god shammgod wrote:the 4 million hit in year 3 is actually what bothers me the most. it was purposeless.
It's purpose was for him to take 2 years instead of 3.
It's not the end of the world.
Moderators: Jeff Van Gully, HerSports85, Capn'O, dakomish23, j4remi, Deeeez Knicks, NoLayupRule, mpharris36, GONYK
god shammgod wrote:the 4 million hit in year 3 is actually what bothers me the most. it was purposeless.
thebuzzardman wrote:god shammgod wrote:the 4 million hit in year 3 is actually what bothers me the most. it was purposeless.
It's purpose was for him to take 2 years instead of 3.
It's not the end of the world.
thebuzzardman wrote:To Melo's post about Randle's use, one of the things, among many, that drove me up a tree about Fizdale is that he didn't run enough sets that worked to Randle's strength, but it's possible he did it and I over focused on the bad.
In that clip, I THINK Miller is HC, but even if he is, it could be a play from Fiz anyway.
Anyhow, it was retroactive, but once Miller took over, it just validated for me that Fiz that wasn't that great as Miller just adding a few wrinkles to some similar stuff and the Knicks looked better. Not great, but obviously better.
god shammgod wrote:thebuzzardman wrote:god shammgod wrote:the 4 million hit in year 3 is actually what bothers me the most. it was purposeless.
It's purpose was for him to take 2 years instead of 3.
It's not the end of the world.
that 4 mill wasn't needed to make him sign. he was not gonna turn down the deal without it. and it makes the contract unwieldy. if it was 1 or 2 mill he would basically be an expiring but the 4 makes him harder to trade.
god shammgod wrote:the 4 million hit in year 3 is actually what bothers me the most. it was purposeless.
3toheadmelo wrote:thebuzzardman wrote:To Melo's post about Randle's use, one of the things, among many, that drove me up a tree about Fizdale is that he didn't run enough sets that worked to Randle's strength, but it's possible he did it and I over focused on the bad.
In that clip, I THINK Miller is HC, but even if he is, it could be a play from Fiz anyway.
Anyhow, it was retroactive, but once Miller took over, it just validated for me that Fiz that wasn't that great as Miller just adding a few wrinkles to some similar stuff and the Knicks looked better. Not great, but obviously better.
This is quite impressive.
Randles numbers under Miller were better too. He averaged 21 PPG 10.4 rebounds 3 assists. That’s pretty good. Those are really good numbers. He’s not a bum like people think he is, and Kanter never put up numbers like that. I expect his numbers to look even better with a proper PG and shooters around him.
Under Fizdale he averaged 16.5 PPG 8.5 rebounds and 3.3 assists. Fizdale is probably the worst coach of all time
Ris_44 wrote:You guys need to stop focusing on the negatives. Trading Randle just because would be a mistake. He has plenty of talents that would make him invaluable to a good team.
The main problem is he commits turnovers with his over dribbling. A good coach can limit this by simply taking the ball away and making him a finisher in pick an roll situations. Our biggest issue is we don't have any defense breaking guards. It forces us to try to use Randle to break his defender as a primary ball handler because at the PF position we have the best match ups.
Bring in one or two above average ball handlers that can penetrate and are threats to get to the rim from the pick and roll along with some floor spacers at the perimeter positions and it will open up things for everyone else. We can then take advantage of one of Randle's most overlooked skills, which is that he is an elite screen setter.
Ris_44 wrote:Same Question could be asked of many players. Booker, Young, Fox, KAT (without Butler) among others have never been or made their teams better. Would you say they suck because of that? If you focus on the negatives you can never build a positive winning culture.
Lets also not forget that the Lakers should have signed Randle back and chose to keep Larry Nance over him which was a mistake. And Had Anthony Davis not been Holding out and asking for a trade that team would have probably been much better. Those are two situations where He would have been in good teams...
You expect Randle to carry a team and get upset when he can't do it on his own. This is the biggest knicks fans and front office problem. Instead of building around players strengths, they expect more than a player is capable off and then use said player as an escape goat for the whole team. Shipping Randle for nothing or a downgrade would be a mistake.
HEZI wrote:Speaking of Larry Nance, I would take him off the Cavs with the quickness. He's a much better role playing forward than fake star Randle.
Ris_44 wrote:Randle is getting 18 mill this year not 20. Which is basically the going rate for a decent starter(which he definetaly is) Stars and superstars are getting 30+ million. Also 20 million is not a high price to pay for someone who is almost averaging 20 and 10 with 3 assists. Again if you want to focus on the negatives you will always find something to complain about. Get him better guards and better shooters to create space Use him to his strenghts and Randle can flourish.
Ris_44 wrote:HEZI wrote:Speaking of Larry Nance, I would take him off the Cavs with the quickness. He's a much better role playing forward than fake star Randle.
So you would take a less talented player to replace a "fake Star"? What sense does this make? Why not keep said "fake star" and put more talented players around him to make the team better.
Ris_44 wrote:Who says to build around him? I'm not saying for him to be our star player. I'm saying he can most definitely be a starter for us.
Take the ball away from him as a primary ball handler and make him a finisher and his turnovers will decrease.
god shammgod wrote:thebuzzardman wrote:god shammgod wrote:the 4 million hit in year 3 is actually what bothers me the most. it was purposeless.
It's purpose was for him to take 2 years instead of 3.
It's not the end of the world.
that 4 mill wasn't needed to make him sign. he was not gonna turn down the deal without it. and it makes the contract unwieldy. if it was 1 or 2 mill he would basically be an expiring but the 4 makes him harder to trade.
mpharris36 wrote:but Mitch is a better finisher than Randle.
So he's not a better rim runner finisher than Mitch. He can't space the floor so if you take the ball away from his what does he actually do well?
K-DOT wrote:mpharris36 wrote:but Mitch is a better finisher than Randle.
So he's not a better rim runner finisher than Mitch. He can't space the floor so if you take the ball away from his what does he actually do well?
Issue is he's a C on offense and a PF on defense
I mean, f*ck's sake, Knox played like half as many minutes and got 6 more blocks
He has things he does well, but not well enough to make up for his shortcomings. And building around him takes way too much effort to make it worthwhile