But whatever hope you're right man.

NYKMentality wrote:Did Evan Fournier make the Magic better? Did he make the Celtics better? I just don't see how he's an upgrade over Reggie Bullock when he's always injured and plays below average Defense?

But whatever hope you're right man.

He was a 2nd option on a low level playoff team. Take it for what it’s worth. In Boston he had Covid and came alive in playoffs. Was their second guy.

Knixkik wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I could see the plan with resigning our guys but don't understand the doubling our spending to replace Bullock with Fournier...

Fournier is a much better player. We needed another player who can shoot and create offense. Bullock took the full MLE from another team over 3 years, which many here didn’t believe he would get anywhere near. You take Fournier 10/10 times in this scenario. He’s younger and more dangerous at what matters. You miss the Bullock defense but can add a defensive stopper still with remaining cap space or the over the cap exception.

I wouldn't say Fournier is a MUCH better player. I don't see him adding a lot more wins. He's a step up from JAG. They need more pieces. if I had to choose between Reggie's Bullock and Jackson or Fournier, I would choose the Reggies. He's not even that much younger than Reggie. I'll hold off passing judgement on tonight until things play out, but I'm underwhelmed so far.

BigDaddyG wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I could see the plan with resigning our guys but don't understand the doubling our spending to replace Bullock with Fournier...

Fournier is a much better player. We needed another player who can shoot and create offense. Bullock took the full MLE from another team over 3 years, which many here didn’t believe he would get anywhere near. You take Fournier 10/10 times in this scenario. He’s younger and more dangerous at what matters. You miss the Bullock defense but can add a defensive stopper still with remaining cap space or the over the cap exception.

I wouldn't say Fournier is a MUCH better player. I don't see him adding a lot more wins. He's a step up from JAG. They need more pieces. if I had to choose between Reggie's Bullock and Jackson or Fournier, I would choose the Reggies. He's not even that much younger than Reggie. I'll hold off passing judgement on tonight until things play out, but I'm underwhelmed so far.

Yeah I agree he doesn’t add a lot of wins. He just makes them more dangerous.

TheGame wrote:Essentially, the Knicks told Thibbs, you wanted these guys (Rose, McBride, and Grimes), well we got them, so go play them and win.

The other aspect of these deals is that Burks’s deal may be tradeable at the deadline to a team needing a third scorer. We might be able to pull another Morris like move and trade Burks for a late first rounder.

with top 18 protection converting to a post card from San Diego in 5 years?

Lonzo was a steal at $21MM and went to a team that in direct competition with us. Fits are time line and two needs.

I would have rather payed him and Holmes. That’s how you improve.

Not signing guys to 3 year deals.

Our best player we still don’t know about, can he perform when the building is packed? Unclear.

Your entire future rests on Obi, IQ, Mitch and RJ developing. If anyone thinks we executed a plan today we did not.

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I could see the plan with resigning our guys but don't understand the doubling our spending to replace Bullock with Fournier...

Fournier is a much better player. We needed another player who can shoot and create offense. Bullock took the full MLE from another team over 3 years, which many here didn’t believe he would get anywhere near. You take Fournier 10/10 times in this scenario. He’s younger and more dangerous at what matters. You miss the Bullock defense but can add a defensive stopper still with remaining cap space or the over the cap exception.

I have zero clue what Fournier does on D but I've always thought Bullock D was average at best

I thought Bullock was pretty solid last year - sometimes very good. Certainly better than Burks and pretty sure better vs Fournier.

This makes me think Burks was signed to be packaged in s/t but maybe Knicks valued the off the bounce fame of Burke’s more — I’m dazed and confused right now.

LivingLegend wrote:

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:I could see the plan with resigning our guys but don't understand the doubling our spending to replace Bullock with Fournier...

Fournier is a much better player. We needed another player who can shoot and create offense. Bullock took the full MLE from another team over 3 years, which many here didn’t believe he would get anywhere near. You take Fournier 10/10 times in this scenario. He’s younger and more dangerous at what matters. You miss the Bullock defense but can add a defensive stopper still with remaining cap space or the over the cap exception.

I have zero clue what Fournier does on D but I've always thought Bullock D was average at best

I thought Bullock was pretty solid last year - sometimes very good. Certainly better than Burks and pretty sure better vs Fournier.

This makes me think Burks was signed to be packaged in s/t but maybe Knicks valued the off the bounce fame of Burke’s more — I’m dazed and confused right now.

Burks and Fournier bring significantly more to the table offensively than Bullock because they can actually dribble, so I see the logic behind choosing them.

This is underwhelming for sure, but the Knicks feel like the playoff pursuit and winning games is the best way to develop their young rotation and it's hard to argue against the logic that being a good player on a good team is different than being a good player on a bad team. The other side of the coin is that th deals for Fournier, Burks and Noel could be moved for assets or as filler for a star talent if it becomes available.