martin wrote:Portland fans: Why draft MJ to be a back-up to Clyde Drexler? Doesn't the FO have a plan??!

Also Portland fans: Why bother to keep that Drazen Petrovic scrub. I know he barely even plays behind Clyde Drexler, but we should sell low and trade him for a 36 yo Walter Davis and some bums who will never see the floor.

Uptown wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Randle said flat out he was consulted before hiring thibs. Randle is both Kentucky and CAA so he’s double royalty in Knickland at this point. He has emerged into a star but was clearly getting some star treatment back in the summer. So why draft Toppin? He’s CAA and from NY so that’s good, but there has to be more of a plan here. Is the plan eventually to use he and Randle together a lot ? Or was this simply getting the BPA and not worrying about figuring the rest out ? I wish our media would do more of a deep dive into this.

dont over think it... its a BPA situation and Obi is a scorer on a roster with very little scoring talent.

Randle has been great and that is great. Its a good problem to have. Obi has a lot to learn and this roster is in its EARLY stages. This is all still about getting players.

This offseason everyone BUT the FO wanted Randle gone. I said I thought we would keep him based on what you mentioned above and there was no reason to sell low.

We dont need a plan at PF. We have Randle/Obi locked up this year and next. One is an all star, the other a rookie with great scoring potential.

The plan is what are we doing at PG and SF

I believe the FO was trying to move Jules for the right price. There was no rush because he was on a team option and it wouldn't hurt to have a vet to smooth Obi in slowly. I think it's safe to say that no one expected JR to improve the way he did and for Obi to start off this slowly. Everyone projected Obi to be a plug and play guy who's be in the ROY race. It's not a bad situation to be in. You can slam scouting for having Obi rated to high, but they also got great value for IQ. Maybe you can blame Leon for the Obi pick? He was reportedly Obi's biggest cheerleader before the draft. Anyway, PF is the least of this teams problems right now. They've got Jules back for $20M on the team option and he's playing nearly 40 mins a game. I'm more interested in the team's plan for OG.

It may be that simple. The CAA connection and the fact that Obi apparently worked out with Rick Brunson, a close friend and former client of Leon. Definitely feels like a Leon pick. Like you said, with Randle playing like an all-star and with the strong possibility of Randle being extended next summer, it's looking like we used our 8th pick on our future a back-up PF.

Haliburton is CAA too.

That's what happens when you draft talent over fit (thats why im so opposed to that)

Knixkik wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Toppin doesn't fit the system we play in, so you have to spend about 2 to 3 yrs getting him acclimated.

That's what happens when you draft talent over fit (thats why im so opposed to that)

From a fit standpoint it was probably Vassell (also CAA). His stats aren't anything to write home but he's going to be a good player. Like a better version of Bullock.

The problem with (he's going to be a good player) is when will that happen, and will he still be on the team that drafted him, because in most cases he won't.

I have a hard time believing players will be on the same team for more than 3 or 4 yrs, unless he's franchise material.

knicks1248 wrote:Toppin doesn't fit the system we play in, so you have to spend about 2 to 3 yrs getting him acclimated.

That's what happens when you draft talent over fit (thats why im so opposed to that)

He was projected to be able to fit most offensive systems. Nearly every draft pundit had him as one of the ROY candidates. The problem is that scouts were off, Randle came to play this season and Thibs is hard on rookies to begin with. If Obi's offense was as developed as advertised, I think the Knicks could find a more consistent role for him. Again, not really a problem because Randle soaks up close to 40 mins a night.

fishmike wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Toppin doesn't fit the system we play in, so you have to spend about 2 to 3 yrs getting him acclimated.

That's what happens when you draft talent over fit (thats why im so opposed to that)

From a fit standpoint it was probably Vassell (also CAA). His stats aren't anything to write home but he's going to be a good player. Like a better version of Bullock.

The problem with (he's going to be a good player) is when will that happen, and will he still be on the team that drafted him, because in most cases he won't.

I have a hard time believing players will be on the same team for more than 3 or 4 yrs, unless he's franchise material.

except you tend to be completely wrong with both talent AND fit

Nooo...it's more like , You wish I was wrong.

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:You guys are acting like Toppin would've fallen to the second round if the Knicks didn't draft him where we drafted him and that his connection with CAA was the only reason we selected him. And remember, reportedly the Knicks weren't that thrilled with Randle after his first season. Why selecting Toppin suddenly doesn't make sense is 100% hindsight and short sighted. We're 31 games into the dude's career. Relax.

No one is doubting Toppin as a player. Realistically he would have been drafted immediately after us at 9 or 10 probably. I'm high on him and think he will be very good, as most are here. I'm just asking simply if the front office was treating Randle like their franchise player prior to the draft (consulting him about coaching decisions, etc) than Toppin was a strange pick, unless they believe Toppin's best position will be center, which is entirely possible. It's the same reason Minn or GS didn't draft Ball, because they believe positionally it didn't make sense. Right or wrong, teams typically draft with their best players in mind no matter how good (GS) or bad (Minnesota) they are.

You don't draft based on need unless your two highest rated prospects are graded equally. For argument sake, if the Knicks had Toppin rated at 92 and (let's say) Haliburton rated as a 89, you don't go with the lesser rated prospect because you need a point guard. You draft your highest rated prospect even if he plays the same position as your best player.

Minnesota and Golden State didn't draft Ball because they thought Edwards and Wiseman had the more upside and less risk. Whether they were right remains to be seen.

It's known that Minnesota didn't draft Ball because of the presence of Russell. It was all about fit there. Most of these teams had Ball as the highest ranked player. I agree though Toppin was also the highest rated player on the board, although i think Haliburton was close. Up until Chicago fell in love with Williams, it was assumed Toppin and Haliburton were 4 and 5 on most boards.

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:You guys are acting like Toppin would've fallen to the second round if the Knicks didn't draft him where we drafted him and that his connection with CAA was the only reason we selected him. And remember, reportedly the Knicks weren't that thrilled with Randle after his first season. Why selecting Toppin suddenly doesn't make sense is 100% hindsight and short sighted. We're 31 games into the dude's career. Relax.

No one is doubting Toppin as a player. Realistically he would have been drafted immediately after us at 9 or 10 probably. I'm high on him and think he will be very good, as most are here. I'm just asking simply if the front office was treating Randle like their franchise player prior to the draft (consulting him about coaching decisions, etc) than Toppin was a strange pick, unless they believe Toppin's best position will be center, which is entirely possible. It's the same reason Minn or GS didn't draft Ball, because they believe positionally it didn't make sense. Right or wrong, teams typically draft with their best players in mind no matter how good (GS) or bad (Minnesota) they are.

You don't draft based on need unless your two highest rated prospects are graded equally. For argument sake, if the Knicks had Toppin rated at 92 and (let's say) Haliburton rated as a 89, you don't go with the lesser rated prospect because you need a point guard. You draft your highest rated prospect even if he plays the same position as your best player.

Minnesota and Golden State didn't draft Ball because they thought Edwards and Wiseman had the more upside and less risk. Whether they were right remains to be seen.

It's known that Minnesota didn't draft Ball because of the presence of Russell. It was all about fit there. Most of these teams had Ball as the highest ranked player. I agree though Toppin was also the highest rated player on the board, although i think Haliburton was close. Up until Chicago fell in love with Williams, it was assumed Toppin and Haliburton were 4 and 5 on most boards.

That may explain why Minnesota is Minnesota and always at the top of the lottery.

Welpee wrote:You don't draft based on need unless your two highest rated prospects are graded equally. For argument sake, if the Knicks had Toppin rated at 92 and (let's say) Haliburton rated as a 89, you don't go with the lesser rated prospect because you need a point guard. You draft your highest rated prospect even if he plays the same position as your best player.

Minnesota and Golden State didn't draft Ball because they thought Edwards and Wiseman had the more upside and less risk. Whether they were right remains to be seen.

Yes, if we are talking about the very top of the draft, then in principle you choose the best available player. However, after the first 5 picks, you start to take into account how the player fits on the roster, and it is also important which position are we talking about. As I already wrote, two PGs can play together, two wings the same thing. However, two PFs or two Cs no that easy, and Randle and Toppin are both just PFs and can hardly play any other position.

When we add that it is common knowledge that top players play a lot of minutes when Thibs is coaching, it was clear that there is really no room for Toppin next to Randle. It seems to me that FO at the time of the draft was sure that Randle would be traded very quickly and that Toppin would be given much space on PF.