Knixkik wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Best thibs quote

“Obviously, player development is critical,’’ Thibodeau said. “But also, you can’t lose sight of the team development. So it’s not only the challenge of the player bringing the best out of himself, but also how does he bring the best out of the team? And the team has to be very high. It’s got to be at the top of the checklist. Everyone has to sacrifice for the good of the team. Winning is the most important thing. That’s why you’re here.”

How do you develop players by tanking, the question i always pose to the FO

Two coaches that I admire greatly once said "you can NEVER EVER develop players in a losing environment" (Popovich, Belichick) because it takes much longer to get rid of bad habits then it is to learn winning habits.. When I look at Frank, Knox, Mitch, and DSJ, this is a perfect example.

If you think a couple of OTA's is going to change that

There will be no gap year this year. They will make moves for Chris Paul or FVV, and possibly Gallinari. And if they win 35-40 games for the next couple of years, they will rely on drafting like Miami (Herro at 13 and Bam at 14) to build up their foundation of young building blocks.

So basically your saying the FO and coaching staff is only good enough to build a 35 to 40 win team.

What are you basing that on?

I'm just guessing we get better in the next couple of years (let's say 35 wins next year and 40 the following year) without knowing who will be on our team. I don't see us transforming to a 50 win team right away, again without knowing who's on the team. Without knowing anything about our roster over the next couple years, what's a reasonable projection for you? You don't think 35-40 wins is fair?

42-46 wins should be the target next season, especially with the flexibility the knicks have. If you want to saddle the roster with young players trying to figure it out, then expect to win 30/35 games, but that amounts to a possible 50 losses, not good for development as we have witness over and over

Lock on to 3 Quality building blocks, surround them with Veterans who want to win and take winning seriously every single game. Thats what good teams do, thats how good development works.

We have too many young players that have too many question marks and are just not that good, to add 3 more to the list in a weak ass draft..is that the route your suggesting?

That's exactly my plan. I believe if we lock into RJ, Mitch, and our 8th pick (Vassell?) than we have 3 major building blocks. Knox, Ntilikina, Smith, Brazdeikis, 27 and 38 are 6 other pieces who belong on the roster if none are moved, leaving 6 more spots on the open roster for vets. Randle (if he's not traded), Bullock, and Gibson I think are 3 relatively safe picks to come back as productive vets. So 3 more true difference making vets. Paul or FVV should be one. Then find 2 other guys on 1 year deals who can come in and fit better than most of last year's group. I don't think 42-46 wins is out of reach, but I think expecting to make the playoffs is premature until we really see who we add.

One yr deals are the worst (IMO) because these are the type of players that don't really care. Just think about our previous one yr deals, none of them had a real impact, some played selfish, and none were resign the next season, which is why Mills put (player/team)options all all the players he signed last season

We definitely have to wait to see how the roster unfolds to make a honest prediction, but if you get guys that fit the system, the development is much easier than hanging on to guys who don't and hoping one day they do

HofstraBBall wrote:Day 5

"Randle is a Pro's Pro"

"He can do a lot of things well" (On RJ)

I wish they had the ability to talk about possible trades or FA they are targeting..lol

unstopaball12 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:Thibs recent comments praising Randle leave me thinking we’re keeping him for now. I’ve done a 180 on this and am okay with that- i think he becomes a more attractive trade piece at the deadline (with his small guarantee next season), especially if we can show case him playing more efficiently for a few months with no spin moves.

Could be hyping him up, but if we build through mitch and rj, we gotta trade Randle.

I have no issues with Randle at all, with better ball handlers and shooters around him he can be a beast

smackeddog wrote:Thibs recent comments praising Randle leave me thinking we’re keeping him for now. I’ve done a 180 on this and am okay with that- i think he becomes a more attractive trade piece at the deadline (with his small guarantee next season), especially if we can show case him playing more efficiently for a few months with no spin moves.

Randle is only under contract one more season. I know he can’t shoot but he’s a good low post scorer and rebounder

Knixkik wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Best thibs quote

“Obviously, player development is critical,’’ Thibodeau said. “But also, you can’t lose sight of the team development. So it’s not only the challenge of the player bringing the best out of himself, but also how does he bring the best out of the team? And the team has to be very high. It’s got to be at the top of the checklist. Everyone has to sacrifice for the good of the team. Winning is the most important thing. That’s why you’re here.”

How do you develop players by tanking, the question i always pose to the FO

Two coaches that I admire greatly once said "you can NEVER EVER develop players in a losing environment" (Popovich, Belichick) because it takes much longer to get rid of bad habits then it is to learn winning habits.. When I look at Frank, Knox, Mitch, and DSJ, this is a perfect example.

If you think a couple of OTA's is going to change that

There will be no gap year this year. They will make moves for Chris Paul or FVV, and possibly Gallinari. And if they win 35-40 games for the next couple of years, they will rely on drafting like Miami (Herro at 13 and Bam at 14) to build up their foundation of young building blocks.

Recent drafts have shown you don’t need a top 3 pick to get a star. This year’s draft is no different. I’m not crazy about LaMelo and Wiseman reeks of Deandre Ayton

Compete next season with Paul, RJ, Mitch, Vassell
Or Nesmith and like you said Gallo or Melo at the 4

Also don’t be shocked if one of our picks from the Mavs ends up as a lottery pick. KP is never healthy and Luka’s ankle is going to continue to be a problem

TripleThreat wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Disagree. Feel Knick fans tend to overlook things based on preferential fan perception. Randle is viewed by the league as a good young talent.

That is not how most of the rest of the league sees Randle. I say "most" and not "all" because Michael Jordan is an idiot. Someone like Jordan might love Randle. Which might be the biggest indictment on Randle anyone could make.

If the Knicks could trade Randle just for cap relief today, they'd do it faster than the other team could hang up the phone. If a team with open cap space said, "Hey, I'll trade you the rights to some player with a name no one can pronounce and will never play in the NBA and we aren't sure we could fit his name onto a jersey anyway and he plays somewhere in Eastern Europe that we can't find on any map", the Knicks would strap Randle to a Hellfire missile and shoot him across the country to his new arena.

The only reason Randle will play hard now is to try to trick the Knicks into picking up his option year. He's got Erick Dampier disease, he's only going to care enough to get his next contract then proceed to loaf it some more.

Randle has improved year over year, since being drafted. With the exception of a slight decline in total pts/% with the Knicks last year. Easily explained by the Knicks factor, coaching and having a new role. He has also been pretty durable since the 2015 season. Averaging 77 games a season. Pretty good for a physical big man that does not avoid contact. Not to mention that he is only 25 and averaging close to a double double for his entire career. He is not getting traded for cap space this year. As much as most hate how he measures up to the Knick Eye test he is still valued by the league. Including the Knicks and from what it sounds like, Thibs. If given the proper role I think he is much more than a Cap space clearing asset. Randle was the best player on the team last year. You take the need to make him a ball handler or main decision maker and he will be a solid contributor. I hope we keep him and he improves next year.

I also don't get the fans that constantly talk about picking up a young talented prospect. Only to give up on them, once signed, after just one year. Just because they show the need for further development.

TripleThreat wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Randle has improved year over year, since being drafted. ...
I also don't get the fans that constantly talk about picking up a young talented prospect. Only to give up on them, once signed, after just one year. Just because they show the need for further development.

He has improved his counting stats. What he has not improved on are the parts of his game that are deficient that are the areas that functional NBA front offices desire the most. ( He's not giving you defense, rim protection nor elite long range shooting)

Randle is outside his prime developmental window. He's shown 95 percent of what he will be the rest of his career already. To be fair, maybe Thibs can get into his head and he will be the 1 in 10,000 chance of some kind of career reformatting. It just isn't likely. I want to fair as well that he entered free agency when the market collapsed on free agents and his rookie contract timeline hit the Lakers during a transitional period. But it's not like teams were lining up to sign him.

He'd be a strong value if he was making 6 million a year, but he's making way more than that.

Anyone who wears a Knicks jersey, I want them to succeed if they buy in and play the right way. But the most important factor is getting wins for the team and generating wins for the long haul. Randle doesn't do that.

The Knicks talent situation is such that they have massive incentive to "churn" anyone not named RJ or MRob. The only reason Randle is still here is he has no real trade market. Which means market forces dictate that he's not that young and not that talented in the eyes of other teams.

It pains me to say this but the Knicks have one of the worst talent bases in the current NBA. The Hornets are pretty bad too but it's not a very rosy situation. Right now Randle is a roster tax.

Since he's probably stuck here, I do hope Thibs can dig into his head.

That's one of the most ridiculous statements i have heard regarding Randle. First of all the trading deadline was 6 months ago, It's bad enough Mills was an idiot, but he would look even more ridiculous, more dysfunctional if he tried to trade "his top acquisition" 90 days after signing him.

Randle is BY FAR the best player on the knicks roster, it's not his fault that the head coach and his staff completely misguide him, it's not his fault that the FO went out and added players that didn't complement each other and had the worst chemistry.

If he played bad, what does that say about the rest of the roster that played even worse. Its been well documented that Randle has improved every season since he got in the league, can't say that about any of the knicks young players.

TripleThreat wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Guess Knicks missed old Nate's model. They paid 3 times more. .... Now trying to spin it like ANYONE said he was a top complete all around NBA player.

.... because he can not also rim protect, shoot the 3 and defend.

.... are elite rim protectors, elite 3pt shooters, and excellent defenders? ....

TripleThreat wrote:He has improved his counting stats. What he has not improved on are the parts of his game that are deficient that are the areas that functional NBA front offices desire the most. ( He's not giving you defense, rim protection nor elite long range shooting)

I didn't say Randle needed to be an elite rim protector. I also didn't say Randle needed to be an elite defender. I am saying if a modern NBA big is not giving you those things

The Knicks are currently going to try to build around RJB and MRob.

Nate Silver's RAPTOR doesn't have to actually take into consideration the circumstances of an NBA GM.

You are demanding answers to the wrong questions. You focus on blame (i.e. how can one make Randle look less bad by blaming his teammates, his coach, the franchise, Teletubbies, 7/11 nachos, old Sega Genesis cartridges, focusing on things NBA front offices don't care about, etc). I focus on accountability ( i.e. is he providing efficient value relative to his overall cost and considering actual current market forces at work).

Here are the questions that matter

What do I look for when I watch Randle (i.e. eye test)?

Typical response. A whole bunch of redundant fluff that does not address the original discussion. Still trying to make it about Randle's being a complete player. Who is arguing that" I probably have a better more negative break down of what I saw last year. But glad that you agree old Nate's formula has nothing to do with a real world NBA FO. Btw, I did not say anything about nachos, genesis games or know much about teletubbies. But I am sure you are probably an expert on those as well. I did bring up Fizdale but only to remind you that Randle's "HUGE" drop in numbers and bad "Eye Test" may have something to do with our intelligent coach asking him to take on the role that most would agree is not for Randle. Seems relevant? But hey, feel free to continue to bring up, any interweb blogger's opinion that has never played basketball, multiple Berman takes, closet salary gurus and your advanced hand picked analytics that ignore those that oppose your view. You do know that you can find weaknesses in just about EVERY player to make an "Eye test" seem true?

Oh and DOUBLE DOUBLES. Still waiting on the proof that Double doubles are par for the course? Triple doubles? The problem is that you just cant accept that your take, eye test is just an opinion. And you know what they say about those. You come off as an insider whose take is nothing more. You try to use hand picked statistical data to make your opinion seem absolute. Yet you dismiss any other stat that does not suit your opinion. No worries. Still like the back and forth. Talking **** about the Knicks is always welcomed.

Once again:

Topic of discussion: You said he is not worth more than cap space relief, despite averaging close to a DD, because he can not also rim protect, shoot the 3 and defend.

Still waiting on MY questions related to our original discussion:

1)Name the NBA players at 25 that have averaged a DD, are elite rim protectors, elite 3pt shooters, and excellent defenders? How many do we have on the Knicks or had an opportunity to sign?

2) Name the 25 year olds who have averaged close to a DD for their careers, are recent free agents and who make $6 Million a year?

Btw. Already mentioned the problem with most amateur arm chair GM's. They base their decisions on small sample sizes but mostly skewed eye tests and personal opinions. While ignoring common sense and statistics. Please don't get into this until you answers my questions above but why do you think RJ and Robinson are who the Knicks should build around? Is you analytic machine broken on those two?

TripleThreat wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:.... I probably have a better more negative break down of what I saw last year...... I did bring up Fizdale but only to remind you that Randle's "HUGE" drop in numbers and bad "Eye Test" may have something to do with our intelligent coach asking him to take on the role that most would agree is not for Randle. Seems relevant? ..... Still like the back and forth......They base their decisions on small sample sizes but mostly skewed eye tests and personal opinions. While ignoring common sense and statistics. Please don't get into this until you answers my questions above but why do you think RJ and Robinson are who the Knicks should build around?

You are actually asking me if the Knicks are currently going to try to build around RJ Barrett and Mitchell Robinson?

There is no back and forth here. You are repeating the same questions that have no relevance to Randle and his contract

I don't post to convince you, you clearly have no desire to explore my bull**** babble that tries to fool others that I have front office insight.
Post things like RAPTOR, usage rates, middle class contracts, positional value, analytics to dodge a simple question. FIXED

Giants Suck! Now back to this.

Does Nate's system teach reading comprehension? Your so anxious express repetitive and off tangent points that it limits your reading comprehension.

Topic of discussion: You said he is not worth more than cap space relief, despite averaging close to a DD, because he can not also rim protect, shoot the 3 and defend.

Still waiting on MY questions related to our original discussion:

1)Name the NBA players at 25 that have averaged a DD, are elite rim protectors, elite 3pt shooters, and excellent defenders? How many do we have on the Knicks or had an opportunity to sign?

2) Name the 25 year olds who have averaged close to a DD for their careers, are recent free agents and who make $6 Million a year?

I'll be happy to discuss all the other points of discussion once you answer.

For a guy that has such insight to NBA front offices, it should be easy. You do know the main variables which make up "market value" right?
(Clue: It's not the Raptor system)