Should the Knicks pursue Dame Lillard/superstars or keep the youth?

[RHODEY]

i'd rather have rj's ascending game at 20 vs lillard's game which will only descend.

Right because we are not desperate IMO. We actually have cap space we don't need to trade to improve ourselves...maybe in 1-2 seasons but not now. I'd rather see what other options present themselves between now and then.

[blueNorange]

Again...if there was no cap space and humans lived for 150 years I'd say we wait and see. But the reality is that IF the goal is to win (and it sure looks like it...again...considering who they hired for the front office and to coach the team) then you have a win now front office, a win now coach, a 26 year old star that has 3 or 4 years of prime prime you should be looking to win sooner rather than later. That's before you even factor in the salary cap making things potentially real difficult in a year or two to build. All that together, yeah if you get a chance land a superstar to pair with Randle, you do that now.

but this is an awful way to think considering lillard has never moved the needle and he's on the older side.

so you're trading everything for a 3 or 4 window with a player who's 3/4 of the way in his prime.

if lillard was 2 years young, different story but he's not. he's a whole decade older than rj barrett.

[stuporman]

Oh... as an addendum to the no star phucking stance I have to say this FO needs to be very careful about adding a wrong side of 30 'star' to the mix.

There's the chemistry side of it we have to consider because this team is built with underrated and undervalued guys who are playing for each other. Bring in someone who is used to getting everything they want and praised no natter what they do and it may not be beneficial for chemistry.

Secondly there is the window of opportunity aspect of getting someone post prime in that if a franchise sheds young and future assets for them the pressure and expectation is on them to produce more than just middling playoff success of a treadmill team.

Lastly there is salary that played into it. Getting someone who's production may be declining some while their already sizable salary is increasing and now the FO maybe feels obligated to continue to appease their possible demands to a big extension if they have hitched their wagon to this player.

It also hinders the ability to build around older players with big contracts because of the salary slot they occupy consumes so much space. All of these aspects of getting a guy after 30 seem way too onerous to overcome for a franchise just starting to find it's way of becoming a stable successful one.

Unless.... yea, there's always an exception...maybe even a few. CP, LeBron and possibly a couple others break the mold on the no star phucking and no wrong side of 30 stars rule....very few but there are some.

Not sure if Dame is one of those though, not if the Knicks need to break open the vault and empty it of assets to get him.

[blueNorange]

in the year 2030, rj barrett will be 30 years old.

why do some of y'all do this to yourselves?

[RHODEY]

Again...if there was no cap space and humans lived for 150 years I'd say we wait and see. But the reality is that IF the goal is to win (and it sure looks like it...again...considering who they hired for the front office and to coach the team) then you have a win now front office, a win now coach, a 26 year old star that has 3 or 4 years of prime prime you should be looking to win sooner rather than later. That's before you even factor in the salary cap making things potentially real difficult in a year or two to build. All that together, yeah if you get a chance land a superstar to pair with Randle, you do that now.

but this is an awful way to think considering lillard has never moved the needle and he's on the older side.

so you're trading everything for a 3 or 4 window with a player who's 3/4 of the way in his prime.

if lillard was 2 years young, different story but he's not. he's a whole decade older than rj barrett.

Can you even assume a 3/4 year window.? Not every PG is CP3 , many start falling off the cliff @32.

[cgmw]

I get it. Same argument as ever. The only part that confuses me is fans keep saying:

“Sign Lavine/Beal outright in 2022.”

In what alternate universe do those guys turn down super max extensions with Chicago/DC? Honest question, are you saying they’d force their way here via SnT? Or are you saying that Chicago and DC would not offer them max contracts?

Is there a single example in NBA history of a player turning down the home-team MAX?

[RHODEY]

I get it. Same argument as ever. The only part that confuses me is fans keep saying:

“Sign Lavine/Beal outright in 2022.”

In what alternate universe do those guys turn down super max extensions with Chicago/DC? Honest question, are you saying they’d force their way here via SnT? Or are you saying that Chicago and DC would not offer them max contracts?

Is there a single example in NBA history of a player turning down the home-team MAX?

Not sure..Lebron & Chris Bosh when they joined in Miami?

[cgmw]

I get it. Same argument as ever. The only part that confuses me is fans keep saying:

“Sign Lavine/Beal outright in 2022.”

In what alternate universe do those guys turn down super max extensions with Chicago/DC? Honest question, are you saying they’d force their way here via SnT? Or are you saying that Chicago and DC would not offer them max contracts?

Is there a single example in NBA history of a player turning down the home-team MAX?

Not sure..Lebron & Chris Bosh when they joined in Miami?

Right. But correct me if I’m wrong those ended up as Sign and Trades.

Keeping in mind LeBron’s career earnings are going to be unrelated to anyone on Lavine/Beal’s stratosphere—he made $100m last year.

I mean I think that’s what people are saying—force Chicago or the Wizards into a sign and trade. I’m just not sure either guy turns down the mid season extension but who knows.

In any event, seems unlikely enough that you don’t plan your whole team around it, that’s for sure.

[KnixtapeH20]

Imma need all of yall to stop offering up the young homie Mitch.

Kindly edit your posts thanks

[Guano]

[stuporman]

8-)

cancelled....

[Oscirus]

Unless you absolutely think that Randle and dame are better than the Brooklyn 3, the Milwaukee 3 or even Simmons/ Embid, then I could at least understand the reasoning behind making that trade. Wouldnt agree with it, but I could at least understand it. Since they arent, the answers obvious.

[seren]

I think we are doing both. IQ, RJ, Mitchell will be here. We will get star players through FA and maybe trade one using future picks.

[KnIcKsYaNkSmEtS1127]

Haven’t we be trading for “fill in the blank superstar” since Dolan bought this team? Hasn’t this rebuild proven that strategy doesn’t work. Keep the kids let them grow and build sustained success not a get rich quick Nets scheme.

[RHODEY]

I get it. Same argument as ever. The only part that confuses me is fans keep saying:

“Sign Lavine/Beal outright in 2022.”

In what alternate universe do those guys turn down super max extensions with Chicago/DC? Honest question, are you saying they’d force their way here via SnT? Or are you saying that Chicago and DC would not offer them max contracts?

Is there a single example in NBA history of a player turning down the home-team MAX?

Not sure..Lebron & Chris Bosh when they joined in Miami?

Right. But correct me if I’m wrong those ended up as Sign and Trades.

Keeping in mind LeBron’s career earnings are going to be unrelated to anyone on Lavine/Beal’s stratosphere—he made $100m last year.

I mean I think that’s what people are saying—force Chicago or the Wizards into a sign and trade. I’m just not sure either guy turns down the mid season extension but who knows.

In any event, seems unlikely enough that you don’t plan your whole team around it, that’s for sure.

Well Lavine no - because of that recent story about him willing to lower his salary to stay in CHI. Beal? Maybe...I think this early recent ouster might be something that stays with him. He's already taken the money previously and this is where it got him. He slots right in at SG and he sees what we're doing so maybe...

[duetta]

The prices in these trades have become insane. Nets gave up 7 future picks (or swaps of picks) for a guy heading towards the end of his prime (plus two talented young players). I wouldn't want to root for a team that made trades like that. I want a present AND a future.

[Ray Williams]

I am looking forward to this front office trading for a star. We aren’t getting anymore lottery picks, and we’ve become an attractive place for free agents.
With what I’ve seen this year, I have faith they will make a solid move. Julius is our main piece right now, let’s not waste his prime years waiting for next years draft pick which will probably be in the twenties to come save us. We’re close, patience is for when you’re not close.

[cgf]

I don't think it's time to make a big move yet. Replace Elf with Lonzo and keep our flexibility to make that big move for someone like Lavine, who could grow with our core and give us a big 3 that could go deep. If Lavine doesn't make it to FA then use our capspace & assets to chase someone else like Sexton / Fox / SGA / Booker. But this summer is too early IMO.

[stuporman]

If trading for Dame using a bucket of picks and players guarantees the Knicks win a title in the next 3 years and also magically guarantees the Nets don't with their current 'big 3' I say do it....because it would be funny that way.

[cgmw]

Dame + Randle is an excellent duo and would elevate us instantly to top 3 in the east, but... We’d be spinning our wheels waiting on the next big trade or FA alpha, especially since we’d have already gutted our core in the Dame trade.

We’d be leveraged like Grunwald always was trying desperately to add one more piece around Carmelo-Amare even though he never had the goods.

Honestly, I bet Ujiri would lick his chops if the Knicks traded for Dame. Siakam rumors would start real quick.