Should Leon target De’Aaron Fox?

[cgmw]

I want Julius to be traded regardless. And I wanted this last offseason too, before they gave him the extension.

They're the same caliber of players to me - Randle probably better and more refined at this stage, likely thanks to age and experience.

Swapping Randle for Fox only adds a few $ but it's still a sub-optimal proposition imo.

Cool. And I’ve wanted Scarlett Johansson to marry me for a decade now. Never say never!

The only way Leon trades Randle is if he thinks he’s getting a more accomplished star in return. I’d be surprised if Fox is that guy, but I wouldn’t hate it if it meant we’re committing to younger players and a longer development timeline. For example, if it means giving Obi and Cam full-time opportunity to shine.

I’d much rather see Mitch, Obi, Cam, RJ, Fox than the Randle, Fournier, Burks, Kemba, DRose “win now” action we got now.

I mentioned my general opinion to say that even though swapping Randle for Fox only adds a few $ a year, it's still not a desirable outcome imo.

And regarding your last paragraph, I'd say careful what you wish for. If you use Fox on the ball, even if you use Obi in the action (which is theoretically good for his development), it further relegates RJ to an off-ball role where his role is primarily to C&S and cut to the rim.

I don't consider Randle to be a particularly malleable player but he's still more malleable than Fox.

The Burks at PG experiment is ill-advised but he allows RJ to run PNR and play on the ball because at the very least he spaces the floor. You can kiss that idea goodbye with Fox in the backcourt. Or you'll see a lot of 3-point bricks from him.

But wait, if Fox would destroy RJ, then wouldn’t that make your article correct?

Spoiler:

It was an excellent read btw even if i wasn’t convinced by its conclusions. Seriously, bravo.

[Chanel Bomber]

Cool. And I’ve wanted Scarlett Johansson to marry me for a decade now. Never say never!

The only way Leon trades Randle is if he thinks he’s getting a more accomplished star in return. I’d be surprised if Fox is that guy, but I wouldn’t hate it if it meant we’re committing to younger players and a longer development timeline. For example, if it means giving Obi and Cam full-time opportunity to shine.

I’d much rather see Mitch, Obi, Cam, RJ, Fox than the Randle, Fournier, Burks, Kemba, DRose “win now” action we got now.

I mentioned my general opinion to say that even though swapping Randle for Fox only adds a few $ a year, it's still not a desirable outcome imo.

And regarding your last paragraph, I'd say careful what you wish for. If you use Fox on the ball, even if you use Obi in the action (which is theoretically good for his development), it further relegates RJ to an off-ball role where his role is primarily to C&S and cut to the rim.

I don't consider Randle to be a particularly malleable player but he's still more malleable than Fox.

The Burks at PG experiment is ill-advised but he allows RJ to run PNR and play on the ball because at the very least he spaces the floor. You can kiss that idea goodbye with Fox in the backcourt. Or you'll see a lot of 3-point bricks from him.

But wait, if Fox would destroy RJ, then wouldn’t that make your article correct?

Spoiler:

It was an excellent read btw even if i wasn’t convinced by its conclusions. Seriously, bravo.

Thanks! If you could enjoy it despite not being convinced with its conclusion (and knowing some of our differences of opinion, although we agree on a lot of things too), I think I'm probably headed in the right direction, and it only motivates me to work on it more. Thanks for taking the time to read it!

As far as the RJ and Fox fit, we want RJ to play on-ball more, and Fox needs to play on-ball. So it'll be a struggle. And I'm afraid that with RJ being the better off-ball player, Fox would be given the keys to the offense.

It's the same reason Westbrook ran the offense with KD operating mainly as a finisher in OKC despite KD being the better player. They tried to hide Westbrook's lack of shooting by putting the ball in his hands. RJ and Fox aren't on that level, and they're different players, but I fear the same logic would apply in terms of how both players are used, even if RJ's leap proves to be real (which is tbd for now imo but there are reasons to feel more optimistic).

[HopelessKnick]

Fox will cost too much. He'd likely cost us multiple FRPs and some of our young assets as well. Too risky for a player that really hasn't shown the ability to lead his team to wins consistantly and has a glaring weakness from 3. Sure, IF he figures out to shoot 3s consistently then he'll be among the leage's best PGs and worth the price. However, if he remains the same then we are stuck with a 40 win team and very little ability to improve. I would rather pass and go for a lower cost option that is good and can shoot the 3 as well.

[HopelessKnick]

BTW, just for the record: I don't think there is any way Sac would even entertain any offer without R.J. in it. Barrett + picks may be something Sac would be willing to do at this point but we should stay away from that. While lacking the elite athleticism that most superstar players have, Barrett has the work ethic and ability to become a very very good player for us without any glaring weakness in his game, someone that can play well in multiple situations and line-ups. Fox is someone that you'd have to surround by 4 good shooters for him to excel.


I think if Rose was to package multiple picks and young assets, let alone R.J. in a deal, we'd have to get a sure all-star/superstar player back. If for example Mitchell was really unhappy in Utah and wanted the spotlight etc. of NYK--then you package R.J. and picks --not for Fox.

[Governor Dudley]

The eternal hard on for players who don't have a record of winning ....a timeless tradition



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

The eternal hard on for players who don't have a record of winning ....a timeless tradition



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

And then the complaints when Dolan brings them in. I suspect fantasy basketball is to blame.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[thebuzzardman]

Fox shouldn't be viewed or valued as an asset.

He's an inefficient point guard who has shown few to no signs that he could make a positive contribution on a winning team.

And he's owed $163 million over the next 5 years.

It's one of the worst contracts in the NBA.

The Knicks would be stupid to trade for, let alone give up assets for that player imo.

What if, for some insane reason, just for discussion sake, it took Fournier and Noel and a 2023 2nd rounder?

[Chanel Bomber]

Fox shouldn't be viewed or valued as an asset.

He's an inefficient point guard who has shown few to no signs that he could make a positive contribution on a winning team.

And he's owed $163 million over the next 5 years.

It's one of the worst contracts in the NBA.

The Knicks would be stupid to trade for, let alone give up assets for that player imo.

What if, for some insane reason, just for discussion sake, it took Fournier and Noel and a 2023 2nd rounder?

Interesting question.

I believe in certain things like:

- Subtraction by addition
- Inefficient high-usage players putting a ceiling on team success
- The NBA being a zero-sum game and that - while the value (positive or negative) of players can fluctuate depending on the role they're given - some players are more conducive to winning and some more conducive to losing

From that perspective, I believe players like Fox are basically a waste of time.

So while I'd want to get out of Fournier and Noel's contracts, you'd be adding two extra years on your books by trading them for Fox at $35 and $37 million in 2024-25 and 2025-26 respectively. All for a player who might not help you win games, and who might hurt the development of some other young cats as on-ball players.

In other words, I wouldn't even bother.

He wouldn't be on my radar.

I guess I would feel differently if Fox could hit a 3, but he's shooting 29.4% on open 3s and 27.7% on wide-open 3s. How can he take on a lesser role and let others run any plays if he can't space the floor?

How about you buzz?

[3toheadmelo]

The eternal hard on for players who don't have a record of winning ....a timeless tradition



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Y’all didn’t want Booker and Lavine for that very same reason

[HopelessKnick]

The eternal hard on for players who don't have a record of winning ....a timeless tradition



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Y’all didn’t want Booker and Lavine for that very same reason

But completely different situation. Booker and Lavine have always been pretty well rounded offensive players with little holes in their games. They could always shoot (premier skill in today's NBA) as well as make plays otherwise. Look up their rookie years---both of them would shoot in the 35-38% range from three and 80%+ from the line. Booker has always been one of the league's best midrange shooter as well (even much more so than 3 but he was still solid from 3 and excellent at the line).

With Fox we are talking about a guy that's major glaring weakness is today's most important skill in the NBA. You can't just disregard that. I'll put it differently: If we knew today that Fox would never shoot above 30% from 3, no team would touch that contract. It is the mere hope that he may improve his 3 point shooting to respectable that has teams contemplating a move for him. For me if a player can't shoot threes he better be a very strong defender or otherwise winning player.

If you're putting major assets and want to commit 160 million to a PG that has not lead his team to any winning situation he better be a sure bet to significantly improve the team. IMO a good PG should be someone that can even make less good fitting parts work, have a high IQ and make your team win---you shouldn't commit that many resources to a PG where you have to build a team around him to cover his weaknesses.


For the Knicks it boils down to: Would you feel good committing 70million of your capspace to Randle and Fox? Recipe for a lottery team.

[Chanel Bomber]

The eternal hard on for players who don't have a record of winning ....a timeless tradition



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Y’all didn’t want Booker and Lavine for that very same reason

They can shoot.

[TerrenceClarke]

The eternal hard on for players who don't have a record of winning ....a timeless tradition



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Y’all didn’t want Booker and Lavine for that very same reason

They can shoot.

Aren't you a Huge Westbrook fan?

[Governor Dudley]

The eternal hard on for players who don't have a record of winning ....a timeless tradition



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Y’all didn’t want Booker and Lavine for that very same reason

Imagine our current roster with Chris Paul instead of Randle and/or Derozan instead of Fournier.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Chanel Bomber]

Y’all didn’t want Booker and Lavine for that very same reason

They can shoot.

Aren't you a Huge Westbrook fan?

Yes.

I also love my partner.

Can she shoot?

No.

[Sprewell4Three]

Fox is in a bad situation on the Kings , put him on a good team and watch how he explodes. Dude has probably the best first step in the league. A good finisher and lethal mid range shooter. This is from what I see on the court not numbers. He’s not turnover prone like Westbrook. That comparison is trash. Fox seems a bit more balanced. His defense is inconsistent. I still think he can be a good defensive pg on the right team. The only problem with him is his FT shooting and 3 point shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sprewell4Three]

I want Julius to be traded regardless. And I wanted this last offseason too, before they gave him the extension.

They're the same caliber of players to me - Randle probably better and more refined at this stage, likely thanks to age and experience.

Swapping Randle for Fox only adds a few $ but it's still a sub-optimal proposition imo.

Cool. And I’ve wanted Scarlett Johansson to marry me for a decade now. Never say never!

The only way Leon trades Randle is if he thinks he’s getting a more accomplished star in return. I’d be surprised if Fox is that guy, but I wouldn’t hate it if it meant we’re committing to younger players and a longer development timeline. For example, if it means giving Obi and Cam full-time opportunity to shine.

I’d much rather see Mitch, Obi, Cam, RJ, Fox than the Randle, Fournier, Burks, Kemba, DRose “win now” action we got now.

I mentioned my general opinion to say that even though swapping Randle for Fox only adds a few $ a year, it's still not a desirable outcome imo.

And regarding your last paragraph, I'd say careful what you wish for. If you use Fox on the ball, even if you use Obi in the action (which is theoretically good for his development), it further relegates RJ to an off-ball role where his role is primarily to C&S and cut to the rim.

I don't consider Randle to be a particularly malleable player but he's still more malleable than Fox.

The Burks at PG experiment is ill-advised but he allows RJ to run PNR and play on the ball because at the very least he spaces the floor. You can kiss that idea goodbye with Fox in the backcourt. Or you'll see a lot of 3-point bricks from him.

He will brick from 3 that’s for sure. But his mid range is decent . Meaning if you sag off he can atleast come into the lane and shoot that lil pull up jumper. I would love Fox on this team with Thibs at the helm. Maybe he can get the best out of him on defense.

Imagine a lineup of this at certain situations

PG Fox
SG Barrett
SF Burks
PF reddish
C Mitch

Can switch everything on defense. On offense the spacing will not be terrible because Barrett, Burks and Reddish can knock down 3s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[3toheadmelo]

The eternal hard on for players who don't have a record of winning ....a timeless tradition



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Y’all didn’t want Booker and Lavine for that very same reason

They can shoot.

Would you rather have a young point guard who can give you 20 and 8 or Burks at pg

[3toheadmelo]

The eternal hard on for players who don't have a record of winning ....a timeless tradition



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Y’all didn’t want Booker and Lavine for that very same reason

Imagine our current roster with Chris Paul instead of Randle and/or Derozan instead of Fournier.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Don’t think we had a shot at Chris Paul but the Knicks not even going after Derozan is crazy to me

[robillionaire]

How many more games can we watch Burks?

Get the Kings on the phone this afternoon Leon!!!

[TerrenceClarke]

People like focusing on the poor parts of his game. But the reality is that he is an Elite Down Hill PG. Everything does not have to be about shooting for a PG. Dude is elite at sucking in defenses to stop him in the paint... thats a very valuable trait to have as a PG.There is not one team in the NBA that can keep Fox out the paint and y'all want to act like we can turn our noses up at that?

He would be the closest thing Thibs would have since Young D Rose attacking wise at the rim.

Fox is a godsend for this team. We would be lucky as hell to have him.