Thugger HBC wrote:Mecca wrote:Thugger HBC wrote:We did need big forwards, that's the only part I agree with them on. I would have ran Knox at the four though, just to keep his minutes up. Now you basically stuck your own draft pick on the bench. Utter silliness.
Knox will be a bust if you make him a 3 and we just spent 30 million on 2 4’s. Y’all don’t realize how clueless this FO is.
Honestly, I have no issue with Taj and his deal, he's a good vet to have around. Good signing to help the young guys, primarily Mitch. Cant field just 20 year olds.
But why Randle? Makes no sense. I know Fiz can so much to say about him, but damn. Might as well trade Knox then. he's buried now.
I'll try. I'm not that sold on these ideas, just trying to understand the process
Knicks needed 4/5's badly
Knicks scouting and analytics etc decided that Randle was the kind of player they could include as part of the youth rebuild
Knicks still don't have THAT long a commitment to Randle (since uncertainty around 2 or 3 years)
While Knox MIGHT profile as a 4 eventually, the Knicks may still see him as a 3 - guessing here.
Knox seems to need about 2 years to grow into his body to play 4, which is - Randles contract!
If they like Randle after 2 or 3 years and Knox does become a PF, they can use Randle as a 4/5 off the bench and he'd still get 30 minutes
I dunno. There are ways to see it.
I'm on the fence about Randle.