PG: Uplifting Victory! 11/20

[Chanel Bomber]

Which is why we need Jerami Grant...

Grant plays the 4 most of the time.

99, 83, 68 and 94 percent of the time the last four seasons according to basketball-reference.

In today's NBA, he's a 4.

And he hasn't been efficient the last two seasons.

He's a Scott Perry type player. He's Julius Randle without the playmaking and passing skills.

He's 6'8" and athletic, he can play the three. Give them Fournier and some picks..

He's not mobile enough, or have the handle, shot or feel for the game to play on the perimeter like that.

There's a reason why teams have played him almost exclusively at the 4 the last 5 years.

[Chanel Bomber]

Bottom line is RJ and Randle need help, but don't really help others.

If it takes so many specific circumstances for a player to pan out and have a positive impact, maybe he's not worth building around.

I think the Knicks need to trade at least one of them depending on the timeline that they choose, if not both.

Probably both actually.

They're not worth the trouble of finding the right pieces around them.

[louisorr]

Kevin Knox

[duetta]

Is anybody else starting to get really nervous as it pertains to how much money we’re going to have to pay RJ once his extension comes?

If he keeps shooting like he has, he's gonna sign for cheap!

[F N 11]

Free McBride/Grimes/Obi

[GONYK]

You’re trading Randle while he’s playing “under value”? For who?

This is a case by case question. I'm not moving Randle just to move him.

If we didn’t/couldn’t move Payton last season, we’re certainly not going to be able to move Randle at or before the trade deadline. Maybe at the draft/over the summer.

I don't see what one has to do with the other and I don't think we're moving Randle without having a replacement in tow

[GONYK]

Bottom line is RJ and Randle need help, but don't really help others.

If it takes so many specific circumstances for a player to pan out and have a positive impact, maybe he's not worth building around.

I think the Knicks need to trade at least one of them depending on the timeline that they choose, if not both.

Probably both actually.

They're not worth the trouble of finding the right pieces around them.

If I had to bet, the Knicks agree with you, which is why the Knicks didn't commit big money long term to the roster around them

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Bottom line is RJ and Randle need help, but don't really help others.

If it takes so many specific circumstances for a player to pan out and have a positive impact, maybe he's not worth building around.

I think the Knicks need to trade at least one of them depending on the timeline that they choose, if not both.

Probably both actually.

They're not worth the trouble of finding the right pieces around them.

If I had to bet, the Knicks agree with you, which is why the Knicks didn't commit big money long term to the roster around them

They gave Randle an extension and put a bunch of players around him, they are committed to him.

[louisorr]

At least Breen confused Evan Turner with Fournier and not RJ...

[Zenzibar]

OUR 3rd overall pick Rj got benched in the 4thq folks!!!!!

It’s about time we had that talk folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

agreed!!!!!! benching rj was the key to the win folks!!!!! key to the win!!!!!!!!

You both need to



and STFU

[GONYK]

Bottom line is RJ and Randle need help, but don't really help others.

If it takes so many specific circumstances for a player to pan out and have a positive impact, maybe he's not worth building around.

I think the Knicks need to trade at least one of them depending on the timeline that they choose, if not both.

Probably both actually.

They're not worth the trouble of finding the right pieces around them.

If I had to bet, the Knicks agree with you, which is why the Knicks didn't commit big money long term to the roster around them

They gave Randle an extension and put a bunch of players around him, they are committed to him.

Yes, they extended him for significantly less than the MAX.

What's the alternative? Tanking?

If the Knicks cut Randle the day after the Hawks series, they would still need to put 15 players on the roster.

I don't understand how fielding a team that aims to be competitive with movable deals is synonymous with building around Julius Randle specifically.

[god shammgod]

If I had to bet, the Knicks agree with you, which is why the Knicks didn't commit big money long term to the roster around them

They gave Randle an extension and put a bunch of players around him, they are committed to him.

Yes, they extended him for significantly less than the MAX.

What's the alternative? Tanking?

If the Knicks cut Randle the day after the Hawks series, they would still need to put 15 players on the roster.

I don't understand how fielding a team that aims to be competitive with movable deals is synonymous with building around Julius Randle specifically.

they could have just waited the one year he still had on his deal to further evaluate if it was just a fluke year. especially after how bad he was in the playoffs.

[FrozenEnvelope]

I think some of you are going to get your wish because we are about to go on a long losing streak unless we start playing a lot better. You couldn't tell which was the two win team last night. That was awful! Thank the heavens Burks was able to save us in the fourth! But this game did little to fix the ongoing issues with this team. The SL tries to move the ball and defend but right now it's just not working. There is very little chemistry. Roles are not defined. Randle and RJ continue to struggle to make shots. Rose is also starting to get into a funk. Fournier finally made shots but let's see if he can do it tonight. Nice to have Noel back.

For those who still enjoy winning, try to enjoy this one because it might be the last one for awhile unless these guys get their head out their *!

[GONYK]

They gave Randle an extension and put a bunch of players around him, they are committed to him.

Yes, they extended him for significantly less than the MAX.

What's the alternative? Tanking?

If the Knicks cut Randle the day after the Hawks series, they would still need to put 15 players on the roster.

I don't understand how fielding a team that aims to be competitive with movable deals is synonymous with building around Julius Randle specifically.

they could have just waited the one year he still had on his deal to further evaluate if it was just a fluke year. especially after how bad he was in the playoffs.

Yes, no argument there. They could have done that. Perhaps they should have.

I think it's too early to say they've definitely made the wrong decision. That comes down to two things:

1. If Randle can get back to some approximation of his efficiency from last season.
2. If Randle's contract enables or hinders us either in trades or signings due to its cap impact.

But they didn't double down on his extension and sacrifice all flexibility to put the the best team possible around him. They didn't overextend so they could "go for broke" with Randle as the tip of the spear.

They just continued to make improvements where it made sense.

[Clyde_Style]

They gave Randle an extension and put a bunch of players around him, they are committed to him.

Yes, they extended him for significantly less than the MAX.

What's the alternative? Tanking?

If the Knicks cut Randle the day after the Hawks series, they would still need to put 15 players on the roster.

I don't understand how fielding a team that aims to be competitive with movable deals is synonymous with building around Julius Randle specifically.

they could have just waited the one year he still had on his deal to further evaluate if it was just a fluke year. especially after how bad he was in the playoffs.

This

There was no sword hanging over the franchise's neck that required them to extend when they did

Perhaps there are cap considerations I'm not aware of, but even that shouldn't alter that they could have waited to extend him

I'd rather have let his contract run out and walk away empty-handed than face having to take on garbage to move him

[Clyde_Style]

I think some of you are going to get your wish because we are about to go on a long losing streak unless we start playing a lot better. You couldn't tell which was the two win team last night. That was awful! Thank the heavens Burks was able to save us in the fourth! But this game did little to fix the ongoing issues with this team. The SL tries to move the ball and defend but right now it's just not working. There is very little chemistry. Roles are not defined. Randle and RJ continue to struggle to make shots. Rose is also starting to get into a funk. Fournier finally made shots but let's see if he can do it tonight. Nice to have Noel back.

For those who still enjoy winning, try to enjoy this one because it might be the last one for awhile unless these guys get their head out their *!

If you see this now then why were you dumping on most of us right up to the other day for speaking the truth?

[NoDopeOnSundays]

If I had to bet, the Knicks agree with you, which is why the Knicks didn't commit big money long term to the roster around them

They gave Randle an extension and put a bunch of players around him, they are committed to him.

Yes, they extended him for significantly less than the MAX.

What's the alternative? Tanking?

If the Knicks cut Randle the day after the Hawks series, they would still need to put 15 players on the roster.

I don't understand how fielding a team that aims to be competitive with movable deals is synonymous with building around Julius Randle specifically.

You guys keep saying moveable deals, they are not movable until they are in the final year of the deal. The Magic gave Fournier away for 2 seconds, why would any team give up anything significant for him when he's got 2 full seasons left before a team option. The only tradeable players that teams may want are all our young players, even RJ, outside of that who is trading for these guys? The Sixers let Burks walk for nothing.

The team is built around Randle, them not committing to full 4 year deals doesn't make it any less true. These guys were brought in to help him as our featured player, and saying he took less than the max doesn't mean much when he's not even playing up to his current contract.

[Clyde_Style]

Yes, they extended him for significantly less than the MAX.

What's the alternative? Tanking?

If the Knicks cut Randle the day after the Hawks series, they would still need to put 15 players on the roster.

I don't understand how fielding a team that aims to be competitive with movable deals is synonymous with building around Julius Randle specifically.

they could have just waited the one year he still had on his deal to further evaluate if it was just a fluke year. especially after how bad he was in the playoffs.

Yes, no argument there. They could have done that. Perhaps they should have.

I think it's too early to say they've definitely made the wrong decision. That comes down to two things:

1. If Randle can get back to some approximation of his efficiency from last season.
2. If Randle's contract enables or hinders us either in trades or signings due to its cap impact.

But they didn't double down on his extension and sacrifice all flexibility to put the the best team possible around him. They didn't overextend so they could "go for broke" with Randle as the tip of the spear.

They just continued to make improvements where it made sense.

The only improvements look like the two guards they drafted, but none of the signings are good values worth their contracts. IOW, if you want to move Kemba or Fournier or Randle you're eating some of their cost to get it done which usually means throwing in other players or picks

[GONYK]

They gave Randle an extension and put a bunch of players around him, they are committed to him.

Yes, they extended him for significantly less than the MAX.

What's the alternative? Tanking?

If the Knicks cut Randle the day after the Hawks series, they would still need to put 15 players on the roster.

I don't understand how fielding a team that aims to be competitive with movable deals is synonymous with building around Julius Randle specifically.

You guys keep saying moveable deals, they are not movable until they are in the final year of the deal. The Magic gave Fournier away for 2 seconds, why would any team give up anything significant for him when he's got 2 full seasons left before a team option. The only tradeable players that teams may want are all our young players, even RJ, outside of that who is trading for these guys? The Sixers let Burks walk for nothing.

Who said anything about significant? These deals are easy to get off of if we need to, either as a pieces in a larger trade to fill salary or quickly clear cap space.

The Magic getting to move off of Fournier the minute they wanted to, at a similar salary to what he's making now, kind of proves that.

The team is built around Randle, them not committing to full 4 year deals doesn't make it any less true. These guys were brought in to help him as our featured player, and saying he took less than the max doesn't mean much when he's not even playing up to his current contract.

Do you think the Knicks think this is a contending roster with Randle as the alpha? That's really the only question that matters.

If the answer is yes, then sure, they f*cked up.

If the answer is no, which I think it is, then they didn't do anything other than try and be competitive with Julius while they bide their time for a bigger fish to hit the market.

But I'll ask again, what is the alternative? I concede that they could have held off on the extension. That's totally valid. But they probably would have still made all the other moves, because they want to remain competitive.

[CharlesOakley]

Randle can't play with fans in the building. It was obvious last year. How he plays now is just who he is. This team needs another lockdown to have a chance of being good.