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.
