ImageImageImageImageImage

WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option)

Moderators: Jeff Van Gully, King of Canada, mrpoetryNmotion, mpharris36, j4remi, Deeeez Knicks, GONYK, K-DOT, NoLayupRule, Capn'O, Thugger HBC

User avatar
BKlutch
General Manager
Posts: 9,872
And1: 6,077
Joined: Jan 11, 2015
Location: Jamaica, NY
     

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#801 » by BKlutch » Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:36 pm

j4remi wrote:
Chanel Bomber wrote:There's some stretch 4 Melo in his game, and I mean that as a compliment.

It's hard not to get excited about Julius but I want to see him play a couple months before I buy into the hype. I also see shades of David Lee in his game and he didn't lead us anywhere despite putting up some gaudy numbers. But like Zach Lavine Randle's improved every season since he entered the league and those are the guys I usually trust because that means they put in the work. I really want to get excited.


This is exactly where my head's at with this dude. He's still young and clearly works on his game every offseason. He's getting to the point where it's just fine tuning things. That three point efficiency increasing even just a couple of points would be huge.

I've always liked Randle since he entered the league. His style of play along with his work ethic are what we need. Yes, there are a few forwards ahead of him. But with Mitch and a good team around him, I predict we're really going to like what he does.
.
.
----------------------
Knickzzz got Killa Kidz
User avatar
KnicksGod
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 54,731
And1: 17,262
Joined: Oct 10, 2003
   

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#802 » by KnicksGod » Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:17 pm

I think his passing, efficiency and improving long ball make him top tier even if he’s not as talented as the most talented guys.
Enes Kanter still does not box out ___ Image
User avatar
malik959
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,803
And1: 1,485
Joined: Apr 10, 2001
Location: Alabama (from L.I)
     

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#803 » by malik959 » Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:49 pm

I initially wanted Randle and either Kemba or DLO along with Danny Green and Marcus Morris, but I'm real happy with DSJ's progression in this off-season. Randle to me has always shown that he had great work ethics throughout his his summers off. I wish RJ was working out with him to 1) get accustomed to playing with him for he will be his Zion and 2) get some of those chain workouts ethics. I really wish RJ would also play a little with Melo also which you can tell that Randle has benefit from with the moves he has learned. This season is truly going to be fun to watch with all of the jocking for positions, showing improved off-season skills, and of course watching our kids grow.
I believe this team is the Sactown team of 2018 where everyone talked about Fox, Bagley, Giles, Celeb, and Hield in which we have DSJ, RJ, Knox, Randle, Mitch, Trier, Dot, Braz, and also Frank. We have so much talent that are projected to be either good to great players whether on defense with Frank or offense with many others. I myself have high hopes for Knox because I love his style of play and movement on the court. Just need more strength, consistency, and knowledge of where to be on the court.
User avatar
god shammgod
Knicks Forum Crazy Board Uncle
Posts: 95,680
And1: 54,740
Joined: Feb 18, 2006
Location: Never Too Early to Tank

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#804 » by god shammgod » Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:00 pm

KnicksGod wrote:I think his passing, efficiency and improving long ball make him top tier even if he’s not as talented as the most talented guys.


if he's gonna become top-tier, and i'm not sure what you mean because he'll never be top 10, he has to improve his ability to create jump shots off the dribble. the videos look like he's been working on that.

what makes stars in the league is usually one of two things - a physical advantage - bigger, taller, more athletic, quicker than other people at their position or how good they are at creating for themselves. and sometimes both like durant. he doesn't quite have the physical advantage of someone like giannis or zion so he has to work on shot creation.
Image
User avatar
thebuzzardman
RealGM
Posts: 34,524
And1: 25,760
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Location: IGNOMANIA

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#805 » by thebuzzardman » Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:37 pm

god shammgod wrote:
KnicksGod wrote:I think his passing, efficiency and improving long ball make him top tier even if he’s not as talented as the most talented guys.


if he's gonna become top-tier, and i'm not sure what you mean because he'll never be top 10, he had to improve his ability to create jump shots off the dribble. the videos look like he's been working on that.

what makes stars in the league is usually one of two things - a physical advantage - bigger, taller, more athletic, quicker than other people at their position or how good they are at creating for themselves. and sometimes both like durant. he doesn't quite have the physical advantage of someone like giannis or zion so he has to work on shot creation.


Some guys just aren't the top of the top tier. The key with guys are are "really good" but not "great" or "super great" or whatever, is #1, not paying them like they are great, or committing years to them like they are "great".

Also, what is helpful in a guy who is really a #2 option type, a "really good player", is that they know that's what they are, and play a style that fits that description. So, by that, I mean more likely to stay in their lane and do what they do well and not push it (coaching staff important here too) and also maybe have a mentality and/or skill set conducive to team play - will move the ball, good passer for their position, etc.

So far, Randle seems to be a guy who doesn't try to hijack the offense or do "too much" and is willing enough to pass. He seemed kind of shot happy his first year or two as a Laker, kind of forced stuff, but has settled down some.

Let's see if he reverts to doing "too much" to try and justify being a "top player" or is more content to fit in with the team. I mean, he was deferring to AD somewhat but now on the Knicks might want to be "The man".

Another sub plot to watch.
User avatar
KnicksGod
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 54,731
And1: 17,262
Joined: Oct 10, 2003
   

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#806 » by KnicksGod » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:32 pm

god shammgod wrote:
KnicksGod wrote:I think his passing, efficiency and improving long ball make him top tier even if he’s not as talented as the most talented guys.


if he's gonna become top-tier, and i'm not sure what you mean because he'll never be top 10, he has to improve his ability to create jump shots off the dribble. the videos look like he's been working on that.

what makes stars in the league is usually one of two things - a physical advantage - bigger, taller, more athletic, quicker than other people at their position or how good they are at creating for themselves. and sometimes both like durant. he doesn't quite have the physical advantage of someone like giannis or zion so he has to work on shot creation.


I think his elite ability would be a combo of strength & quickness ... with touch around the rim.
Enes Kanter still does not box out ___ Image
User avatar
malik959
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,803
And1: 1,485
Joined: Apr 10, 2001
Location: Alabama (from L.I)
     

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#807 » by malik959 » Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:19 am

I believe Randle is on a par level as like a Joe Johnson. Can he carry a team? Yes, but can he get them high into a playoff? No. This is why I pray RJ turns out to be that guy in the long run for I feel that he can. On the court he has that mentality to bring it night and day. Right now we're stuck in the what if mode with this team, praying that we have some kids that can really steep their games up :

What if DSJ learns to shoot? If teams start respecting his shot the lanes will open up wide.
What if RJ becomes great? Our first option and we wont have to go searching for top level free agents
What if Knox becomes consistent and learns to play defense? He would become a huge threat to any opponent
What if Frank turns out to be dependable on Offense? Payton who?
What if Mitch really has an outside shot or learns some post moves? The next Ewing!!!
What if Braz really plays like he did in the summer league? Steal of the draft part 2
What if Trier could see the court? Lou Williams 2.0, 6th man of the year type of player!
If we could get at lease 3 of our youth to do this than we're in great shape, If they all pan out than Holy $h!t we good ta go!
HerSports85
General Manager
Posts: 8,106
And1: 6,241
Joined: Dec 22, 2011
 

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#808 » by HerSports85 » Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:32 am

Read on Twitter
User avatar
Clyde_Style
RealGM
Posts: 35,095
And1: 23,261
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: Free Candy Van
 

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#809 » by Clyde_Style » Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:57 am

malik959 wrote:I believe Randle is on a par level as like a Joe Johnson. Can he carry a team? Yes, but can he get them high into a playoff? No. This is why I pray RJ turns out to be that guy in the long run for I feel that he can. On the court he has that mentality to bring it night and day. Right now we're stuck in the what if mode with this team, praying that we have some kids that can really steep their games up :

What if DSJ learns to shoot? If teams start respecting his shot the lanes will open up wide.
What if RJ becomes great? Our first option and we wont have to go searching for top level free agents
What if Knox becomes consistent and learns to play defense? He would become a huge threat to any opponent
What if Frank turns out to be dependable on Offense? Payton who?
What if Mitch really has an outside shot or learns some post moves? The next Ewing!!!
What if Braz really plays like he did in the summer league? Steal of the draft part 2
What if Trier could see the court? Lou Williams 2.0, 6th man of the year type of player!
If we could get at lease 3 of our youth to do this than we're in great shape, If they all pan out than Holy $h!t we good ta go!


Legit questions which only requires the answer to be YES to several of them to produce a significant shift in the right direction.
User avatar
K-DOT
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 11,063
And1: 14,048
Joined: Nov 25, 2016
         

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#810 » by K-DOT » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:31 am

I guess my thing is like, what makes him better than say, Pascal Siakam?

He scores more yeah, but Siakam is more efficient (probably due to the inverse effect of shots to efficiency), he's a slightly better rebounder, and they have the same apg but Siakam has one less tov (Randle has a near 1:1 ast tov ratio). I don't think he's really that much better than Siakam on offense, then you factor in defense, and Siakam blows him out of the water

And that's not me trying to be insulting, Toronto just won a championship with Siakam being really important, but how far would you reasonably expect a team to get with Siakam without defense as their best player?

Randle to me doesn't seem like the type of guy to lead a team to wins, unless he takes another step (which is possible, but I have my doubts). And when I look at the team objectively, we're not gonna be good this year flat out, and even next year I don't think we'll have the top end talent to make it work. So you say, well what about 3+ years from now? Randle's not 25 yet, so he should be counted as a young player. In a vacuum yeah, but what's the opportunity cost of retaining Randle instead of going after a star FA in 2021, or say we still don't sign anyone, opportunity cost of retaining him instead of signing good role players to balance out the squad?

It's the same argument I had against AD too, even assuming we gave up nothing for him, you can still get at least 66% of his production from Mitch at 1/25th the cost, with Randle you can probably find a guy to give you 2/3 or 3/4 of his production on a much cheaper deal

I just don't think it makes a whole lot of sense for us.
BAF Lakers:

Darius Garland/Jalen Lecque
Cam Johnson/Malik Monk
Keita Bates-Diop
Darius Bazley/Juan Hernangomez
Goga Bitadze/Dwight Howard

Reserves: Pat McCaw, Isaac Bonga, Melvin Frazier, Gorgui Dieng
IR: Josh Jackson's contract (rip)
User avatar
Clyde_Style
RealGM
Posts: 35,095
And1: 23,261
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: Free Candy Van
 

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#811 » by Clyde_Style » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:38 am

K-DOT wrote:I guess my thing is like, what makes him better than say, Pascal Siakam?

He scores more yeah, but Siakam is more efficient (probably due to the inverse effect of shots to efficiency), he's a slightly better rebounder, and they have the same apg but Siakam has one less tov (Randle has a near 1:1 ast tov ratio). I don't think he's really that much better than Siakam on offense, then you factor in defense, and Siakam blows him out of the water

And that's not me trying to be insulting, Toronto just won a championship with Siakam being really important, but how far would you reasonably expect a team to get with Siakam without defense as their best player?

Randle to me doesn't seem like the type of guy to lead a team to wins, unless he takes another step (which is possible, but I have my doubts). And when I look at the team objectively, we're not gonna be good this year flat out, and even next year I don't think we'll have the top end talent to make it work. So you say, well what about 3+ years from now? Randle's not 25 yet, so he should be counted as a young player. In a vacuum yeah, but what's the opportunity cost of retaining Randle instead of going after a star FA in 2021, or say we still don't sign anyone, opportunity cost of retaining him instead of signing good role players to balance out the squad?

It's the same argument I had against AD too, even assuming we gave up nothing for him, you can still get at least 66% of his production from Mitch at 1/25th the cost, with Randle you can probably find a guy to give you 2/3 or 3/4 of his production on a much cheaper deal

I just don't think it makes a whole lot of sense for us.


Randle is not a max contract nor is he a 4 year commitment. He's being paid like a 2nd option. I don't think that is out of whack considering other players with the same production have gotten bigger and longer deals. Further, he is also an asset now and tradeable if the club wants to emphasize other players who break out or sign with the team. I don't see anything about Randle that boxes the club in which is pretty much how the FO handled the whole off-season. They're still keeping their options open and I think that includes how they choose to play Randle. For now, we can probably expect him to function as the # 1 option often enough, but it may end up being more fluid than just him being the guy who gets the lion's share of the shots.
User avatar
KnicksGod
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 54,731
And1: 17,262
Joined: Oct 10, 2003
   

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#812 » by KnicksGod » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:55 am

Jah Okafor is already a Whatever happened to that guy?
Enes Kanter still does not box out ___ Image
User avatar
K-DOT
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 11,063
And1: 14,048
Joined: Nov 25, 2016
         

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#813 » by K-DOT » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:57 am

Clyde_Style wrote:
K-DOT wrote:I guess my thing is like, what makes him better than say, Pascal Siakam?

He scores more yeah, but Siakam is more efficient (probably due to the inverse effect of shots to efficiency), he's a slightly better rebounder, and they have the same apg but Siakam has one less tov (Randle has a near 1:1 ast tov ratio). I don't think he's really that much better than Siakam on offense, then you factor in defense, and Siakam blows him out of the water

And that's not me trying to be insulting, Toronto just won a championship with Siakam being really important, but how far would you reasonably expect a team to get with Siakam without defense as their best player?

Randle to me doesn't seem like the type of guy to lead a team to wins, unless he takes another step (which is possible, but I have my doubts). And when I look at the team objectively, we're not gonna be good this year flat out, and even next year I don't think we'll have the top end talent to make it work. So you say, well what about 3+ years from now? Randle's not 25 yet, so he should be counted as a young player. In a vacuum yeah, but what's the opportunity cost of retaining Randle instead of going after a star FA in 2021, or say we still don't sign anyone, opportunity cost of retaining him instead of signing good role players to balance out the squad?

It's the same argument I had against AD too, even assuming we gave up nothing for him, you can still get at least 66% of his production from Mitch at 1/25th the cost, with Randle you can probably find a guy to give you 2/3 or 3/4 of his production on a much cheaper deal

I just don't think it makes a whole lot of sense for us.


Randle is not a max contract nor is he a 4 year commitment. He's being paid like a 2nd option. I don't think that is out of whack considering other players with the same production have gotten bigger and longer deals. Further, he is also an asset now and tradeable if the club wants to emphasize other players who break out or sign with the team. I don't see anything about Randle that boxes the club in which is pretty much how the FO handled the whole off-season. They're still keeping their options open and I think that includes how they choose to play Randle. For now, we can probably expect him to function as the # 1 option often enough, but it may end up being more fluid than just him being the guy who gets the lion's share of the shots.

Yeah, I get all that, that's why I'm not really complaining about it, just questioning it. It's a pretty low risk low reward move, worst case scenario we just cut ties with him after next year

I just don't see the point to it. Yeah he is an asset, but what realistically are we gonna get for him? We can't take on any long term deals, so salary matching isn't likely, and while he's not on a max contract, the list of teams that can just absorb 23 million is pretty small so you need to take salary back. It also kind of hampers us in terms of development because he's gonna take up significant minutes at the 4, which forces Knox into being a 3 which cuts into guys like Dot, Trier, and Frank's minutes, and if we pick another guard/wing this draft, it'll cut into their minutes too and there's a good chance we just decline his option after that, rendering him pretty much pointless overall

If we had given him a 4 year deal I'd be complaining about it, but for what it is, I just don't see the need to sign him, especially because if he is good, then all he does is make our draft position worse for 2 years then leaves because we need the cap space
BAF Lakers:

Darius Garland/Jalen Lecque
Cam Johnson/Malik Monk
Keita Bates-Diop
Darius Bazley/Juan Hernangomez
Goga Bitadze/Dwight Howard

Reserves: Pat McCaw, Isaac Bonga, Melvin Frazier, Gorgui Dieng
IR: Josh Jackson's contract (rip)
User avatar
Clyde_Style
RealGM
Posts: 35,095
And1: 23,261
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: Free Candy Van
 

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#814 » by Clyde_Style » Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:05 am

K-DOT wrote:
Clyde_Style wrote:
K-DOT wrote:I guess my thing is like, what makes him better than say, Pascal Siakam?

He scores more yeah, but Siakam is more efficient (probably due to the inverse effect of shots to efficiency), he's a slightly better rebounder, and they have the same apg but Siakam has one less tov (Randle has a near 1:1 ast tov ratio). I don't think he's really that much better than Siakam on offense, then you factor in defense, and Siakam blows him out of the water

And that's not me trying to be insulting, Toronto just won a championship with Siakam being really important, but how far would you reasonably expect a team to get with Siakam without defense as their best player?

Randle to me doesn't seem like the type of guy to lead a team to wins, unless he takes another step (which is possible, but I have my doubts). And when I look at the team objectively, we're not gonna be good this year flat out, and even next year I don't think we'll have the top end talent to make it work. So you say, well what about 3+ years from now? Randle's not 25 yet, so he should be counted as a young player. In a vacuum yeah, but what's the opportunity cost of retaining Randle instead of going after a star FA in 2021, or say we still don't sign anyone, opportunity cost of retaining him instead of signing good role players to balance out the squad?

It's the same argument I had against AD too, even assuming we gave up nothing for him, you can still get at least 66% of his production from Mitch at 1/25th the cost, with Randle you can probably find a guy to give you 2/3 or 3/4 of his production on a much cheaper deal

I just don't think it makes a whole lot of sense for us.


Randle is not a max contract nor is he a 4 year commitment. He's being paid like a 2nd option. I don't think that is out of whack considering other players with the same production have gotten bigger and longer deals. Further, he is also an asset now and tradeable if the club wants to emphasize other players who break out or sign with the team. I don't see anything about Randle that boxes the club in which is pretty much how the FO handled the whole off-season. They're still keeping their options open and I think that includes how they choose to play Randle. For now, we can probably expect him to function as the # 1 option often enough, but it may end up being more fluid than just him being the guy who gets the lion's share of the shots.

Yeah, I get all that, that's why I'm not really complaining about it, just questioning it. It's a pretty low risk low reward move, worst case scenario we just cut ties with him after next year

I just don't see the point to it. Yeah he is an asset, but what realistically are we gonna get for him? We can't take on any long term deals, so salary matching isn't likely, and while he's not on a max contract, the list of teams that can just absorb 23 million is pretty small so you need to take salary back. It also kind of hampers us in terms of development because he's gonna take up significant minutes at the 4, which forces Knox into being a 3 which cuts into guys like Dot, Trier, and Frank's minutes, and if we pick another guard/wing this draft, it'll cut into their minutes too and there's a good chance we just decline his option after that, rendering him pretty much pointless overall

If we had given him a 4 year deal I'd be complaining about it, but for what it is, I just don't see the need to sign him, especially because if he is good, then all he does is make our draft position worse for 2 years then leaves because we need the cap space


On the other hand, he may actually be really good. He has improved every season after all so if that trend continues he will likely be an all-star.

Mostly though, I think it boils down to his desire to click with his teammates. Randle has some legit passing ability. If he is more than a black hole on offense and he makes a respectable effort on defense, then he will at least earn his keep.

I'm neither too up or down about signing him, so I can see the argument that he may end up being superfluous and thus a waste of time that takes away from developing the youth. But Randle is still 25, so he actually is part of that timeline IF he fits in.

Overall, it's fairly low risk with some reasonable upside.
User avatar
K-DOT
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 11,063
And1: 14,048
Joined: Nov 25, 2016
         

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#815 » by K-DOT » Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:16 am

Clyde_Style wrote:
K-DOT wrote:
Clyde_Style wrote:
Randle is not a max contract nor is he a 4 year commitment. He's being paid like a 2nd option. I don't think that is out of whack considering other players with the same production have gotten bigger and longer deals. Further, he is also an asset now and tradeable if the club wants to emphasize other players who break out or sign with the team. I don't see anything about Randle that boxes the club in which is pretty much how the FO handled the whole off-season. They're still keeping their options open and I think that includes how they choose to play Randle. For now, we can probably expect him to function as the # 1 option often enough, but it may end up being more fluid than just him being the guy who gets the lion's share of the shots.

Yeah, I get all that, that's why I'm not really complaining about it, just questioning it. It's a pretty low risk low reward move, worst case scenario we just cut ties with him after next year

I just don't see the point to it. Yeah he is an asset, but what realistically are we gonna get for him? We can't take on any long term deals, so salary matching isn't likely, and while he's not on a max contract, the list of teams that can just absorb 23 million is pretty small so you need to take salary back. It also kind of hampers us in terms of development because he's gonna take up significant minutes at the 4, which forces Knox into being a 3 which cuts into guys like Dot, Trier, and Frank's minutes, and if we pick another guard/wing this draft, it'll cut into their minutes too and there's a good chance we just decline his option after that, rendering him pretty much pointless overall

If we had given him a 4 year deal I'd be complaining about it, but for what it is, I just don't see the need to sign him, especially because if he is good, then all he does is make our draft position worse for 2 years then leaves because we need the cap space


On the other hand, he may actually be really good. He has improved every season after all so if that trend continues he will likely be an all-star.

Mostly though, I think it boils down to his desire to click with his teammates. Randle has some legit passing ability. If he is more than a black hole on offense and he makes a respectable effort on defense, then he will at least earn his keep.

I'm neither too up or down about signing him, so I can see the argument that he may end up being superfluous and thus a waste of time that takes away from developing the youth. But Randle is still 25, so he actually is part of that timeline IF he fits in.

Overall, it's fairly low risk with some reasonable upside.

Yeah, but like I said, and then what?

Do we keep him through the 21 offseason? If we assume we don't sign anyone else, renounce everybody except DSJ, keeping Randle leaves us with 47 mil in cap space. Which is a lot yeah, but our selling point is, come play with another max guy like what the Nets did this past year. Do we renounce DSJ who we have control over for Randle who will then be a 1 year expiring? Is Randle enough of a draw to bring in a max guy? And if nobody comes and we keep him and re-sign him in 2022, that's the same year Knox and Mitch are due for extensions (Mitch possibly a year earlier, he's an RFA in 21, UFA in 22 so we might want to re-sign him as an RFA), and if we keep DSJ, there goes all our cap space and we're locked in to the core of this team right now and whoever we draft. Is that enough to compete?

There's basically no risk involved, but I don't think there's much upside either
BAF Lakers:

Darius Garland/Jalen Lecque
Cam Johnson/Malik Monk
Keita Bates-Diop
Darius Bazley/Juan Hernangomez
Goga Bitadze/Dwight Howard

Reserves: Pat McCaw, Isaac Bonga, Melvin Frazier, Gorgui Dieng
IR: Josh Jackson's contract (rip)
User avatar
Clyde_Style
RealGM
Posts: 35,095
And1: 23,261
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: Free Candy Van
 

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#816 » by Clyde_Style » Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:39 am

K-DOT wrote:
Clyde_Style wrote:
K-DOT wrote:Yeah, I get all that, that's why I'm not really complaining about it, just questioning it. It's a pretty low risk low reward move, worst case scenario we just cut ties with him after next year

I just don't see the point to it. Yeah he is an asset, but what realistically are we gonna get for him? We can't take on any long term deals, so salary matching isn't likely, and while he's not on a max contract, the list of teams that can just absorb 23 million is pretty small so you need to take salary back. It also kind of hampers us in terms of development because he's gonna take up significant minutes at the 4, which forces Knox into being a 3 which cuts into guys like Dot, Trier, and Frank's minutes, and if we pick another guard/wing this draft, it'll cut into their minutes too and there's a good chance we just decline his option after that, rendering him pretty much pointless overall

If we had given him a 4 year deal I'd be complaining about it, but for what it is, I just don't see the need to sign him, especially because if he is good, then all he does is make our draft position worse for 2 years then leaves because we need the cap space


On the other hand, he may actually be really good. He has improved every season after all so if that trend continues he will likely be an all-star.

Mostly though, I think it boils down to his desire to click with his teammates. Randle has some legit passing ability. If he is more than a black hole on offense and he makes a respectable effort on defense, then he will at least earn his keep.

I'm neither too up or down about signing him, so I can see the argument that he may end up being superfluous and thus a waste of time that takes away from developing the youth. But Randle is still 25, so he actually is part of that timeline IF he fits in.

Overall, it's fairly low risk with some reasonable upside.

Yeah, but like I said, and then what?

Do we keep him through the 21 offseason? If we assume we don't sign anyone else, renounce everybody except DSJ, keeping Randle leaves us with 47 mil in cap space. Which is a lot yeah, but our selling point is, come play with another max guy like what the Nets did this past year. Do we renounce DSJ who we have control over for Randle who will then be a 1 year expiring? Is Randle enough of a draw to bring in a max guy? And if nobody comes and we keep him and re-sign him in 2022, that's the same year Knox and Mitch are due for extensions (Mitch possibly a year earlier, he's an RFA in 21, UFA in 22 so we might want to re-sign him as an RFA), and if we keep DSJ, there goes all our cap space and we're locked in to the core of this team right now and whoever we draft. Is that enough to compete?

There's basically no risk involved, but I don't think there's much upside either


Well, you're more of a prognosticator than I am and I don't claim to know how well Randle will do.

But if he does excel I think you're minimizing that for some reason I don't get since we have not had a legit 20+ scorer who was consistent, reliable and efficient for quite a long time. And I don't count THJr when he played OK or KP who I still consider unproven to be consistent for a whole season.

We really have sucked for so long that I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth if Randle is that guy.

Sounds to me like you only want a premium scorer to be from a younger player we developed from scratch. I like rooting for players we draft, but still don't really care where our alpha scorers come from if the team is well put together (which is why I stressed the importance of Randle being team oriented or not).

We don't want a repeat of Melo. I don't think Randle is that kind of mistake even if you may be right that he is not the solution. I'll just wait to watch him in a Knicks uniform before I decide.
User avatar
KnicksGod
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 54,731
And1: 17,262
Joined: Oct 10, 2003
   

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#817 » by KnicksGod » Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:03 am

Of our last big scorers, JR will be the most successful ... will win the most games.
Enes Kanter still does not box out ___ Image
melo4three
Junior
Posts: 342
And1: 195
Joined: Jul 24, 2019
     

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#818 » by melo4three » Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:12 am

K-DOT wrote:
Clyde_Style wrote:
K-DOT wrote:Yeah, I get all that, that's why I'm not really complaining about it, just questioning it. It's a pretty low risk low reward move, worst case scenario we just cut ties with him after next year

I just don't see the point to it. Yeah he is an asset, but what realistically are we gonna get for him? We can't take on any long term deals, so salary matching isn't likely, and while he's not on a max contract, the list of teams that can just absorb 23 million is pretty small so you need to take salary back. It also kind of hampers us in terms of development because he's gonna take up significant minutes at the 4, which forces Knox into being a 3 which cuts into guys like Dot, Trier, and Frank's minutes, and if we pick another guard/wing this draft, it'll cut into their minutes too and there's a good chance we just decline his option after that, rendering him pretty much pointless overall

If we had given him a 4 year deal I'd be complaining about it, but for what it is, I just don't see the need to sign him, especially because if he is good, then all he does is make our draft position worse for 2 years then leaves because we need the cap space


On the other hand, he may actually be really good. He has improved every season after all so if that trend continues he will likely be an all-star.

Mostly though, I think it boils down to his desire to click with his teammates. Randle has some legit passing ability. If he is more than a black hole on offense and he makes a respectable effort on defense, then he will at least earn his keep.

I'm neither too up or down about signing him, so I can see the argument that he may end up being superfluous and thus a waste of time that takes away from developing the youth. But Randle is still 25, so he actually is part of that timeline IF he fits in.

Overall, it's fairly low risk with some reasonable upside.

Yeah, but like I said, and then what?

Do we keep him through the 21 offseason? If we assume we don't sign anyone else, renounce everybody except DSJ, keeping Randle leaves us with 47 mil in cap space. Which is a lot yeah, but our selling point is, come play with another max guy like what the Nets did this past year. Do we renounce DSJ who we have control over for Randle who will then be a 1 year expiring? Is Randle enough of a draw to bring in a max guy? And if nobody comes and we keep him and re-sign him in 2022, that's the same year Knox and Mitch are due for extensions (Mitch possibly a year earlier, he's an RFA in 21, UFA in 22 so we might want to re-sign him as an RFA), and if we keep DSJ, there goes all our cap space and we're locked in to the core of this team right now and whoever we draft. Is that enough to compete?

There's basically no risk involved, but I don't think there's much upside either



yeah it is enough, randle, dsj, rj, mitch, bobby and trier off the bench. That is a superteam to me.
User avatar
K-DOT
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 11,063
And1: 14,048
Joined: Nov 25, 2016
         

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#819 » by K-DOT » Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:30 am

Clyde_Style wrote:
K-DOT wrote:
Clyde_Style wrote:
On the other hand, he may actually be really good. He has improved every season after all so if that trend continues he will likely be an all-star.

Mostly though, I think it boils down to his desire to click with his teammates. Randle has some legit passing ability. If he is more than a black hole on offense and he makes a respectable effort on defense, then he will at least earn his keep.

I'm neither too up or down about signing him, so I can see the argument that he may end up being superfluous and thus a waste of time that takes away from developing the youth. But Randle is still 25, so he actually is part of that timeline IF he fits in.

Overall, it's fairly low risk with some reasonable upside.

Yeah, but like I said, and then what?

Do we keep him through the 21 offseason? If we assume we don't sign anyone else, renounce everybody except DSJ, keeping Randle leaves us with 47 mil in cap space. Which is a lot yeah, but our selling point is, come play with another max guy like what the Nets did this past year. Do we renounce DSJ who we have control over for Randle who will then be a 1 year expiring? Is Randle enough of a draw to bring in a max guy? And if nobody comes and we keep him and re-sign him in 2022, that's the same year Knox and Mitch are due for extensions (Mitch possibly a year earlier, he's an RFA in 21, UFA in 22 so we might want to re-sign him as an RFA), and if we keep DSJ, there goes all our cap space and we're locked in to the core of this team right now and whoever we draft. Is that enough to compete?

There's basically no risk involved, but I don't think there's much upside either


Well, you're more of a prognosticator than I am and I don't claim to know how well Randle will do.

But if he does excel I think you're minimizing that for some reason I don't get since we have not had a legit 20+ scorer who was consistent, reliable and efficient for quite a long time. And I don't count THJr when he played OK or KP who I still consider unproven to be consistent for a whole season.

We really have sucked for so long that I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth if Randle is that guy.

Sounds to me like you only want a premium scorer to be from a younger player we developed from scratch. I like rooting for players we draft, but still don't really care where our alpha scorers come from if the team is well put together (which is why I stressed the importance of Randle being team oriented or not).

We don't want a repeat of Melo. I don't think Randle is that kind of mistake even if you may be right that he is not the solution. I'll just wait to watch him in a Knicks uniform before I decide.
You know what I think?

I think we're laying the groundwork for an AD signing next year

That makes the moves we made in the offseason make sense to me, if we just waive the non guaranteed guys we have enough to sign AD and have about 10-15 mil leftover depending on where we pick

DSJ/FA or draft PG
RJ/Frank
Knox/Dot (who we can go over the cap to re-sign)
AD/Randle
Mitch/Randle/AD

It's a bit clunky for the modern day, but if we get a coach that's creative and a good guard or two, there's a lot of flexibility to it as well

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
BAF Lakers:

Darius Garland/Jalen Lecque
Cam Johnson/Malik Monk
Keita Bates-Diop
Darius Bazley/Juan Hernangomez
Goga Bitadze/Dwight Howard

Reserves: Pat McCaw, Isaac Bonga, Melvin Frazier, Gorgui Dieng
IR: Josh Jackson's contract (rip)
User avatar
thebuzzardman
RealGM
Posts: 34,524
And1: 25,760
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Location: IGNOMANIA

Re: WOJ: Julius Randle 3/63M (Team Option) 

Post#820 » by thebuzzardman » Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:06 pm

K-DOT wrote:
Clyde_Style wrote:
K-DOT wrote:I guess my thing is like, what makes him better than say, Pascal Siakam?

He scores more yeah, but Siakam is more efficient (probably due to the inverse effect of shots to efficiency), he's a slightly better rebounder, and they have the same apg but Siakam has one less tov (Randle has a near 1:1 ast tov ratio). I don't think he's really that much better than Siakam on offense, then you factor in defense, and Siakam blows him out of the water

And that's not me trying to be insulting, Toronto just won a championship with Siakam being really important, but how far would you reasonably expect a team to get with Siakam without defense as their best player?

Randle to me doesn't seem like the type of guy to lead a team to wins, unless he takes another step (which is possible, but I have my doubts). And when I look at the team objectively, we're not gonna be good this year flat out, and even next year I don't think we'll have the top end talent to make it work. So you say, well what about 3+ years from now? Randle's not 25 yet, so he should be counted as a young player. In a vacuum yeah, but what's the opportunity cost of retaining Randle instead of going after a star FA in 2021, or say we still don't sign anyone, opportunity cost of retaining him instead of signing good role players to balance out the squad?

It's the same argument I had against AD too, even assuming we gave up nothing for him, you can still get at least 66% of his production from Mitch at 1/25th the cost, with Randle you can probably find a guy to give you 2/3 or 3/4 of his production on a much cheaper deal

I just don't think it makes a whole lot of sense for us.


Randle is not a max contract nor is he a 4 year commitment. He's being paid like a 2nd option. I don't think that is out of whack considering other players with the same production have gotten bigger and longer deals. Further, he is also an asset now and tradeable if the club wants to emphasize other players who break out or sign with the team. I don't see anything about Randle that boxes the club in which is pretty much how the FO handled the whole off-season. They're still keeping their options open and I think that includes how they choose to play Randle. For now, we can probably expect him to function as the # 1 option often enough, but it may end up being more fluid than just him being the guy who gets the lion's share of the shots.

Yeah, I get all that, that's why I'm not really complaining about it, just questioning it. It's a pretty low risk low reward move, worst case scenario we just cut ties with him after next year

I just don't see the point to it. Yeah he is an asset, but what realistically are we gonna get for him? We can't take on any long term deals, so salary matching isn't likely, and while he's not on a max contract, the list of teams that can just absorb 23 million is pretty small so you need to take salary back. It also kind of hampers us in terms of development because he's gonna take up significant minutes at the 4, which forces Knox into being a 3 which cuts into guys like Dot, Trier, and Frank's minutes, and if we pick another guard/wing this draft, it'll cut into their minutes too and there's a good chance we just decline his option after that, rendering him pretty much pointless overall

If we had given him a 4 year deal I'd be complaining about it, but for what it is, I just don't see the need to sign him, especially because if he is good, then all he does is make our draft position worse for 2 years then leaves because we need the cap space


I think it's a bit of all of this.
Knicks take on a guy who's a bit "2nd draft" in that a big component of building a team now is going after guys somewhere right after their first contract - 23 years old, like DLo, or Randle, who is similar, but I guess signed an extension or something. Meaning, guys who are going to get paid, but still retain potential. And then a team has to make a decision, like the Mavs did on KP and whoever signed DLo, to max that guy out for 4 years, or, like the Knicks did - hedge a bit, and not be over committed.

So, player gets paid as he's legitimately good, Knicks get to take a chance that he becomes "better than just good", and I think there's an aspect of building a higher talent floor for the roster.

How can I articulate this. Well, it sounds a bit like the THJr argument all over, and I remember making it for THJr and then absolutely hating him as a player, but at some point the team has gather up some guys who are merely just "good". Let's say Randle really isn't all that and kind of a net neutral player. The Knicks could still retain him at the same price point IF other players with better contracts (RJ,Knox, Mitch, DSJr) emerge within the next two years. Also, I realize that DSJr will be due a decent payday in a couple of years. Anyway, it's a version of classic "tank vs build", though that's the extreme version of the argument.

At what point does a team try to add some guys who can actually play, even if they truly don't move the needle.

As you point out, Randle didn't get signed for too long, so that makes it different than the THJr scenario right there. Knicks aren't stuck with the guy if it turns out to be an overpay or Randle turns into some ball dominant #3 scorer with delusions of being a #1.

Still, I can see the argument that that the Knicks could have saved the cash, in a vacumn. Not unlike THJr being signed, in real life, it helps to have guys who can legitimately accomplish certain NBA things, just to field a team other players can grow on, a little.
I think the THJr issue is fans thought it was badly timed - team wasn't going anywhere, cap wasn't sorted and it was too many years.

I said it to annoy at one point, that Randle is the THJr of PF's, but there's a bit of truth there. Not that Randle will suck, but that he's filling the same role on the Knicks. Youngish, still upside, and someone has to be able to play and score some. Difference is, Knicks can part ways in 2 years.

It must also be viewed as a sign the Knicks don't think they'll be a lot of FA's or players available over the next year or two. Or, they just made a mistake cap wise. We'll find out.

Also, I think Knox is at least one year away from being able to see full time minutes at the 4. And honestly, maybe 2 or even 3 years away.

Return to New York Knicks