Brown, Haliburton, Cade, Sabonis, Towns, Brunson, Bam, Butler, Siakim, Kyrie etc.
All-star/borderline all-star level players (can be a #1 or #2, but ideally a 3rd option on a contender): Barnes, Banchero, Herro, Randle, Lavine, Murray, Ingram, Derozan etc.
Elite/high-end role player: OG, Reaves, Brooks, Dort, White, Powell, Barrett, Turner, Portis, Harris, Thompson, Jordan Poole, Michael Porter Jr. etc.

This is how I would divide it. OG is an elite role player, he's the perfect 3rd or 4th option on a contender but he's not an all-star caliber player and he's not someone you can rely on as your 2nd option.

The Knicks looked like this:

Brunson - 26ppg on 19fga
Towns - 24ppg on 17fga
OG - 18ppg on 14fga
Bridges - 17.5ppg on 14.4fga
Hart - 13.6ppg on fga

Very balanced team...two clear #1 and #2 options and then you have high-level role players like OG, Bridges and Hart surrounding them.

[PushDaRock]

He is an elite role player.

He is not a star by any means.

His best comparables are Dillon Brooks, Lue Dort and Jaden McDaniels...guys that are efficient shooters, fit in any system, and guard the other teams best player.

Anunoby - 18ppg on 47%fg and 37%3fg

Brooks - 14ppg on 43%fg and 40%3fg (remember Brooks averaged 18ppg in 2022)

18 ppg on 59 TS% on a good team is not role player status imo

Those guys have come nowhere to that type of efficiency when they scored 17-18 ppg, McDaniels hasn't broken 12 ppg any season.

Again, a guy like Brooks averages 14ppg on decent efficiency on a 54 win team.

Nevertheless, I think it depends on your definition of role player.

I would characterize it as follows:

Superstar level players (undisputed 1st option): Jokic, Luka, Giannis, Shai, Tatum, Edwards, Steph, KD, Kawhi etc.
Perennial All-star level players (1st or 2nd option but better suited as a 2nd option): Mitchell, Brown, Haliburton, Cade, Sabonis, Towns, Brunson, Bam, Butler, Siakim, Kyrie etc.
All-star/borderline all-star level players (can be a #1 or #2, but ideally a 3rd option on a contender): Barnes, Banchero, Herro, Randle, Lavine, Murray, Ingram, Derozan etc.
Elite/high-end role player: OG, Reaves, Brooks, Dort, White, Powell, Barrett, Turner, Portis, Harris, Thompson, Jordan Poole, Michael Porter Jr. etc.

This is how I would divide it. OG is an elite role player, he's the perfect 3rd or 4th option on a contender but he's not an all-star caliber player and he's not someone you can rely on as your 2nd option.

The Knicks looked like this:

Brunson - 26ppg on 19fga
Towns - 24ppg on 17fga
OG - 18ppg on 14fga
Bridges - 17.5ppg on 14.4fga
Hart - 13.6ppg on fga

Very balanced team...two clear #1 and #2 options and then you have high-level role players like OG, Bridges and Hart surrounding them.

OG 18 ppg on 59 TS%
Brooks 14 ppg on 55 TS%

They are not the same

We can agree to disagree on anyone other than the #1 and #2 options being a role player.

[TheGeneral99]

18 ppg on 59 TS% on a good team is not role player status imo

Those guys have come nowhere to that type of efficiency when they scored 17-18 ppg, McDaniels hasn't broken 12 ppg any season.

Again, a guy like Brooks averages 14ppg on decent efficiency on a 54 win team.

Nevertheless, I think it depends on your definition of role player.

I would characterize it as follows:

Superstar level players (undisputed 1st option): Jokic, Luka, Giannis, Shai, Tatum, Edwards, Steph, KD, Kawhi etc.
Perennial All-star level players (1st or 2nd option but better suited as a 2nd option): Mitchell, Brown, Haliburton, Cade, Sabonis, Towns, Brunson, Bam, Butler, Siakim, Kyrie etc.
All-star/borderline all-star level players (can be a #1 or #2, but ideally a 3rd option on a contender): Barnes, Banchero, Herro, Randle, Lavine, Murray, Ingram, Derozan etc.
Elite/high-end role player: OG, Reaves, Brooks, Dort, White, Powell, Barrett, Turner, Portis, Harris, Thompson, Jordan Poole, Michael Porter Jr. etc.

This is how I would divide it. OG is an elite role player, he's the perfect 3rd or 4th option on a contender but he's not an all-star caliber player and he's not someone you can rely on as your 2nd option.

The Knicks looked like this:

Brunson - 26ppg on 19fga
Towns - 24ppg on 17fga
OG - 18ppg on 14fga
Bridges - 17.5ppg on 14.4fga
Hart - 13.6ppg on fga

Very balanced team...two clear #1 and #2 options and then you have high-level role players like OG, Bridges and Hart surrounding them.

OG 18 ppg on 59 TS%
Brooks 14 ppg on 55 TS%

They are not the same

We can agree to disagree on anyone other than the #1 and #2 options being a role player.

Austin Reaves had a TS of 61% and Michael Porter was also 61%...I put OG in the category with those guys. Are you saying that Reaves and MPJ are star caliber players or would you agree they are elite level role players who can fit alongside other stars very well?

Again there are role players and "elite role players" who are not stars, but are significant pieces on championship/contending roster. A guy like Tayshaun Prince on those contending Pistons teams in the mid-2000s was similar to a guy like OG.

I'm just not understanding what you are trying to argue? Are you saying OG is a star level player?

Ibaka and Gasol (past his prime on our team) were elite role players on our championship squad.

[PushDaRock]

Again, a guy like Brooks averages 14ppg on decent efficiency on a 54 win team.

Nevertheless, I think it depends on your definition of role player.

I would characterize it as follows:

Superstar level players (undisputed 1st option): Jokic, Luka, Giannis, Shai, Tatum, Edwards, Steph, KD, Kawhi etc.
Perennial All-star level players (1st or 2nd option but better suited as a 2nd option): Mitchell, Brown, Haliburton, Cade, Sabonis, Towns, Brunson, Bam, Butler, Siakim, Kyrie etc.
All-star/borderline all-star level players (can be a #1 or #2, but ideally a 3rd option on a contender): Barnes, Banchero, Herro, Randle, Lavine, Murray, Ingram, Derozan etc.
Elite/high-end role player: OG, Reaves, Brooks, Dort, White, Powell, Barrett, Turner, Portis, Harris, Thompson, Jordan Poole, Michael Porter Jr. etc.

This is how I would divide it. OG is an elite role player, he's the perfect 3rd or 4th option on a contender but he's not an all-star caliber player and he's not someone you can rely on as your 2nd option.

The Knicks looked like this:

Brunson - 26ppg on 19fga
Towns - 24ppg on 17fga
OG - 18ppg on 14fga
Bridges - 17.5ppg on 14.4fga
Hart - 13.6ppg on fga

Very balanced team...two clear #1 and #2 options and then you have high-level role players like OG, Bridges and Hart surrounding them.

OG 18 ppg on 59 TS%
Brooks 14 ppg on 55 TS%

They are not the same

We can agree to disagree on anyone other than the #1 and #2 options being a role player.

Austin Reaves had a TS of 61% and Michael Porter was also 61%...I put OG in the category with those guys. Are you saying that Reaves and MPJ are star caliber players or would you agree they are elite level role players who can fit alongside other stars very well?

Again there are role players and "elite role players" who are not stars, but are significant pieces on championship/contending roster.

Ibaka and Gasol (past his prime on our team) were elite role players on our championship squad.

I don't think the gap goes from star to high end role player. There's something in between which is where I would have those guys. OG is probably borderline as a Star caliber player because All-NBA defenders that are also above average offensively are very rare in this league.

[TheGeneral99]

OG 18 ppg on 59 TS%
Brooks 14 ppg on 55 TS%

They are not the same

We can agree to disagree on anyone other than the #1 and #2 options being a role player.

Austin Reaves had a TS of 61% and Michael Porter was also 61%...I put OG in the category with those guys. Are you saying that Reaves and MPJ are star caliber players or would you agree they are elite level role players who can fit alongside other stars very well?

Again there are role players and "elite role players" who are not stars, but are significant pieces on championship/contending roster.

Ibaka and Gasol (past his prime on our team) were elite role players on our championship squad.

I don't think the gap goes from star to high end role player. There's something in between which is where I would have those guys. OG is probably borderline as a Star caliber player because All-NBA defenders that are also above average offensively are very rare in this league.

Well then it depends on your definition. Again below are some players that I put into all-star/borderline all-star players and this is who I defined as "elite role players."

All-star/borderline all-star level players (can be a #1 or #2, but ideally a 3rd option on a contender): Barnes, Banchero, Herro, Randle, Lavine, Murray, Ingram, Derozan etc.

Elite/high-end role player: OG, Reaves, Brooks, Dort, White, Powell, Barrett, Turner, Portis, Harris, Thompson, Jordan Poole, Michael Porter Jr. etc.

I wouldn't put OG on the level of Barnes, Randle, Ingram, Murray etc. but he isn't that far off, he's like one level below. If we are going to do rankings, I would say OG is probably a top 45-50 player in the league. He's not a star (top 30-35 player), but he's right behind them in terms of how valuable he is.

[PushDaRock]

Austin Reaves had a TS of 61% and Michael Porter was also 61%...I put OG in the category with those guys. Are you saying that Reaves and MPJ are star caliber players or would you agree they are elite level role players who can fit alongside other stars very well?

Again there are role players and "elite role players" who are not stars, but are significant pieces on championship/contending roster.

Ibaka and Gasol (past his prime on our team) were elite role players on our championship squad.

I don't think the gap goes from star to high end role player. There's something in between which is where I would have those guys. OG is probably borderline as a Star caliber player because All-NBA defenders that are also above average offensively are very rare in this league.

Well then it depends on your definition. Again below are some players that I put into all-star/borderline all-star players and this is who I defined as "elite role players."

All-star/borderline all-star level players (can be a #1 or #2, but ideally a 3rd option on a contender): Barnes, Banchero, Herro, Randle, Lavine, Murray, Ingram, Derozan etc.

Elite/high-end role player: OG, Reaves, Brooks, Dort, White, Powell, Barrett, Turner, Portis, Harris, Thompson, Jordan Poole, Michael Porter Jr. etc.

I wouldn't put OG on the level of Barnes, Randle, Ingram, Murray etc. but he isn't that far off, he's like one level below. If we are going to do rankings, I would say OG is probably a top 45-50 player in the league. He's not a star (top 30-35 player), but he's right behind them in terms of how valuable he is.

OG has a good case over all of those guys, because he's above average offensively and elite defensively. All those other guys are below average defensively/neutral at best and in Scottie's case below average offensively.

[DatHomieYouHaTe]

I don't think the gap goes from star to high end role player. There's something in between which is where I would have those guys. OG is probably borderline as a Star caliber player because All-NBA defenders that are also above average offensively are very rare in this league.

Well then it depends on your definition. Again below are some players that I put into all-star/borderline all-star players and this is who I defined as "elite role players."

All-star/borderline all-star level players (can be a #1 or #2, but ideally a 3rd option on a contender): Barnes, Banchero, Herro, Randle, Lavine, Murray, Ingram, Derozan etc.

Elite/high-end role player: OG, Reaves, Brooks, Dort, White, Powell, Barrett, Turner, Portis, Harris, Thompson, Jordan Poole, Michael Porter Jr. etc.

I wouldn't put OG on the level of Barnes, Randle, Ingram, Murray etc. but he isn't that far off, he's like one level below. If we are going to do rankings, I would say OG is probably a top 45-50 player in the league. He's not a star (top 30-35 player), but he's right behind them in terms of how valuable he is.

OG has a good case over all of those guys, because he's above average offensively and elite defensively. All those other guys are below average defensively/neutral at best and in Scottie's case below average offensively.

Scottie Barnes is a much better player than OG and is 4 years younger. OG obviously shoots the ball better but mediocre in playmaking and rebounding. If you give him the ball he'll fall over his feet trying to create something. We get it, he's a great role player but that's it.

[PushDaRock]

Well then it depends on your definition. Again below are some players that I put into all-star/borderline all-star players and this is who I defined as "elite role players."

All-star/borderline all-star level players (can be a #1 or #2, but ideally a 3rd option on a contender): Barnes, Banchero, Herro, Randle, Lavine, Murray, Ingram, Derozan etc.

Elite/high-end role player: OG, Reaves, Brooks, Dort, White, Powell, Barrett, Turner, Portis, Harris, Thompson, Jordan Poole, Michael Porter Jr. etc.

I wouldn't put OG on the level of Barnes, Randle, Ingram, Murray etc. but he isn't that far off, he's like one level below. If we are going to do rankings, I would say OG is probably a top 45-50 player in the league. He's not a star (top 30-35 player), but he's right behind them in terms of how valuable he is.

OG has a good case over all of those guys, because he's above average offensively and elite defensively. All those other guys are below average defensively/neutral at best and in Scottie's case below average offensively.

Scottie Barnes is a much better player than OG and is 4 years younger. OG obviously shoots the ball better but mediocre in playmaking and rebounding. If you give him the ball he'll fall over his feet trying to create something. We get it, he's a great role player but that's it.

We are talking about better player at the current moment not potential.

Much better in what way? OG was at 18 ppg on 59 TS% while Scottie was at 19.3 ppg on 52.3 TS%, that's a drastic difference. One was well above average and the other one of the worse offensive players in the league at that USG. OG is the much better defender, probably the best wing defender in the entire league and easily top 5. Scottie's edge is in his rebounding and playmaking. The rebounding gap isn't that massive really and is at least partly explained by their different roles defensively with OG more on the perimeter. The playmaking gap is large and is the only real big edge Scottie has that is significant, debatable whether that matters enough to overcome the horrid year scoring the ball that Scottie had.

[dublo7]

There's a problem with too many cooks in the kitchen but the build our team has now is better. All 3 of our wings can shoot, drive, and pass. The bigs are defensively focused.

We has several miscast pieces and a lack of depth. The lack of depth and shooting hurt more than our starters. Now we have a comparable starting group and much better depth. Along with at least 2 lottery picks with Gradey and this years.

If we applied our depth to our old core we would have been a playoff team easily.

Poeltl / Maluach
Siakam / Mogbo
OG / Agbaji
Barnes / Dick / Walter
FVV / Shead

That would have had some real potential.

'
that would be an awesome team.

[Mattatron]

Austin Reaves had a TS of 61% and Michael Porter was also 61%...I put OG in the category with those guys. Are you saying that Reaves and MPJ are star caliber players or would you agree they are elite level role players who can fit alongside other stars very well?

Again there are role players and "elite role players" who are not stars, but are significant pieces on championship/contending roster.

Ibaka and Gasol (past his prime on our team) were elite role players on our championship squad.

I don't think the gap goes from star to high end role player. There's something in between which is where I would have those guys. OG is probably borderline as a Star caliber player because All-NBA defenders that are also above average offensively are very rare in this league.

Well then it depends on your definition. Again below are some players that I put into all-star/borderline all-star players and this is who I defined as "elite role players."

All-star/borderline all-star level players (can be a #1 or #2, but ideally a 3rd option on a contender): Barnes, Banchero, Herro, Randle, Lavine, Murray, Ingram, Derozan etc.

Elite/high-end role player: OG, Reaves, Brooks, Dort, White, Powell, Barrett, Turner, Portis, Harris, Thompson, Jordan Poole, Michael Porter Jr. etc.

I wouldn't put OG on the level of Barnes, Randle, Ingram, Murray etc. but he isn't that far off, he's like one level below. If we are going to do rankings, I would say OG is probably a top 45-50 player in the league. He's not a star (top 30-35 player), but he's right behind them in terms of how valuable he is.

Switch all star/borderline named players with elite high end role players named players. Derozan, lavine, Ingram, herro, Randle etc u don't win with these guys as 3rd options, it's not their natural way to play.

OG is a Ron Artest type of player, someone who has way more impact on the game, not only offensively.

Barrett is nowhere close to be anything. He's more of a Kevin Martin 6th man, at best.

[CPT]

This whole conversation is pretty dumb (why does it matter so much what we call him?), but OG is awesome.

At a certain point, “A is better than B” stops mattering. Most good teams would rather have him than a lot of those “borderline all-star level” guys.

They’d certainly rather have him than RJ and Quickley, even if that trade might have made sense for us.

[tecumseh18]

This whole conversation is pretty dumb (why does it matter so much what we call him?), but OG is awesome.

At a certain point, “A is better than B” stops mattering. Most good teams would rather have him than a lot of those “borderline all-star level” guys.

They’d certainly rather have him than RJ and Quickley, even if that trade might have made sense for us.

Definitely made sense given the Raptors dire lack of quality depth. Getting IQ, RJ and Mogbo for OG, plus getting BI and (my fave) Walter plus the cap space to acquire the #45 draft pick (Shead) has dramatically improved our prospects as a franchise. That's six rotation pieces for two.