Moderators: Deeeez Knicks, mpharris36, j4remi, HerSports85, NoLayupRule, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23
TheGreenArrow wrote:?s=46&t=W09F6FrMDfp5_y1gKYgF1g
Josh hart is at least top 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wildcat wrote:JayTWill wrote:I'm not saying that I want Beasley here or that I think he would/should come here but i'm not sure if having Clarkson is a reason to not want or need him. Clarkson may be a great addition or he may be another Kemba, Fournier, Bogey etc that is at the stage in his career where his offense is no longer close to good enough to make up for his poor defense.
Clarkson is 33. Even guys that were very good for the team at one point like Burks and Rose became almost unplayable around this age. For the minimum it is not much of a risk but we don't even know if he is deserving of being a rotational player on a contender yet.
In an ideal world, you'd look at moving Deuce to free up time for Beasley. Clarkson came in for play making duties this team desperately needs. Having a 3 point bomber is moot if you can't create those open looks for him. Positions 6-10 are in my opinion locked between Hart, Clarkson, Deuce, Yabusele, and ideally Ariel. As is right now, there just isn't minutes for someone like Beasley and he's not coming for the minimum.
JayTWill wrote:Wildcat wrote:JayTWill wrote:I'm not saying that I want Beasley here or that I think he would/should come here but i'm not sure if having Clarkson is a reason to not want or need him. Clarkson may be a great addition or he may be another Kemba, Fournier, Bogey etc that is at the stage in his career where his offense is no longer close to good enough to make up for his poor defense.
Clarkson is 33. Even guys that were very good for the team at one point like Burks and Rose became almost unplayable around this age. For the minimum it is not much of a risk but we don't even know if he is deserving of being a rotational player on a contender yet.
In an ideal world, you'd look at moving Deuce to free up time for Beasley. Clarkson came in for play making duties this team desperately needs. Having a 3 point bomber is moot if you can't create those open looks for him. Positions 6-10 are in my opinion locked between Hart, Clarkson, Deuce, Yabusele, and ideally Ariel. As is right now, there just isn't minutes for someone like Beasley and he's not coming for the minimum.
I understand the need for the Clarkson archetype. The team definitely needs more ball handling and creation. I just wouldn't put much expectations on a guy that has never been close to an all-star level player during his career contributing to a contender at the age of 33. TJ McConnell might be the only example of that type of player last season and he doesn't play like your normal 33 year old.
Beasley also provides that DDV element where he is not just a stand still spot up shooter that needs a perfect opportunity created for him. He shoots in early transition, off simple dribble handoffs, off screens, off balance fading to the corner etc. Despite the limitations of the ballhandling/creation I would rather have a McBride/Beasley skillset in the backcourt than a Clarkson/McBride skillset overall. I'd rather have Clarkson as the 5th guard that you can plug in if necessary.
Wildcat wrote:JayTWill wrote:Wildcat wrote:
In an ideal world, you'd look at moving Deuce to free up time for Beasley. Clarkson came in for play making duties this team desperately needs. Having a 3 point bomber is moot if you can't create those open looks for him. Positions 6-10 are in my opinion locked between Hart, Clarkson, Deuce, Yabusele, and ideally Ariel. As is right now, there just isn't minutes for someone like Beasley and he's not coming for the minimum.
I understand the need for the Clarkson archetype. The team definitely needs more ball handling and creation. I just wouldn't put much expectations on a guy that has never been close to an all-star level player during his career contributing to a contender at the age of 33. TJ McConnell might be the only example of that type of player last season and he doesn't play like your normal 33 year old.
Beasley also provides that DDV element where he is not just a stand still spot up shooter that needs a perfect opportunity created for him. He shoots in early transition, off simple dribble handoffs, off screens, off balance fading to the corner etc. Despite the limitations of the ballhandling/creation I would rather have a McBride/Beasley skillset in the backcourt than a Clarkson/McBride skillset overall. I'd rather have Clarkson as the 5th guard that you can plug in if necessary.
I think it's an awful look for the Knicks that -- after chasing Clarkson for so long -- pushes him down the rotation for a shinier new piece. Deuce can't run the point. We have a large enough sample size. I don't know where Deuce finished in catch and shoot 3's last season, but at one point he was 41% (I think Beasley finished around 60%). I bet that number gets better when he's not force to run the offense. Go Clarkson/Deuce or Clarkson/Beasley. No Deuce/Beasley. Deuce running point should be dead in the water.
JayTWill wrote:Wildcat wrote:JayTWill wrote:
I understand the need for the Clarkson archetype. The team definitely needs more ball handling and creation. I just wouldn't put much expectations on a guy that has never been close to an all-star level player during his career contributing to a contender at the age of 33. TJ McConnell might be the only example of that type of player last season and he doesn't play like your normal 33 year old.
Beasley also provides that DDV element where he is not just a stand still spot up shooter that needs a perfect opportunity created for him. He shoots in early transition, off simple dribble handoffs, off screens, off balance fading to the corner etc. Despite the limitations of the ballhandling/creation I would rather have a McBride/Beasley skillset in the backcourt than a Clarkson/McBride skillset overall. I'd rather have Clarkson as the 5th guard that you can plug in if necessary.
I think it's an awful look for the Knicks that -- after chasing Clarkson for so long -- pushes him down the rotation for a shinier new piece. Deuce can't run the point. We have a large enough sample size. I don't know where Deuce finished in catch and shoot 3's last season, but at one point he was 41% (I think Beasley finished around 60%). I bet that number gets better when he's not force to run the offense. Go Clarkson/Deuce or Clarkson/Beasley. No Deuce/Beasley. Deuce running point should be dead in the water.
Yeah, I definitely understand the idea of not running Deuce at the point and adding another ballhandler. It may not look good to push Clarkson down the rotation but the Jazz have been trying to move him for a while and found no takers and the Knicks got him for the vet min. I don't know if there is a huge market for his services at this point.
I'm just not ready to commit to giving Clarkson a guaranteed role on the team. For example I would consider Alec Burks a far better on-ball creator throughout his career than Deuce but it wasn't beneficial to the team to have Burks playing that role every game for the Knicks later in his career. And that's not even looking at the defensive issues created by 48+ minutes of Brunson/Clarkson.
Wildcat wrote:JayTWill wrote:Wildcat wrote:
I think it's an awful look for the Knicks that -- after chasing Clarkson for so long -- pushes him down the rotation for a shinier new piece. Deuce can't run the point. We have a large enough sample size. I don't know where Deuce finished in catch and shoot 3's last season, but at one point he was 41% (I think Beasley finished around 60%). I bet that number gets better when he's not force to run the offense. Go Clarkson/Deuce or Clarkson/Beasley. No Deuce/Beasley. Deuce running point should be dead in the water.
Yeah, I definitely understand the idea of not running Deuce at the point and adding another ballhandler. It may not look good to push Clarkson down the rotation but the Jazz have been trying to move him for a while and found no takers and the Knicks got him for the vet min. I don't know if there is a huge market for his services at this point.
I'm just not ready to commit to giving Clarkson a guaranteed role on the team. For example I would consider Alec Burks a far better on-ball creator throughout his career than Deuce but it wasn't beneficial to the team to have Burks playing that role every game for the Knicks later in his career. And that's not even looking at the defensive issues created by 48+ minutes of Brunson/Clarkson.
Them trying to move him has nothing to do with Clarkson. It was all about Ainge thinking he can hoodwink the league and tank for the 15% no. 1 pick. He got burnt. It's why there's still a ridiculous asking price for Kessler last season.
I respect Burks. But Burks best year is comparable to Clarkson's worse season. If we're talking defense, yeah, there are legitimate concerns, but it's hard to say if his D is related to Jazz's 3 seasons of tanking or Clarkson losing a step. Prior to these tanking seasons, he has had a respectable DRTG.
TheGreenArrow wrote:?s=46&t=W09F6FrMDfp5_y1gKYgF1g
This is soooo true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* We have a Brunson Burner™ * ** GO NY GO NY GO NY GO! ** 
TheGreenArrow wrote:?s=46&t=W09F6FrMDfp5_y1gKYgF1g
This is soooo true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DaGawd wrote:TheGreenArrow wrote:?s=46&t=W09F6FrMDfp5_y1gKYgF1g
This is soooo true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
blame giannis for being a 304
* We have a Brunson Burner™ * ** GO NY GO NY GO NY GO! ** BKlutch wrote:TheGreenArrow wrote:?s=46&t=W09F6FrMDfp5_y1gKYgF1g
This is soooo true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, this is good for us, right? We weren't ever going to sign a real superstar this summer. So glad the rest of the NBA hasn't done that, either. Meanwhile, we made some good pickups. Keep your eyes on Yabu this season - he may give us a lot of what we needed in the front court.
And we not only got a new head coach, but we also got a nearly uncountable amount of assistant coaches.
Meanwhile, we got addition by subtraction - Tater Totums is out for the season in Boston, and other competitors lost important players. So from a Knicks point of view, we improved.
TheGreenArrow wrote:BKlutch wrote:TheGreenArrow wrote:?s=46&t=W09F6FrMDfp5_y1gKYgF1g
This is soooo true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, this is good for us, right? We weren't ever going to sign a real superstar this summer. So glad the rest of the NBA hasn't done that, either. Meanwhile, we made some good pickups. Keep your eyes on Yabu this season - he may give us a lot of what we needed in the front court.
And we not only got a new head coach, but we also got a nearly uncountable amount of assistant coaches.
Meanwhile, we got addition by subtraction - Tater Totums is out for the season in Boston, and other competitors lost important players. So from a Knicks point of view, we improved.
For us it’s great for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But just in terms of being a fan of the nba this offseason has been absolutely dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There’s been No excitement at all!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheGreenArrow wrote:?s=46&t=W09F6FrMDfp5_y1gKYgF1g
Wow big blow for Cleveland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheGreenArrow wrote:?s=46&t=W09F6FrMDfp5_y1gKYgF1g
This is soooo true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheGreenArrow wrote:?s=46&t=W09F6FrMDfp5_y1gKYgF1g
This is soooo true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
