Was it a mistake to bring in Walker and Fournier?

[nedleeds]

Yes. We shouldn't have signed either. We have a go nowhere young(ish) roster without a top 20 player. The starting job should have been IQs to lose, especially since Randle has evolved into a ball dominant homeless persons Jokic. Fournier could just be Burks. If Burks gets hurt maybe our 1st round pick could be getting more than 34 seconds a **** game.

But clown car Perry and Rose think this team is competitive.

[louisorr]

This Noah's Ark (2 of everything) concept isn't proving successful. If they were going to re sign burks and rose then yes the Fournier and kemba signings were dumb. This team has 3 rookies and 4 more first round picks in the next 2 years. Those are your backups!! not a redundancy of midling vets. At this point, I'd send guys out just to make them happy and not worry about the return. Teams like Denver or Utah that could use a bit more scoring for a finals run. Less is more at this point.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Yes, there were only a few of us who said it when they were signed and you get called a hater if you didn't like the signings at the time. Fans gotta be a lot more discerning and stop blindly buying into every move we make.


If a couple RealGM posters could see this wasn't a great move, then you gotta question the front office. You'd never see Masai doing some **** like this, they brought in Dragic and he's a bench player for them so Trent can start. We continually prioritize FA/Vets over inhouse young talent, a smarter front office would have made moves to give IQ a chance at the starting job.

[JXL]

If we were operating the hindsight machine, it probably would have made MUCH MORE sense to take the money invested in Fournier and Walker ($20 million per over 4 years for Fournier and $9 million per for 2 years for Walker) and funnel it to someone like Demar Derozan (who got $29 million per over 3 years).

Sure Derozan isn't a starting PG, but honestly if Walker is shot, he's also not a starting PG either right?

But at least Derozan is comfortable and quite capable of being able to handle the role that he would have found himself in (the no.1a or 1b option). As such, it's much more likely that he would not be as disappointing as the 2 aforementioned players. As far as "but how does he fit with Randle?" Look. An average NBA team takes how many shots a game? Even at his so called ball hoarding best how many shots can Randle need? Point being, on a team like this where there would have been very little other players justified to shoot in volume, having Derozan take what would have still probably been less shots than Walker and Fournier combined would have taken (had Walker been healthy and playing the role the Knicks had hoped for) wouldn't be taking shots away from others it very well could have actually given more opportunities than the projected Walker/Fournier duo would have.

It is what it is.

I think the Knicks FO spent way too much on role players and focused too much on trying to keep last seasons team intact.

DeRozan's role on this team would not have been the same for him now on the Bulls. The difference is utilizing his skillset and not conflicting with Julius (who the FO gave the extension to be their #1). While DeRozan would take much pressure off of Julius, he would have to re-adjust his skillset to benefit playing alongside Julius. I don't think that's what DeRozan wanted.

I will agree that overspending on the bench was a bit too much with the cap space they had, but its not crippling them like in years past. Also, they are playing up to the contract so far, so it balances out.

1. Derozan's contract is about the same AAV as Randle's so the contract they gave Randle isn't going to justify anyone being anything. The Knicks gave Randle that contract extension was because it was a bargain (just like Derozan's contract with the Bulls was) and they couldn't afford to let their most talented player leave given how little talent they have.

2. Thibs plays the guys that he feels can best produce for him so there's no indication that he would play Randle in the same role if he feels that Derozan can perform better. Not that Derozan would have but it's not hard to argue that Derozan has been in more pressure filled roles coached by better coaches that Randle has and has a more stable history as a top producer than Randle has.

3. Derozan averaged almost 7 apg last season as the primary facilitator and shot creator for the Spurs. This team needs facilitation and shot creation as 2 of their most pressing needs on offense cause the alternative is that you just have to rely on Julius Randle...to once again...do more than what should realistically be expected of him (cause ready he's not a Lebron James level player).

4. He's on a team (the Bulls) that have more offensive options and 2 guys (not just 1) that needs the ball and has adjusted just fine. And he's added that degree of stability and leadership that the Bulls lacked which, you can argue, this team also needs.

5. Having a 2nd guy that can actually create his own shot at a high level will also actually benefit Randle cause he won't be fighting through double and triple teams and staggered defenses pretty much every time he touches the ball. We want to put players (even guys we're angry at) in the best positions to succeed right? That's why we got Walker was it? It wasn't to get Walker to be a Steve Nash, it was to get Walker to be a guy that can take the focus off of Randle when it comes to opposing team defenses by drawing some of that attention away from Randle. That's what Walkers elite skill is, drawing defenses cause he's a volume scoring ball heavy PG.

So I'm really not sure why you guys are saying that he would be an worse fit and that would have to adjust more.

You're right, but can I be right too?

[Adelheid]

It is a mistake. The league has moved to old school defense and the knicks went in pure offense and no defense with the 2 signings

[moocow007]

DeRozan's role on this team would not have been the same for him now on the Bulls. The difference is utilizing his skillset and not conflicting with Julius (who the FO gave the extension to be their #1). While DeRozan would take much pressure off of Julius, he would have to re-adjust his skillset to benefit playing alongside Julius. I don't think that's what DeRozan wanted.

I will agree that overspending on the bench was a bit too much with the cap space they had, but its not crippling them like in years past. Also, they are playing up to the contract so far, so it balances out.

1. Derozan's contract is about the same AAV as Randle's so the contract they gave Randle isn't going to justify anyone being anything. The Knicks gave Randle that contract extension was because it was a bargain (just like Derozan's contract with the Bulls was) and they couldn't afford to let their most talented player leave given how little talent they have.

2. Thibs plays the guys that he feels can best produce for him so there's no indication that he would play Randle in the same role if he feels that Derozan can perform better. Not that Derozan would have but it's not hard to argue that Derozan has been in more pressure filled roles coached by better coaches that Randle has and has a more stable history as a top producer than Randle has.

3. Derozan averaged almost 7 apg last season as the primary facilitator and shot creator for the Spurs. This team needs facilitation and shot creation as 2 of their most pressing needs on offense cause the alternative is that you just have to rely on Julius Randle...to once again...do more than what should realistically be expected of him (cause ready he's not a Lebron James level player).

4. He's on a team (the Bulls) that have more offensive options and 2 guys (not just 1) that needs the ball and has adjusted just fine. And he's added that degree of stability and leadership that the Bulls lacked which, you can argue, this team also needs.

5. Having a 2nd guy that can actually create his own shot at a high level will also actually benefit Randle cause he won't be fighting through double and triple teams and staggered defenses pretty much every time he touches the ball. We want to put players (even guys we're angry at) in the best positions to succeed right? That's why we got Walker was it? It wasn't to get Walker to be a Steve Nash, it was to get Walker to be a guy that can take the focus off of Randle when it comes to opposing team defenses by drawing some of that attention away from Randle. That's what Walkers elite skill is, drawing defenses cause he's a volume scoring ball heavy PG.

So I'm really not sure why you guys are saying that he would be an worse fit and that would have to adjust more.

You're right, but can I be right too?

LOL. Before anyone jumps on me...I'm not saying that the Derozan should have been the direction, just that he would have been a better option for the direction they appear to be taking.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Derozan would have been better and it would be interesting to see what the team would look like with him. Ultimately its a lot to commit to Derozan and Randle and I dont see that team going anywhere. Maybe we are a little better now, but I don't see that as a good long term plan.

[Jalen Bluntson]

Extending Randle was a bigger mistake than anything we did. Fournier contract looking just as bad. Kemba is washed. Noel and Burks were questionable moves as well.

My POV lines up with the overachieving last year hurting us thread. This idea that a roster full of role player vets helps make us look competitive has failed every single year. Even last year. It is what puts us on a treadmill. At least the previous two years were one year deals. Now we are locked into this for the foreseeable future because...no one is trading anything of value for any of the vets on this team. Any trades for stars will wipe out all of the youth and draft capital we have and we will still be stuck with the role player vets. What FA are realistically gonna be available to turn this around? My guess...none.

Bite the damn bullet and go young for more than a half a season at a time every other year. We need top tier talent and we need to acquire at least ONE player of that caliber through the draft. We haven't done that or...that player hasn't shown himself yet. Take your pick.

Wasting time is all this team does. I have to assume that it is Dolan's mandate to half ass everything. Skipping steps and setting the team back. Every. Single. Time. What do we do next year or so when the kids we do have now need to get paid and we're still looking for a star or two?

I hated the off-season and talked myself into liking it. It is still early and things could improve but...to what end? Treadmill team is the likely result.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Derozan would have been better and it would be interesting to see what the team would look like with him. Ultimately its a lot to commit to Derozan and Randle and I dont see that team going anywhere. Maybe we are a little better now, but I don't see that as a good long term plan.

We've already committed to Randle though, our long term plan now is what exactly? Also, DeRozan is on a 3 yr deal, and Fournier is on a 4 year deal with the 4th year being a team option, it's virtually the same thing except Fournier sucks.

[GONYK]

Derozan would have been better and it would be interesting to see what the team would look like with him. Ultimately its a lot to commit to Derozan and Randle and I dont see that team going anywhere. Maybe we are a little better now, but I don't see that as a good long term plan.

I think that's why they didn't do it.

Right now, everyone is wildly underperforming. Especially Evan and RJ.

If we can get them right, we're looking at an entirely different team. We were the #1 offense in the NBA when they were clicking. The offensive talent is here, but the chemistry is not. Too many people operate in the same space. Roles need to change to make it work and people need to hit shots.

So it's too early to say it was a mistake.

I also think we need to separate outcomes from process. I think the process to bring in Walker and Fournier was sound. We needed an upgrade at PG and more shooting and shot creation at the wing. We accomplished that with cap friendly deals on shortish commitments.

We aren't looking to compete right now. We're only looking to improve, make the playoffs and make a big trade to put us into contention.

The process the led to signing Walker and Fournier was sound and aligned with our goals. The FO doesn't know who is going to make or miss shots. They know what the player has done over the course of their careers, and Kemba and Evan have made a lot of shots.

So, all in all, I don't think it was a mistake to bring them in yet. If the presence of either of them prevents us from making the big trade, like bringing in Derozan's contract would have, then yes, it was a big mistake.

They also obviously need to play better to accomplish our twin goals of making the playoffs and having them as assets. Hopefully Thibs and the law of averages takes care of that.

[Capn'O]

Kemba's less of a commitment. Fournier is looking like a mistake.

[Capn'O]

Derozan would have been better and it would be interesting to see what the team would look like with him. Ultimately its a lot to commit to Derozan and Randle and I dont see that team going anywhere. Maybe we are a little better now, but I don't see that as a good long term plan.

I think that's why they didn't do it.

Right now, everyone is wildly underperforming. Especially Evan and RJ.

If we can get them right, we're looking at an entirely different team. We were the #1 offense in the NBA when they were clicking. The offensive talent is here, but the chemistry is not. Too many people operate in the same space. Roles need to change to make it work and people need to hit shots.

So it's too early to say it was a mistake.

I also think we need to separate outcomes from process. I think the process to bring in Walker and Fournier was sound. We needed an upgrade at PG and more shooting and shot creation at the wing. We accomplished that with cap friendly deals on shortish commitments.

We aren't looking to compete right now. We're only looking to improve, make the playoffs and make a big trade to put us into contention.

The process the led to signing Walker and Fournier was sound and aligned with our goals. The FO doesn't know who is going to make or miss shots. They know what the player has done over the course of their careers, and Kemba and Evan have made a lot of shots.

So, all in all, I don't think it was a mistake to bring them in yet. If the presence of either of them prevents us from making the big trade, like bringing in Derozan's contract would have, then yes, it was a big mistake.

They also obviously need to play better to accomplish our twin goals of making the playoffs and having them as assets. Hopefully Thibs and the law of averages takes care of that.

Fournier definitely appeared to be signed as eventual trade fodder. Salary filler in a larger move. Without him producing, that's a big problem. We need to figure out how to get him cooking.

[moocow007]

Derozan would have been better and it would be interesting to see what the team would look like with him. Ultimately its a lot to commit to Derozan and Randle and I dont see that team going anywhere. Maybe we are a little better now, but I don't see that as a good long term plan.

Yeah don't disagree. It might get them further along (and should) but the big picture?

[GONYK]

Derozan would have been better and it would be interesting to see what the team would look like with him. Ultimately its a lot to commit to Derozan and Randle and I dont see that team going anywhere. Maybe we are a little better now, but I don't see that as a good long term plan.

I think that's why they didn't do it.

Right now, everyone is wildly underperforming. Especially Evan and RJ.

If we can get them right, we're looking at an entirely different team. We were the #1 offense in the NBA when they were clicking. The offensive talent is here, but the chemistry is not. Too many people operate in the same space. Roles need to change to make it work and people need to hit shots.

So it's too early to say it was a mistake.

I also think we need to separate outcomes from process. I think the process to bring in Walker and Fournier was sound. We needed an upgrade at PG and more shooting and shot creation at the wing. We accomplished that with cap friendly deals on shortish commitments.

We aren't looking to compete right now. We're only looking to improve, make the playoffs and make a big trade to put us into contention.

The process the led to signing Walker and Fournier was sound and aligned with our goals. The FO doesn't know who is going to make or miss shots. They know what the player has done over the course of their careers, and Kemba and Evan have made a lot of shots.

So, all in all, I don't think it was a mistake to bring them in yet. If the presence of either of them prevents us from making the big trade, like bringing in Derozan's contract would have, then yes, it was a big mistake.

They also obviously need to play better to accomplish our twin goals of making the playoffs and having them as assets. Hopefully Thibs and the law of averages takes care of that.

Fournier definitely appeared to be signed as eventual trade fodder. Salary filler in a larger move. Without him producing, that's a big problem. We need to figure out how to get him cooking.

Yup, without a doubt.

Like I said, I think it's better to think of this team as being full of trade exceptions that play. They are all just cap slots with different values. The winning is almost incidental other than it makes all of these cap slots more valuable and makes the organization enticing.

At Evan's slot, he needs to produce more. Point blank. Otherwise his slot becomes depressed and it's a little too big for that. If that happens, then it's a mistake.

So, organizationally, I think we'll see a tinkering happen to get him in the flow of things. RJ too.

[moocow007]

Derozan would have been better and it would be interesting to see what the team would look like with him. Ultimately its a lot to commit to Derozan and Randle and I dont see that team going anywhere. Maybe we are a little better now, but I don't see that as a good long term plan.

We've already committed to Randle though, our long term plan now is what exactly? Also, DeRozan is on a 3 yr deal, and Fournier is on a 4 year deal with the 4th year being a team option, it's virtually the same thing except Fournier sucks.

Right or wrong, the long term plan is to compete and get as far as possible in the playoffs. Derozan would go further along for that. Again, not that it's the right plan to take.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Derozan would have been better and it would be interesting to see what the team would look like with him. Ultimately its a lot to commit to Derozan and Randle and I dont see that team going anywhere. Maybe we are a little better now, but I don't see that as a good long term plan.

I think that's why they didn't do it.

Right now, everyone is wildly underperforming. Especially Evan and RJ.

If we can get them right, we're looking at an entirely different team. We were the #1 offense in the NBA when they were clicking. The offensive talent is here, but the chemistry is not. Too many people operate in the same space. Roles need to change to make it work and people need to hit shots.

So it's too early to say it was a mistake.

I also think we need to separate outcomes from process. I think the process to bring in Walker and Fournier was sound. We needed an upgrade at PG and more shooting and shot creation at the wing. We accomplished that with cap friendly deals on shortish commitments.

We aren't looking to compete right now. We're only looking to improve, make the playoffs and make a big trade to put us into contention.

The process the led to signing Walker and Fournier was sound and aligned with our goals. The FO doesn't know who is going to make or miss shots. They know what the player has done over the course of their careers, and Kemba and Evan have made a lot of shots.

So, all in all, I don't think it was a mistake to bring them in yet. If the presence of either of them prevents us from making the big trade, like bringing in Derozan's contract would have, then yes, it was a big mistake.

They also obviously need to play better to accomplish our twin goals of making the playoffs and having them as assets. Hopefully Thibs and the law of averages takes care of that.

Bringing in DeMar would have given us a pathway to starting IQ, that's one of the major reasons I wanted Lonzo too. The most obvious thing to do with a player like IQ is put him in the off guard spot in terms offensive role, while he gets to guard the opposing PG. We had that sitting right in front of us, instead, they took this convoluted path and took two players who aren't as good as DeMar and make as much money as him, while he and Fournier have the same contract length.

We should have gone inhouse with one of those guard spots, IQ should have been given the 2 guard spot with Burks backing him up just in case he couldn't perform. Our front office tried to get cute and it looks like a gigantic mistake, especially when it has given an in conference rival a solid team

[Deeeez Knicks]

Derozan would have been better and it would be interesting to see what the team would look like with him. Ultimately its a lot to commit to Derozan and Randle and I dont see that team going anywhere. Maybe we are a little better now, but I don't see that as a good long term plan.

We've already committed to Randle though, our long term plan now is what exactly? Also, DeRozan is on a 3 yr deal, and Fournier is on a 4 year deal with the 4th year being a team option, it's virtually the same thing except Fournier sucks.

It seems like the plan is try to gradually improve and then take a big swing at a star. No matter the plan Fournier seems like a bad signing at this point. And even Randle's extension doesnt look great right now either. Ultimately, if they can pull off the right deal for the right star it can all pay off.

[Capn'O]

I think that's why they didn't do it.

Right now, everyone is wildly underperforming. Especially Evan and RJ.

If we can get them right, we're looking at an entirely different team. We were the #1 offense in the NBA when they were clicking. The offensive talent is here, but the chemistry is not. Too many people operate in the same space. Roles need to change to make it work and people need to hit shots.

So it's too early to say it was a mistake.

I also think we need to separate outcomes from process. I think the process to bring in Walker and Fournier was sound. We needed an upgrade at PG and more shooting and shot creation at the wing. We accomplished that with cap friendly deals on shortish commitments.

We aren't looking to compete right now. We're only looking to improve, make the playoffs and make a big trade to put us into contention.

The process the led to signing Walker and Fournier was sound and aligned with our goals. The FO doesn't know who is going to make or miss shots. They know what the player has done over the course of their careers, and Kemba and Evan have made a lot of shots.

So, all in all, I don't think it was a mistake to bring them in yet. If the presence of either of them prevents us from making the big trade, like bringing in Derozan's contract would have, then yes, it was a big mistake.

They also obviously need to play better to accomplish our twin goals of making the playoffs and having them as assets. Hopefully Thibs and the law of averages takes care of that.

Fournier definitely appeared to be signed as eventual trade fodder. Salary filler in a larger move. Without him producing, that's a big problem. We need to figure out how to get him cooking.

Yup, without a doubt.

Like I said, I think it's better to think of this team as being full of trade exceptions that play. They are all just cap slots with different values. The winning is almost incidental other than it makes all of these cap slots more valuable and makes the organization enticing.

At Evan's slot, he needs to produce more. Point blank. Otherwise his slot becomes depressed and it's a little too big for that. If that happens, then it's a mistake.

So, organizationally, I think we'll see a tinkering happen to get him in the flow of things. RJ too.

It's why I'd prefer to throw a bunch of young players at the wall and see what sticks as an approach. Both drafted and free agents. IMO, there's just a lot more room for error there. But, even with the asset pool, we're not doing that so you just have to maximize what we have.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Derozan would have been better and it would be interesting to see what the team would look like with him. Ultimately its a lot to commit to Derozan and Randle and I dont see that team going anywhere. Maybe we are a little better now, but I don't see that as a good long term plan.

I think that's why they didn't do it.

Right now, everyone is wildly underperforming. Especially Evan and RJ.

If we can get them right, we're looking at an entirely different team. We were the #1 offense in the NBA when they were clicking. The offensive talent is here, but the chemistry is not. Too many people operate in the same space. Roles need to change to make it work and people need to hit shots.

So it's too early to say it was a mistake.

I also think we need to separate outcomes from process. I think the process to bring in Walker and Fournier was sound. We needed an upgrade at PG and more shooting and shot creation at the wing. We accomplished that with cap friendly deals on shortish commitments.

We aren't looking to compete right now. We're only looking to improve, make the playoffs and make a big trade to put us into contention.

The process the led to signing Walker and Fournier was sound and aligned with our goals. The FO doesn't know who is going to make or miss shots. They know what the player has done over the course of their careers, and Kemba and Evan have made a lot of shots.

So, all in all, I don't think it was a mistake to bring them in yet. If the presence of either of them prevents us from making the big trade, like bringing in Derozan's contract would have, then yes, it was a big mistake.

They also obviously need to play better to accomplish our twin goals of making the playoffs and having them as assets. Hopefully Thibs and the law of averages takes care of that.

Guess what I dont like about this process is we signed too many redundant guys to mid-size contracts that don't compliment each other. I see why they did it, but still think it would be better to leave minutes open for younger players to develop and find cheaper/replaceable options...like when we had Rivers and then were able to get rid of him fast when Quickley showed he could play and open up minutes for him.

But overall, I know this is not a finished product. They still have big moves they want to make and the big moves will be a bigger factor in our success. So we will see what they can do.

[GONYK]

Derozan would have been better and it would be interesting to see what the team would look like with him. Ultimately its a lot to commit to Derozan and Randle and I dont see that team going anywhere. Maybe we are a little better now, but I don't see that as a good long term plan.

I think that's why they didn't do it.

Right now, everyone is wildly underperforming. Especially Evan and RJ.

If we can get them right, we're looking at an entirely different team. We were the #1 offense in the NBA when they were clicking. The offensive talent is here, but the chemistry is not. Too many people operate in the same space. Roles need to change to make it work and people need to hit shots.

So it's too early to say it was a mistake.

I also think we need to separate outcomes from process. I think the process to bring in Walker and Fournier was sound. We needed an upgrade at PG and more shooting and shot creation at the wing. We accomplished that with cap friendly deals on shortish commitments.

We aren't looking to compete right now. We're only looking to improve, make the playoffs and make a big trade to put us into contention.

The process the led to signing Walker and Fournier was sound and aligned with our goals. The FO doesn't know who is going to make or miss shots. They know what the player has done over the course of their careers, and Kemba and Evan have made a lot of shots.

So, all in all, I don't think it was a mistake to bring them in yet. If the presence of either of them prevents us from making the big trade, like bringing in Derozan's contract would have, then yes, it was a big mistake.

They also obviously need to play better to accomplish our twin goals of making the playoffs and having them as assets. Hopefully Thibs and the law of averages takes care of that.

Bringing in DeMar would have given us a pathway to starting IQ, that's one of the major reasons I wanted Lonzo too. The most obvious thing to do with a player like IQ is put him in the off guard spot in terms offensive role, while he gets to guard the opposing PG. We had that sitting right in front of us, instead, they took this convoluted path and took two players who aren't as good as DeMar and make as much money as him, while he and Fournier have the same contract length.

We should have gone inhouse with one of those guard spots, our front office tried to get cute and it looks like a gigantic mistake.

I would have taken Lonzo over Fournier and put him at the 2. I think that 4th year was a little too rich for our plans though.

So in my scenario, I still wasn't starting IQ, but getting a very solid perimeter defender at the 2. Evan needs to shoot much better to offset just the general energy and defense IQ brings, even when his shot is off.

I think you may end up getting your wish in a roundabout way, with Thibs staggering IQ in with the starters earlier and earlier.

I also don't think signing Kemba was bad or detrimental. The actual only downside to it is how much cache he has, so it's hard to not start him. He's a huge upgrade from Elf, but situationally, we're in the same spot where it's either start him or take him out of the rotation completely.

I do wonder if he's as washed as he seems. Things look pretty interesting when we run the offense through him.