This is what the depth chart looked like at the end of the year. The second unit outperformed the first by a lot raising the honest question of what value the SL actually has.

Solely up to me, I would probably look to find a new home for Randle and Fournier. And possibly Barrett. I am a fan of Randle’s, but his reliance on 18 foot fadeaway jumpers just isn’t what I want from a PF. To stick with him, I would want to see his passing improve and see a resurgence of the 3pt. 40% from 3 Randle is an all star. 33% from 3 and sub .500 eFG Randle is a benchwarmer.

Unfortunately, even as Barrett’s strongest advocate, the same rules apply to Barrett. Need to pass better and finish better. He is younger so he gets more leeway, but right now his upside is Wiggins unless he can improve his game. It’s the problem with drafting skill players over athletes. Not every athlete develops, but a skill player that can’t finish is in the second unit.

Fournier’s defense is just not good enough for a playoff team. Not sure if he can develop defense. His shooting and eFG are legitimate talents, I just don’t think his offense makes up for his defense.

I won’t try and predict what exactly we get back for these guys. I would give Barrett another season depending on if we can trade up in the draft.

I think a move with Houston - Randle for Wood makes a bit of sense. They have some young bugs but are rumored to be going after Banchero in the draft, a young Randle. I would see something like Gordon/Wood for Randle/Fournier being a good swap for us. I think Woods versatility at C could be useful when we need more offense. Rose always wanted to play with Gordon since their AAU days and I think he is the kind of aging player that is fine to have on your roster. Those vets will eventually become the third unit but can still add value to the team.

I’m offering Barrett to Sacramento for Justin Holiday and the 4 pick. Need to balance the salaries.

At 4, FO has to choose between Ivey and Sharpe. I’m gonna go with Sharpe, but I don’t think you can go wrong here.

At 11, I am sticking with Eason.

With the MLE, I am looking for a backup PF

It’s a lot of changes without really adding a big name. But sometime subtraction is addition. See Boston Celtics

McBride/IQ/Rose /(#42 2Way)
Sharpe/Grimes/Gordon
Holiday/Burks/Eason
Woods/Toppin/(MLE)
Robinson/Noel/ Gibson/ Sims

This team isn’t exactly there yet, still could use a PG. could see it easy to consolidate this into some star power.

Every rotation spot is open running into camp. There are a ton of different looks the Knicks can put on the floor.

IQ/Sharpe/Eason/Toppin/Woods could jump through the ceiling and put close to 7’ feet of wingspan at every position.

McBride/Grimes/Holiday/Eason/Robinson would be a pretty lockdown defensive unit.

Rose/Gordon/Burks/Gibson/Noel would be the old guy unit. That team has grit.

IQ/Sharpe/Burks/Toppin/Wood would shoot pretty well from 3.

It’s a lot of action to make those moves, not sure Houston takes back that much salary, but it would be interesting.

If we could trade him for the #4 pick, I like that deal because it buys us more time to build our winner before we're capped out and unable to move guys.

Knixkik wrote:

franco12 wrote:we don't talk enough about it- but RJ is due a big payday and not entirely sure I want to give it to him.

If we could trade him for the #4 pick, I like that deal because it buys us more time to build our winner before we're capped out and unable to move guys.

I can’t support trading Barrett for a draft pick. It’s just kicking the can down the road. We have a foundation and need to continue to build it. Look how well he played in the second half of the year. If you trade him for a pick that doesn’t net a superstar it crushes the franchise another 10 years and in the meantime the Knicks lose any respect they gained with players and agents by trading their best players over and over. At some point we have to commit to something. What happened if the Celtics broke up Tatum, brown and smart when everyone was telling them it wasn’t working ? Need to have a commitment to something.

I agree. I like Ewing Glass idea of trading for picks 2-7 for one of those two players. But Id like it to be an asset backed trade(pick 11 dalass 1 knicks future 1 and choice of grimes or rokas for picks 2-7
The guys I want to keep
Mitch Obi IQ RJ I dont want to mess with those 4. You need some continuity. Add in Ivey or Sharpe with those 4

franco12 wrote:we don't talk enough about it- but RJ is due a big payday and not entirely sure I want to give it to him.

If we could trade him for the #4 pick, I like that deal because it buys us more time to build our winner before we're capped out and unable to move guys.

Its all ok until the Ivy or Sharpe need 3 years of growth. I get the concept but its trading RJ for "Hope". and that hope has its risks as well.
RJ does have another season to show his monetary value. Im fine with him getting 25-30mm per at age 21 for 4 years with a team option. That might be a player option and we may all be off base to what his value via trade or open market.
For what its worth, he was given the keys last year and he did some very cool things with it. Consistency is the next step.

If you like the guy, you see it one way.
if you looking for reasons to snub, then one sees it another.
There is an extensive brain trust to our FO. I trust them more than my opinion and anyone on these pages.
Fact is this is not an easy business!!!

Randle is the player I would move, but not for Wood. Wood has played on 6 teams, and he had some issues in Houston (team #6) this past season which tells me he is still not mature and I do not want to inject his traits into the core that I mentioned above. If possible, I would try to move Randle and 11 for a lotto pick (Portland? Sac-Town?). We've done a good job of drafting in the back end of the 1st round (Quick, Grimes), and I would love to see what we can do in the upper half of the lotto.

Knixkik wrote:

franco12 wrote:we don't talk enough about it- but RJ is due a big payday and not entirely sure I want to give it to him.

If we could trade him for the #4 pick, I like that deal because it buys us more time to build our winner before we're capped out and unable to move guys.

I can’t support trading Barrett for a draft pick. It’s just kicking the can down the road. We have a foundation and need to continue to build it. Look how well he played in the second half of the year. If you trade him for a pick that doesn’t net a superstar it crushes the franchise another 10 years and in the meantime the Knicks lose any respect they gained with players and agents by trading their best players over and over. At some point we have to commit to something. What happened if the Celtics broke up Tatum, brown and smart when everyone was telling them it wasn’t working ? Need to have a commitment to something.

You insinuating that RJ Barrett is a Superstar? Right now, I see him as a regular basketball player with "potential"...and if the Knicks trade him for a top 4 pick, we would just be swapping him for another player with "potential".

The Celtic example is a poor one, btw. I don't recall ANY ONE ever suggesting to break up Tatum and Brown. Both have consistently STAR potential the moment they both stepped on a NBA court

HofstraBBall wrote:Good talking points.
Did second unit really play better than first?
IQ was horrible I'm the first half. Grimes came along later in the season. Obi came along the last month. Rose was hurt.

Boston is now in the finals with Smart, Brown and Tatum. They did that with patience and developing them to be some of the better players in the league. Hortford also was a key pick up. If left up to the genius Boston fans, this team would have been broken up at the All Star break.

IMHO, the idea of rinse, repeat, knee jerk is what had us where we were prior to this FO taking over.
Laughing stocks of the NBA.
Their approach of patience is refreshing and is what is needed to build a program/franchise.
Stay the path by picking up a solid FA, drafting well and by letting guys play together longer than several months.

Yes. Second unit played better than the first. Your qualitative statements are not backed by the stats.

https://www.nba.com/stats/lineups/advanced/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612752&sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&CF=MIN*GE*10

This is the Plus Minus for all 5 player units that spent more than 10 minutes on the floor together this season. You pretty much have to aggregate everything other than the only two starting units that spent 400 minutes each on the floor together (Walker/Fournier/Barrett/Randle/Robinson = -13.8) and (Burks/Fournier/Barrett/Randle/Robinson = 0). Meaning, swapping Burks for Walker made the unit a Net 0 squad. The hallmark of the second unit is IQ/Toppin with a lot of in between units as they subbed in 1 or 2 at a time. You will not find many Net Negative units with Quickley and Toppin on the floor at the same time.

My point is that the SL (even with Burks instead of Walker) was ineffective at best. The second unit was generally effective when Toppin and Quickley were on the floor together. I think there is a strong argument to break up the starting unit.

To your second point, Celtics broke up their failing starting unit to remove Walker and Fournier last season. They switched coaches and GM. I didn't advocate breaking the squad up mid-year. I did advocate playing the youths, who I deem better players, more minutes.

Now it is the offseason and I think it is appropriate to cut the underperformers and make room for the players with better fundamentals and upside.

If a team is not working you need to make changes.

If I can get 5 years of Sharpe at the Rookie Scale contract vs 1 more year of RJ before we have to make a decision on paying him, I am taking Sharpe (or Ivey) and kicking the can down the road. Keep building that core and growing from within.

I think my willingness to question our commitment to Randle and Barrett is based solely in their eFG. At this point, if you had a 1 year option that Barrett would become a star player (like Tatum) before having to choose between paying him 25mm per or accepting whatever anyone gave you in return vs having a 5 year option on Sharpe/Ivey, I think you have to take the time, no?

Put differently, what makes you think that Barrett will increase his eFG from .466 next season? Is it a bigger gamble to make that bet or to start fresh with a 5 year option? I was a huge advocate to give Barrett that shot versus the garbage shots Randle was chucking, but Barrett isn't passing or finishing with any exceptional acumen. Not married to either player, so let's see what our options are.

Uptown wrote:I mentioned in another thread during the season that it's difficult to win, consistently, when your two highest usage players are inefficient. I don't think we need to move both, but at some point, management needs to make a decision. I like the fit of RJ, IQ, Obi and Mitch and it gives us a baseline to work with as we continue to build this team.

Randle is the player I would move, but not for Wood. Wood has played on 6 teams, and he had some issues in Houston (team #6) this past season which tells me he is still not mature and I do not want to inject his traits into the core that I mentioned above. If possible, I would try to move Randle and 11 for a lotto pick (Portland? Sac-Town?). We've done a good job of drafting in the back end of the 1st round (Quick, Grimes), and I would love to see what we can do in the upper half of the lotto.

I kind of saw 1 year of Wood as dropping the contracts of Fournier and Randle. Moving back to core youth and athleticism. You nail the analysis on inefficiency. I can't see the Knicks winning more than they lose with guys that aren't scoring well.

Randle was a net negative with every player, according to basketball references 2 man lineups, except IQ. I think a lot of that is the Kemba effect from early in the season, but the important point is that when he played with a league average PG the Knicks played well.

I like the points about RJ, he is an inefficient scorer. The state I can't find is how many RJ misses at the cup were converted by Robinson as offensive rebounds and putbacks. I'm sure the Knicks have those numbers. Those aren't qualified as assists, even though they are better than them because you are getting 2 shot attempts.

For what it's worth, the pain of going through another rebuild is too great for me. I think the fact that this team continued fighting all season means something. Knicks lost 7 games to OKC, Indiana, and Orlando. Those mental lapses were what sunk the season.

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Good talking points.
Did second unit really play better than first?
IQ was horrible I'm the first half. Grimes came along later in the season. Obi came along the last month. Rose was hurt.

Boston is now in the finals with Smart, Brown and Tatum. They did that with patience and developing them to be some of the better players in the league. Hortford also was a key pick up. If left up to the genius Boston fans, this team would have been broken up at the All Star break.

IMHO, the idea of rinse, repeat, knee jerk is what had us where we were prior to this FO taking over.
Laughing stocks of the NBA.
Their approach of patience is refreshing and is what is needed to build a program/franchise.
Stay the path by picking up a solid FA, drafting well and by letting guys play together longer than several months.

Yes. Second unit played better than the first. Your qualitative statements are not backed by the stats.

https://www.nba.com/stats/lineups/advanced/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612752&sort=NET_RATING&dir=1&CF=MIN*GE*10

This is the Plus Minus for all 5 player units that spent more than 10 minutes on the floor together this season. You pretty much have to aggregate everything other than the only two starting units that spent 400 minutes each on the floor together (Walker/Fournier/Barrett/Randle/Robinson = -13.8) and (Burks/Fournier/Barrett/Randle/Robinson = 0). Meaning, swapping Burks for Walker made the unit a Net 0 squad. The hallmark of the second unit is IQ/Toppin with a lot of in between units as they subbed in 1 or 2 at a time. You will not find many Net Negative units with Quickley and Toppin on the floor at the same time.

My point is that the SL (even with Burks instead of Walker) was ineffective at best. The second unit was generally effective when Toppin and Quickley were on the floor together. I think there is a strong argument to break up the starting unit.

To your second point, Celtics broke up their failing starting unit to remove Walker and Fournier last season. They switched coaches and GM. I didn't advocate breaking the squad up mid-year. I did advocate playing the youths, who I deem better players, more minutes.

Now it is the offseason and I think it is appropriate to cut the underperformers and make room for the players with better fundamentals and upside.

If a team is not working you need to make changes.

If I can get 5 years of Sharpe at the Rookie Scale contract vs 1 more year of RJ before we have to make a decision on paying him, I am taking Sharpe (or Ivey) and kicking the can down the road. Keep building that core and growing from within.

I think my willingness to question our commitment to Randle and Barrett is based solely in their eFG. At this point, if you had a 1 year option that Barrett would become a star player (like Tatum) before having to choose between paying him 25mm per or accepting whatever anyone gave you in return vs having a 5 year option on Sharpe/Ivey, I think you have to take the time, no?

Put differently, what makes you think that Barrett will increase his eFG from .466 next season? Is it a bigger gamble to make that bet or to start fresh with a 5 year option? I was a huge advocate to give Barrett that shot versus the garbage shots Randle was chucking, but Barrett isn't passing or finishing with any exceptional acumen. Not married to either player, so let's see what our options are.

A couple of things about ratings you posted. One, those typically diminish as sample size increases. Two, it has Deuce, Cam and Sims as the best rated line up. They barely played? It also has Randle and EF as part of the second most efficient line up. Yet you claim they need to go? You are suggesting the Knicks make SL decisions based on this?

In regards to the Celtics and how impatient fans were calling for them to be broken up. I was referring to this year at the All Star break. NOT last year. Just pointing out that fans think quick changes are always best instead of letting things play out with a reasonable timeframe.

You want to cut the underperformers for ones with better upside? Great. Who are they?
Upside is purely a judgemental call. Underperformers are statistically proven.
EF just made more three pointers in Knick history. Underperformer?
Mitch just became one of 4 players in NBA history to block 450 shots and shoot 55% in his first 230 games. Underperformer?
Randle posted his 4th year in a row of plus 20 and close to 10 rebounds per. Underperformer?
RJ posted his highest scoring average in 3 years. Over 20ppg. Underperformer?

Just think fans have no patience. Happy this FO has shown a higher aptitude to building the right way. And imo it's not by changing SL's based on limited data, speculation or because a player has some struggles for short stretches. I also recognize how important continuity is in building a competitive team. I see the FO continue to make small changes via FA, building through draft and being patient with players that have showed success at the NBA level. While still keeping an eye out for the availability of a deal that is a true difference maker.

No. I don't think you understand these stats. Compare the 400 minutes for each of the starting lineups vs the aggregate of all other lineups. Not any one specific lineup. No other lineup had more than 89 minutes together total. Might be easier to see if you sort by minutes played. If you only look at the two top starting units, you can see that they stink. This doesn't presume that the McBride Reddish line would rate Plus-97 on a season. That's just bad analysis.

As a coach, I assume you understand that every other lineup other than the starting lineup is in the context of gameplay and and would modify the rotation every couple minutes and players are subbed in (and out). So you will not find another lineup that approaches the 900 or so minutes the starters played. But you can look for IQ and Toppin in 10 different lineups of 50 minutes each and get a sense of how they do when they are on the floor.

My point is that neither of the two starting lineups were effective on a purely analytical level. I do not suggest that they should start Reddish. If you look at every other lineup, specifically those with IQ and Toppin, they are generally net positive lineups. This suggests that changes should be considered. The Kemba/Burks swap was effective to get the team back to net-zero. Now they need another change to get to net-positive. Or they can mire in mediocrity. If good coaching is leaving ineffective units on the floor for close to 900 minutes, well, color me amused.

In terms of the weird stats you use to make it sound like the starting lineup is good:

EF's offense doesn't make up for his defense. So yes, his 12.3 PER is well below average for an NBA starter. Or the fact that he consistently gets the easiest defensive assignments and doesn't do well with them. Don't make me go back to the defense dashboard...

Mitch Robinson is great. I never propose moving him in any of my threads. In fact, I give arguments all over this site why he should get paid.

RJ only scored more because he took more shots. His 40% FG% is among the worst among scoring leaders. https://www.nba.com/stats/leaders/?Season=2021-22&SeasonType=Regular%20Season. Only J FVV shot worse than RJB in the top 50 scorers. So yeah. Underperform.

Randle was great in 20/21 but was pretty bad this year. I could see Randle recovering to be a good player, but man, he can't be "the man" playing the way he did. This might just be who Randle is. But I do see Toppin trying to crawl out of his shadow and something has to change, so I am looking at Randle.

My higher upside players are McBride (who reminds me of a younger Marcus Smart), Obi Toppin (who reminds me a bit of Shawn Marion), I love Shaeden Sharpe and want to make a move for him. I'm not sold on IQ but am curious what he could do with starter minutes.

I guess the question is, how many more minutes do you want to have a Net-Zero or worse starting lineup? Or do you think they are doing really well with their low efficiency shots and their porous defense? Isn't the offseason the perfect time to address these issues?

Would agree that we need guys that are better two way players. And that EF can't play defense. My only point with EF is that we needed someone who can hit the three. He did that. Who expected defense? Think Grimes will do both. Do not think having EF will affect Grimes eventually taking over. If we can find assets for EF I'm okay with it. Obi is a different story. Just do not think Obi can be a starter or replace Randle. Obi thus far has only shown he can dunk and has a lot of energy. His shot is real bad and he has not shown the ability to create. Think he will improve though.
As for RJ, I would not give up on a recent lottery pick who has shown what RJ has shown. Closest thing to the Celtics giving up on one of their yoots. Saying Deuce is like Smart is a bigger stretch. He has yet to earn considerable minutes. Puzzling given the need last season. We can blame Thibs but maybe there is more there. Hoping he breaks out this year.
I really like IQ. He has proven he can play at a high level. He loves the stage and pressure. Think if he is given the chance to start he will only get better.

Look, it's obvious we need to improve on the 20/21 season. Not sure if our second unit guys who had better +/- are the answer. I am just preaching some patience. Think that those looking to trade most of our players should consider other issues and that any player traded for will have deficiencies as well. I may defend our players too much but that's because most fail to recognize their potential and attributes. They also rarely have a better alternative besides the next unproven hope.

If there is a deal in which we can get better, I am all for it. I think this FO will make the right moves. Including not dumping players for an unequal return.
Know many on here think Randle is my favorite player. Actually do not like a lot of what he does. Just think it's hard to find a guy with his size, age, ability and proven production. But like I said, all for any deal that makes us better.
Don't know if trading him for a chance at a high draft pick would be that though. As we have seen, it is really hard to play the draft game.