Moderators: j4remi, HerSports85, NoLayupRule, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Deeeez Knicks, mpharris36
Richard4444 wrote:WargamesX wrote:Cuban is not letting Brunson leave…. No way.
It's not Cuban"s call. Brunson is a UFA. Cuban can only refuse any sign and trade deal (it would kill Knick's chances). But Brunson can go to Indiana or Magic if he chooses.
Richard4444 wrote:Richard4444 wrote:WargamesX wrote:Cuban is not letting Brunson leave…. No way.
It's not Cuban"s call. Brunson is a UFA. Cuban can only refuse any sign and trade deal (it would kill Knick's chances). But Brunson can go to Indiana or Magic if he chooses.
Moreover, the Dallas 2022 payroll will be 151M without Brunson.
Richard4444 wrote:Richard4444 wrote:WargamesX wrote:Cuban is not letting Brunson leave…. No way.
It's not Cuban"s call. Brunson is a UFA. Cuban can only refuse any sign and trade deal (it would kill Knick's chances). But Brunson can go to Indiana or Magic if he chooses.
Moreover, the Dallas 2022 payroll will be 151M without Brunson.
Esq-4 wrote:Richard4444 wrote:Richard4444 wrote:
It's not Cuban"s call. Brunson is a UFA. Cuban can only refuse any sign and trade deal (it would kill Knick's chances). But Brunson can go to Indiana or Magic if he chooses.
Moreover, the Dallas 2022 payroll will be 151M without Brunson.
Do you entice Dallas to deal with NY by taking on Bertrans? Not sure the numbers for the exact deal, but Bertrans, Brunson for Randle and Noel? Noel is just an expiring, could be Walker or Burke.
8516knicks wrote:okay, the Brunson thread is played out. Now board need new threads on how SGA and Donavan Mitchell are not good enough for the Knicks. Gentlemen, start your keyboards!
spree2kawhi wrote:Why are Knicks fans so obsessed with mediocrity?
spree2kawhi wrote:8516knicks wrote:spree2kawhi wrote:Why are Knicks fans so obsessed with mediocrity?
Why are so many obsessed with maintaining SUBmediocrity?
We’ve never been sub mediocre. If we had chosen to be, we wouldn’t be in this extraordinary mess.
Look at Houston, Cleveland and Orlando. That’s how it’s supposed to be done. All of those teams have had more success than us during the last twenty years.
We suck because we never really appreciate being very bad instead of mediocre. We must always trot out the Randles, Fourniers, and THJrs of this league.
nedleeds wrote:Spree2Houston wrote:Meat wrote:are you sure you know what mediocre means?
Yeah a team in no mans land. A team not bad enough to get a top 3 pick nor good enough to be in the playoffs. Basically what we are we
We are NBA mediocre. Which is the fringe of a meaningless first round exit. We could have traded a 1st to get a rotation player, and Rose could have been healthy, if that'd happen we'd be the 8th seed.
It's a road to nowhere. We're looking like we'll get the worst lottery odds which is the worst place to be, pretty close to being the 10th seed. Younger fans seem more excited about mediocre outcomes, and mediocre middling prospects, if you're an older fan (40+) you've seen us in the finals twice. You've seen two dozen RJs, otherwise average players hyped beyond what they are because it's New York who eventually end up as Landry Fields in Toronto.
Right now we're the Bobcats, we have Al (Foolius), Kemba and Gerald Henderson (all our low efficiency chucker wings).
KnicksGadfly wrote:moocow007 wrote:bleedblue3303 wrote:I've decided to expand this topic as I think some of you are missing my original point of the post. Will Jalen Brunson make us better? Absolutely! Will Brunson fill a need? Absolutely! Does that mean we should sign Jalen Brunson? I lean toward no.
Heres why:
. If you look at the structure of the best organizations. They usually have a huge disparity between the top earning players and the rest of the team. Lets take Brooklyn for an example as we just played them
Durant/Iriving/Simmions all make 30 million plus the next highest salary is Joe Harris at 17 million and then only 8 million or lower.
If I had to guess if you asked the Nets which Salary they regret the most. It would be Joe Harris. They would be better suited finding 2 or 3 players to fill his role at much less of a cap hit.
Lets look at our team. We have 3 players in the Harris level Salary. Randle, Fournier and Rose. Adding Bruson would be a 4th. This not only prevents us from signing a potential Max player when they are available. It leaves us without a true number 1 option. Brunson who would make us better in the short term, handcuffs form signing that option.
In a perfect world the Knicks would eventually have 3 max slots and the rest of a team earning 8 million or less. I've mentioned before I would much prefer unloading Randle, Fournier and Rose for a player like Westbrook who expires after next year. Leaves us with a year to play and develop our young talent as much as possible. Gain a high draft pick and have cap room to sign a Max player outright.
Westbrook's expiring salary mixed with young pieces and or draft picks is also a good trading piece for a team with a disgruntled star.
That is why its a no go to Brunson for me.
Jalen Brunson is like that kinda spunky but a bit heavy chick with the hint of sideburns and no sense for fashion willing to be your girlfriend after a decade of nothing but your right hand serving that role. Yeah great but...yeah...hmm...just not exactly thrilling or something you want to run and tell everyone about.
Damn bro, tell us more about what happened with this chick
RHODEY wrote:Dude is like 18 and 6 as a starter, arguably the 2nd best player for a playoff to team. When did we become so good that we could turn our noses up at that?
moocow007 wrote:RHODEY wrote:moocow007 wrote:
Well we did turn our noses on a dude that was 24, 10 and 6 as a starter, unquestioningly the best player for a playoff team. So not sure that the stats says it all when it comes to a long term big dollar committment. Brunson on a contract like what Dallas has been paying him? No question bring it. Brunson at $20+ million per over 4 or 5 years? Yeah that's a different type of view.
Even @ 20 million I'd do it. He's not 32 and he's a PG and he's still improving.
And what if placed in a bigger role than he's ever been in and in a media spotlight where blame will go his way results in him not being able to handle the magnifying glass and, in return, results in him not improving? Not everyone improves. We have first hand example of that front and center right? At least with Randle you knew the talent was there and it was just whether he can handle the pressure (apparently he can't). With Brunson both are question marks. I mean if they have to and they feel the need to, ok, Brunson is better than anything they've had in a long time. But it's not something that is clearly a good idea is my point (ergo my fat chick analogy a few pages back).
moocow007 wrote:RHODEY wrote:moocow007 wrote:
Sorry I haven't seen that but I'll take a crack...
That's just a small stretch of games. I mean Randle had a full season of games that made him look like a top 10 player. You can also find a stretch of games Obi has played in that Randle has not that makes Obi look like a legit NBA starting PF as well right? Would you bank your wad on it? I would not. Alec Burks has had stretches of games that says he should be a great guard. Tim Hardaway Jr had that as well when he was with the Knicks.
Also, it's one thing to have a strong set of games as a lead guard when you know that the "big dog" will be back eventually than to know that it is all now up to you. Pressure factors into things and it's a different dynamic. And when it comes to pressure, we would be dumping Brunson into arguably the biggest pressure spot in the NBA. That's why I have a tendency to lean towards guys that have shown they can carry the load (example would be me preferring they signed Derozan over adding lesser guys like Fournier) when it comes to players to add to this team (also applies to college players that have shown the type of mentality that says they may be tough enough mentally to handle it here).
Does it mean that he can't continue that on a new team where he will have to average that for an entire season and an entire stay with that team? No. He might. But it's not proof positive is the thing. Proof positive is looking at guys that have already shown they can. That's not Brunson. That is the risk of committing big bucks and big years on Brunson. Again doesn't mean we shouldn't but it's not something that I'd be jumping up and down about.
A stretch of games evidence is kinda like the Per 36 stats used as evidence. Based on that during their primes you could have argued that some backup caliber players were better than some all-star caliber players. Royal Ivey for example would have been a better player than Stephon Marbury was one famous example that a bunch of us went through a long time ago on this board. And as much as we hated Marbury, that still would not have been true.
At the end of the day, I'm not an over reactionary type guy. I'm not a glass is half full or glass is half empty guy. I'm a guy that says the glass has half the water it can hold and that's all it is. So don't take what I say as big a negative as it may seem.
None of this is a sure thing. There is no guaranteeing of anything - which is why he might be available. I agree 16 games isn't necessarily a long stint, but I do think is a long enough to be called a "significant" stretch - a stretch that occurred during a non bubble season. In those game he was the same Brunson, just with more minutes and responsibly. There was nothing flukey about it.
I think Randle proved that he could have one good season in the bubble, with no crowd in the stands ...but did that prove anything? It just proved that he could have that one good year. Once people got back into the arena he lost his lunch. Why? Because that is what he does. If you look at his entire body of work, its the same old story.
Same goes for Brunson, when given minutes, he's been the same efficient heady PG who continues to improve. He's never not improved and he's never lost his head the way Randy does constantly. He averaged those numbers with people in the stands, without Luka- to me that's pressure - sure Luka will come back - but playing in the game the pressure is there.
And I don't think he has to drop 20 and 8to be successful. He's not replacing prime CP3. We've had no one that fits the mold and by default even if he gives us 15-6 while playing solid PG that would be huge for us.
I'll use the Yankees vs Rays analogy here. There is no question that the Yankees have a deep team that has a lot of very good player. Same with the Rays. The difference is that the Yankees actually pay their very good players at or above value while the Rays find their best players and pay them well below value. That way the Rays can sustain their competitive edge despite having a tiny budget. Baseball has no hard cap. Basketball does. So when you factor in that contracts absolutely do matter in the NBA, the notion of giving a very good but not great player $20-23 million a year when the salary cap is still only about $110 million is a bit of a stretch for me. It's not about disagreeing that Brunson is a very good player. Rather it's about his value and what he may need to get signed and looking at how then do you build a team that can compete with said salary on the books. Again, folks were calling me crazy and saying I was over reacting about what the Knicks FO gave every single one of the guys they added (brought back) in the offseason. And now? Nobody's saying a thing right? Cause I was right and it matters.
spree2kawhi wrote:moocow007 wrote:RHODEY wrote:
None of this is a sure thing. There is no guaranteeing of anything - which is why he might be available. I agree 16 games isn't necessarily a long stint, but I do think is a long enough to be called a "significant" stretch - a stretch that occurred during a non bubble season. In those game he was the same Brunson, just with more minutes and responsibly. There was nothing flukey about it.
I think Randle proved that he could have one good season in the bubble, with no crowd in the stands ...but did that prove anything? It just proved that he could have that one good year. Once people got back into the arena he lost his lunch. Why? Because that is what he does. If you look at his entire body of work, its the same old story.
Same goes for Brunson, when given minutes, he's been the same efficient heady PG who continues to improve. He's never not improved and he's never lost his head the way Randy does constantly. He averaged those numbers with people in the stands, without Luka- to me that's pressure - sure Luka will come back - but playing in the game the pressure is there.
And I don't think he has to drop 20 and 8to be successful. He's not replacing prime CP3. We've had no one that fits the mold and by default even if he gives us 15-6 while playing solid PG that would be huge for us.
I'll use the Yankees vs Rays analogy here. There is no question that the Yankees have a deep team that has a lot of very good player. Same with the Rays. The difference is that the Yankees actually pay their very good players at or above value while the Rays find their best players and pay them well below value. That way the Rays can sustain their competitive edge despite having a tiny budget. Baseball has no hard cap. Basketball does. So when you factor in that contracts absolutely do matter in the NBA, the notion of giving a very good but not great player $20-23 million a year when the salary cap is still only about $110 million is a bit of a stretch for me. It's not about disagreeing that Brunson is a very good player. Rather it's about his value and what he may need to get signed and looking at how then do you build a team that can compete with said salary on the books. Again, folks were calling me crazy and saying I was over reacting about what the Knicks FO gave every single one of the guys they added (brought back) in the offseason. And now? Nobody's saying a thing right? Cause I was right and it matters.
Randle > Brunson. It’s sad but true.
Guano wrote:Fourni3r forgetting he has Bob cousy handles
Woodsanity wrote:Imagine trusting a team with World B Flat on it without Lebron keeping him in check.
RHODEY wrote:bleedblue3303 wrote:I was wondering if someone can explain to me our obsession with Jalen Brunson. Bruson is a good PG but is he that good that he takes us to the promised land? I'm starting to feel like we are setting ourselves up to overpay another 2nd or 3rd option. Jaden Ivey on the other hand seems like a cornerstone piece to build around. Shouldn't our goal be to get him at all costs.
Does this explain it?
RHODEY wrote:bleedblue3303 wrote:I was wondering if someone can explain to me our obsession with Jalen Brunson. Bruson is a good PG but is he that good that he takes us to the promised land? I'm starting to feel like we are setting ourselves up to overpay another 2nd or 3rd option. Jaden Ivey on the other hand seems like a cornerstone piece to build around. Shouldn't our goal be to get him at all costs.
Does this explain it?
