TheGame wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

TheGame wrote:Why would we give up our best player for a No. 3 pick. You are trading an allstar for an unproven player who might never be as good as Randle. Plus you are adding all the rest of our picks. That might be the worst trade proposal I have ever heard.

Our best player was a dude nobody wanted just a season before; how quickly do we forget. Not all no.3 picks are created equal. If it was a draft where you had to settle on an Otto Porter or Adam Morrison type, I'd understand your apprehension. This draft though has the hype it does for a reason. The **** I'm seeing from guys like Evan Mobley is can't-miss-potential type of ability like we've seen from past no.1 overall picks like Anthony Davis. There is always risk involved but we're a team capable of assuming more risk than most because of our marquee status and finances. And personally, the risk of Evan Mobley/Jalen Green not working out is more platable than paying Julius Randle 4-5 seasons of max based on a season or two of good play.

At this point, we don’t know what we will have to pay Randle. If he takes the extension this offseason, then that is like $27-$28 mil per year, which is what he worth. Now I agree I don’t want to pay Randle $30.5+ per year but you don’t trade a proven player for hope. There is no way any person we pick at 3 is going to have the same impact as Randle, this year, next year, and probably even into year three. Plus, you are talking about also giving up all our picks. I mean if it were just a straight Randle for No. 3 and Mobley was there, then I could see how you might be able to consider that when you take into account that frees up minutes for Toppin, who I like, but even then I would not make that trade.

Luka Doncic was picked at no.3 just 2 drafts ago and is quite clearly a Hall of Famer. Jayson Tatum was picked no. 3 the year before him and Jaylen Brown the year before Tatum. I would take all 3 of those guys ahead of Randle. So why pretend we can't get a gamechanger at the spot that exceeds Randle's play in the not so distant future?

jskinny35 wrote:100% Yes!! I could list all the reasons - but I've been doing that for the past 30 posts. Do agree that I don't think Clev would do this though. I'd do it for Wiseman and #7 pick as well. Worst thing we could do is not recognize that Randle is the poker equivalent of a straight - maybe even a flush. Nobody expected that much so it's exciting but there are still several levels above that are better (eg full house, 4of kind, straight/royal flush)... Because we have sucked for so long/haven't won a hand in so long we're overestimating our hand. Fold now so we can have a chance at drafting a straight flush. I would call RJ a flush with potential to turn into a straight flush

I don't like the fit of Randle with the Warriors with Draymond Green still there. Seems like they'd have spacing issues moving forward, even with a healthy Klay back in the fold. And if you're not forcefeeding Randle every possession like we do (which won't happen on the Warriors), does he still have the same appeal? How much does he contribute when he isn't able to iso or his shot isn't falling? That's why I think he'd be perfect for a team like the Cavs. No star will go there and they need a high usage, efficient scorer on the roster to masquerade as a franchise player. With Randle, they could be a middling playoff team like what the Hawks of yesteryear were with Al Horford, Paul Millsap and co. That doesn't have the same appeal for a title aspiring team like the Warriors but is best case scenario for the Cavs, Pacers and Hornets of the world.

dwiley20 wrote:How about #3 and Sexton Kevin love

I'm indifferent to Sexton. And I feel that adding him hurts the appeal of adding Randle. I think they could talk themselves into thinking they have a formidable starting lineup but has that case weakened without Sexton at guard. Besides, we'll have the cap space down the road to give him an offer sheet when he becomes a restricted free agent. Much rather have that no.3 pick in tow first.

NardDogNation wrote:

TheGame wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

TheGame wrote:Why would we give up our best player for a No. 3 pick. You are trading an allstar for an unproven player who might never be as good as Randle. Plus you are adding all the rest of our picks. That might be the worst trade proposal I have ever heard.

Our best player was a dude nobody wanted just a season before; how quickly do we forget. Not all no.3 picks are created equal. If it was a draft where you had to settle on an Otto Porter or Adam Morrison type, I'd understand your apprehension. This draft though has the hype it does for a reason. The **** I'm seeing from guys like Evan Mobley is can't-miss-potential type of ability like we've seen from past no.1 overall picks like Anthony Davis. There is always risk involved but we're a team capable of assuming more risk than most because of our marquee status and finances. And personally, the risk of Evan Mobley/Jalen Green not working out is more platable than paying Julius Randle 4-5 seasons of max based on a season or two of good play.

At this point, we don’t know what we will have to pay Randle. If he takes the extension this offseason, then that is like $27-$28 mil per year, which is what he worth. Now I agree I don’t want to pay Randle $30.5+ per year but you don’t trade a proven player for hope. There is no way any person we pick at 3 is going to have the same impact as Randle, this year, next year, and probably even into year three. Plus, you are talking about also giving up all our picks. I mean if it were just a straight Randle for No. 3 and Mobley was there, then I could see how you might be able to consider that when you take into account that frees up minutes for Toppin, who I like, but even then I would not make that trade.

Luka Doncic was picked at no.3 just 2 drafts ago and is quite clearly a Hall of Famer. Jayson Tatum was picked no. 3 the year before him and Jaylen Brown the year before Tatum. I would take all 3 of those guys ahead of Randle. So why pretend we can't get a gamechanger at the spot that exceeds Randle's play in the not so distant future?

Jordan was picked #3. Clearly we get the next Jordan if we pick third

NardDogNation wrote:Luka Doncic was picked at no.3 just 2 drafts ago and is quite clearly a Hall of Famer. Jayson Tatum was picked no. 3 the year before him and Jaylen Brown the year before Tatum. I would take all 3 of those guys ahead of Randle. So why pretend we can't get a gamechanger at the spot that exceeds Randle's play in the not so distant future?

2020 - Ball (ROY, but too early to assess what he will become)
2019 - RJ (too early)
2018 - Luka (it's early but I think we can ID him as a superstar and future HOFer if he stays healthy)
2017 - Tatem (2x all-star, once 3rd team all NBA)
2016 - Brown (1x all-star)
2015 - Jahlil Okafor (major bust)
2014 - Embiid (future HOFer if he stays healthy)
2013 - Otto Porter (bust)
2012 - Bradley Beal (3x all-star, once 3rd team all NBA)
2011 - Enes Kanter (solid role player)
2010 - Derrick Favors (solid role player)
2009 - Harden (future HOFer)
2008 - OJ Mayo (bust)
2007 - Al Horford (5x all star, once 3rd team all NBA)
2006 - Adam Morrison (bust)
2005 - Deron Williams (5x all star, twice 2nd team all NBA)
2004 - Ben Gordon (once sixth man of the year, solid role player)
2003 - Melo (future HOFer)
2002 - Mike Dunleavy (solid role player)
2001 - Pau Gasol (future HOFer)

Julious Randle (one time all-star, once 2nd team all-NBA)

Personally, I don't put a ton of weight on all-star selections, all-league is what matters to me. And everybody has an opinion about who is a better player than Randle. Also some on this list have put in more years than Randle, some fewer years, so with Randle still playing and in his prime, who knows how any of this will shake out at the end of his career. But based on all-league selections there are only six players on this list over the past 20 years who have reach a status in the league that exceeds what Randle has accomplished last year.

If you are of the opinion that Beal or Tatem or Brown are better than Randle, fine. If you are a Randle hater and think this season was a fluke, fine. But lets look at a broad picture and not cherry pick players picked third to make a point. The reality is you would be willing to get rid of Randle in return for 30-50% chance (based on previous draft history) of picking player who MAY end up being better?

We can speculate all day how great this draft is suppose to be and how much "generational" talent is suppose to be available. We've heard this before about other drafts. You never know. One thing I do know, fans fall in love with the unknown because you can projected whatever suits your desires.

NardDogNation wrote:

TheGame wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

TheGame wrote:Why would we give up our best player for a No. 3 pick. You are trading an allstar for an unproven player who might never be as good as Randle. Plus you are adding all the rest of our picks. That might be the worst trade proposal I have ever heard.

Our best player was a dude nobody wanted just a season before; how quickly do we forget. Not all no.3 picks are created equal. If it was a draft where you had to settle on an Otto Porter or Adam Morrison type, I'd understand your apprehension. This draft though has the hype it does for a reason. The **** I'm seeing from guys like Evan Mobley is can't-miss-potential type of ability like we've seen from past no.1 overall picks like Anthony Davis. There is always risk involved but we're a team capable of assuming more risk than most because of our marquee status and finances. And personally, the risk of Evan Mobley/Jalen Green not working out is more platable than paying Julius Randle 4-5 seasons of max based on a season or two of good play.

At this point, we don’t know what we will have to pay Randle. If he takes the extension this offseason, then that is like $27-$28 mil per year, which is what he worth. Now I agree I don’t want to pay Randle $30.5+ per year but you don’t trade a proven player for hope. There is no way any person we pick at 3 is going to have the same impact as Randle, this year, next year, and probably even into year three. Plus, you are talking about also giving up all our picks. I mean if it were just a straight Randle for No. 3 and Mobley was there, then I could see how you might be able to consider that when you take into account that frees up minutes for Toppin, who I like, but even then I would not make that trade.

Luka Doncic was picked at no.3 just 2 drafts ago and is quite clearly a Hall of Famer. Jayson Tatum was picked no. 3 the year before him and Jaylen Brown the year before Tatum. I would take all 3 of those guys ahead of Randle. So why pretend we can't get a gamechanger at the spot that exceeds Randle's play in the not so distant future?

Luka is in his third year. Tatum is in his fourth year. Neither of them were as good as Randle their first season and you are talking about exceptions to the general rule that it takes guys 2-3 years before they really hit their stride. I am not saying who we pick at 3 could never be as good as Randle. I am saying why trade Randle on a hope and prayer. For every Luka, there is a Andrew Wiggins or Okafor who does not pan out as expected in the top-3. If it were Randle for top-3 then maybe I might consider it (probably not) but I would not be throwing in all our draft picks and taking back salary.

SupremeCommander wrote:No, Jesus, some of you would trade your own mother for a second rounder in 2027

Hahaha...

some poster would rather see the knicks lose 82 games as long as the young guys play

knicks1248 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:No, Jesus, some of you would trade your own mother for a second rounder in 2027

Hahaha...

some poster would rather see the knicks lose 82 games as long as the young guys play

I’m scared of the uncertainty around Randle. He did wonderful last year in an odd season. I flip back and forth around building around Randle and his $20mm contract versus the idea that some of Randle’s stats are inflated by virtue of this heliocentric offense model around him. I see Toppin in the wings (flaws and upside) and the 1 year left on Randle’s contract and I wonder whether this team would be better suited to building around Barrett. Or a new young player.

I tend to lean toward “play to win” and assembling the best roster we can this year without mortgaging the future, but even then I wonder whether Randle’s stats can be easily replaced.

My general sense is that an upgrade at PG and SF with Barrett/Randle/Robinson and Rose/Quick/Toppin should create a better team than last year. That said, I think we could have just as easily been fighting for 8 playoff spot this year (Bucks don’t sit their starters against us, Lakers healthy…) so I am not looking to overstate our position.

I see a short window before certain players need to get paid. Martin’s GSW proposal absolutely fleeces GSW and some of you think it is a forfeit. I’ll tell you if Toronto makes that deal and resets, in 2-3 years we have a high probability of regretting this and not bidding it up.

Philc1 wrote:The time to trade Randle is exactly now. His value is at an all time high and if we wait longer we have to give him a max extension or be forced to trade him for less at next February’s deadline

And the people who don’t think Obi wouldn’t become a double-double machine with full time minutes are the same ones who were calling Randle a career loser last offseason

The Knicks culture would take a huge hit if Randle was traded. Probably irrevocably.