Thibs isn't a coach who will rock that boat. The "earn minutes" rhetoric is NBA perfunctory short-hand for "it is what it is".

And so unless a kid is a walk-on superstar, they sit a lot.

The NY Knicks problem is that instead of being able to trade for hungry, under-appreciated veterans who the coach doesn't have to pander to, the players we trade for are "names", veterans playing on fumes, and former glory candidates who DO eat up minutes, get pandered to, and sell a few jerseys. The by-product - rabid jersey fans who insist the Kembas, Fourniers, and who-not are a game away from "finding" the talent that they misplaced at a strip club.

fwk00 wrote:The NY Knicks problem is that instead of being able to trade for hungry, under-appreciated veterans who the coach doesn't have to pander to, the players we trade for are "names", veterans playing on fumes, and former glory candidates who DO eat up minutes, get pandered to, and sell a few jerseys. The by-product - rabid jersey fans who insist the Kembas, Fourniers, and who-not are a game away from "finding" the talent that they misplaced at a strip club.

I don't even know what this means and doesn't track with what the current FO has done.

jskinny35 wrote:

Jimbo5 wrote:It was reported that Thibs was lobbying hard to resign Bullock, instead of giving in, the front office prioritized EF, on paper a way way better offensive player but a questionable defensive player.

Im not busting the balls of the front office when it comes to the contract they gave out over the summer, they are still all reasonable to a certain extent but its their ability to evaluate a player's fit in the team is whats iffy.

I would rather focus my efforts in signing Lonzo then figure out wing help as the secondary move. Aside from Lonzo i dont have any free agents on the top of my head that iwould like to sign last summer. Maybe even Lonzo is not the correct free agent if the front office believes Deuce or IQ can step up in a year or 2. Maybe they are better off looking for 1 year rentals for the cap space they gave to EF and Kemba.

Im just worried about the FO's thought process when the trade rumors heats up. I dont want them to get Dame, Wall, Westbrook or Schroder.I think Ben Simmons is the closest player that can fit the defensive 1st mentality of the team but his lack of 3pt shooting is a concern, Thibs so far hasn't shown the ability to cover up the weaknesses of his players, atleast not this season. I dont want the FO to mortgage the team's future for a superstar big name that is not fit to the style Thibs wants to play.

The crazy thing about the Bullock vs EF signing was they could have signed EF and still resigned Bullock due to his rights. I'm guessing they figured Thibs would never play EF if Bullock was still on the roster. Otherwise - why not sign the FA and resign the guy that was glue for us last year?

Let's baseline this, before THIS season everyone could agree that EF was an upgrade to Bullock. Catch and shoot WHILE being able to put the ball on the floor. Maybe not as good as a defender but Bullock was never that stout at defending.

After that, why would you need or want Bullock on the team when you have Burks, Grimes, RJ, EF?

Also, why does everyone seem to not think that Bullock wanted a better contract that maybe Dallas was offering that would be more than the Knicks wanted to give him?

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

Jimbo5 wrote:It was reported that Thibs was lobbying hard to resign Bullock, instead of giving in, the front office prioritized EF, on paper a way way better offensive player but a questionable defensive player.

Im not busting the balls of the front office when it comes to the contract they gave out over the summer, they are still all reasonable to a certain extent but its their ability to evaluate a player's fit in the team is whats iffy.

I would rather focus my efforts in signing Lonzo then figure out wing help as the secondary move. Aside from Lonzo i dont have any free agents on the top of my head that iwould like to sign last summer. Maybe even Lonzo is not the correct free agent if the front office believes Deuce or IQ can step up in a year or 2. Maybe they are better off looking for 1 year rentals for the cap space they gave to EF and Kemba.

Im just worried about the FO's thought process when the trade rumors heats up. I dont want them to get Dame, Wall, Westbrook or Schroder.I think Ben Simmons is the closest player that can fit the defensive 1st mentality of the team but his lack of 3pt shooting is a concern, Thibs so far hasn't shown the ability to cover up the weaknesses of his players, atleast not this season. I dont want the FO to mortgage the team's future for a superstar big name that is not fit to the style Thibs wants to play.

The crazy thing about the Bullock vs EF signing was they could have signed EF and still resigned Bullock due to his rights. I'm guessing they figured Thibs would never play EF if Bullock was still on the roster. Otherwise - why not sign the FA and resign the guy that was glue for us last year?

Let's baseline this, before THIS season everyone could agree that EF was an upgrade to Bullock. Catch and shoot WHILE being able to put the ball on the floor. Maybe not as good as a defender but Bullock was never that stout at defending.

After that, why would you need or want Bullock on the team when you have Burks, Grimes, RJ, EF?

Also, why does everyone seem to not think that Bullock wanted a better contract that maybe Dallas was offering that would be more than the Knicks wanted to give him?

I did not agree with the EF signing and on the day of the trade questioned EF for his salary vs RB for his lower salary. I didn't realize at the time they could have had both and since money is rarely an issue with the Knicks/Dolan - thought they made an error. I recall there being an article suggesting the Knicks deprioritized Bullock to chase Fournier - so Bullock looked elsewhere. Think they could have had both by explaining there intention to sign EF and promise to come back and resign Bullock. That was the only information released shortly after the signing so don't think Dallas outbid when the amount is what he could have signed for here. Maybe he did feel slighted though when Knicks talked up prioritizing EF?

Either way I think the Knicks blew it because of the vast difference in chemistry, defensive efforts and fit/spacing.

Our current situation answers the question about why we would need Bullock with those other players on the team.

I think had we signed both EF would be back on the bench and Bullock would have rejoined the starting unit. That would have at least offered us the luxury to focus on other roster problems (eg PG, C, Randle-ball).

The more I think about it - I think they forced Thibs hand knowing he would have played Bullock over EF and they didn't want to deal wit that difference in the FO.

blkexec wrote:To Martins point, I believe Bullocks chemistry with Randle was the main reason to bring him back. If we are truly building around Randle, why would the FO remove someone that not only built up good chemistry with Randle and team, but also held a very important role in guarding the opposing best player? We all knew EF wasn't going to do that. Maybe they went to RJ and said, we need you to be this years Bullock and guard the best players. If so, that's a heavy load to carry for a young guy who uses so much energy on offense with this drives to the basket and jump shot, where fresh legs are needed. Well, as we can see, based on stats and the eye test, nobody (including RJ) has matched the level of defense Bullock played. We can't name 1 person with Bullocks defense, unless you talking about the unproven rookie in Deuce. I'm a deuce fan, but even I don't think he can guard the top SGs or SF on every team, for an entire game.

So to not find a replacement for Bullock, or to simply let him go was a failure. Even Burks, who I love as a player, did not have the same chemistry Bullock and Randle had. The FO has some work to do, if Randle is our center piece.

Bullock was exposed in the Atlanta series. Badly. By that defensive wizard Trae Young. You just crowd him and that's not going away no matter how good his defense is or isn't. Also, I think most would agree that Bullock is a nice SG but nowhere near what you need to both get to the playoffs and then succeed there. There are many reasons to NOT bring Bullock back that far outweigh any chemistry he had with Randle. Dude averaged 11ppg in perhaps the best shooting season of his career. I don't see Bullock as more than an average plus defender, yeah you can put him on the best wing on the other team but he is not anything special IMHO. Reggie does not have a dribble drive game or midrange capability and you NEED that from your wing players.

And are the Knicks truly building around Randle? I don't think so and it is not an assumption I would put weight towards. Do they keep Randle in mind while he is here? Sure. Do they add parts that compliment Randle and others? Sure.

The Knicks DID find a replacement for Bullock - Fournier - but he has not lived up to his norm yet. Randle got to adjust too.

Also, quite frankly it did take all of the the 2019/20 and more than a couple of months into 2020/21 season for Randle and Bullock to gather chemistry; it's going to take more than a couple of months for Fournier and team to establish the same.

fitzfarm wrote:Although I wasn’t high on getting EF I don’t think anyone thought it would be this bad . Also the season is still young he might be spent from not having a real off season or just adjusting to life in NYC . I heard thibs say he wants Randle to attack .. but Attack also needs to be for EF he’s so stagnant and just shooting 3’s and that’s not his game … he needs to attack the paint shoot open midrange get to the line … the talent is there we need to get him going..

Kemba is not a thibs guy I thought that was a publicity stunt from the start we all know how it ended in Boston why did we think it would be different in NY . I don’t approve of what thibs did and his failure to eat crow on his decision that backfired, shows weakness and a lack of being humble thibs made a mistake making kemba the scapegoat… 10-9 with kemba 2-7 without… own it and put him back in the game.

Every other signing was a no brainer Rose, Burks, Noel,Gibson they all played there way into there contracts.

I think it boils down to coaching more then the players that were signed … thibs is stubborn and it’s showing this year more then it ever did last year..

You know what is also showing? The poor shooting of RJ, Randle and Fournier. And the injury situation at C. Those are things that Thibs really has limited control over.

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

Jimbo5 wrote:It was reported that Thibs was lobbying hard to resign Bullock, instead of giving in, the front office prioritized EF, on paper a way way better offensive player but a questionable defensive player.

Im not busting the balls of the front office when it comes to the contract they gave out over the summer, they are still all reasonable to a certain extent but its their ability to evaluate a player's fit in the team is whats iffy.

I would rather focus my efforts in signing Lonzo then figure out wing help as the secondary move. Aside from Lonzo i dont have any free agents on the top of my head that iwould like to sign last summer. Maybe even Lonzo is not the correct free agent if the front office believes Deuce or IQ can step up in a year or 2. Maybe they are better off looking for 1 year rentals for the cap space they gave to EF and Kemba.

Im just worried about the FO's thought process when the trade rumors heats up. I dont want them to get Dame, Wall, Westbrook or Schroder.I think Ben Simmons is the closest player that can fit the defensive 1st mentality of the team but his lack of 3pt shooting is a concern, Thibs so far hasn't shown the ability to cover up the weaknesses of his players, atleast not this season. I dont want the FO to mortgage the team's future for a superstar big name that is not fit to the style Thibs wants to play.

The crazy thing about the Bullock vs EF signing was they could have signed EF and still resigned Bullock due to his rights. I'm guessing they figured Thibs would never play EF if Bullock was still on the roster. Otherwise - why not sign the FA and resign the guy that was glue for us last year?

Let's baseline this, before THIS season everyone could agree that EF was an upgrade to Bullock. Catch and shoot WHILE being able to put the ball on the floor. Maybe not as good as a defender but Bullock was never that stout at defending.

After that, why would you need or want Bullock on the team when you have Burks, Grimes, RJ, EF?

Also, why does everyone seem to not think that Bullock wanted a better contract that maybe Dallas was offering that would be more than the Knicks wanted to give him?

I did not agree with the EF signing and on the day of the trade questioned EF for his salary vs RB for his lower salary. I didn't realize at the time they could have had both and since money is rarely an issue with the Knicks/Dolan - thought they made an error. I recall there being an article suggesting the Knicks deprioritized Bullock to chase Fournier - so Bullock looked elsewhere. Think they could have had both by explaining there intention to sign EF and promise to come back and resign Bullock. That was the only information released shortly after the signing so don't think Dallas outbid when the amount is what he could have signed for here. Maybe he did feel slighted though when Knicks talked up prioritizing EF?

Either way I think the Knicks blew it because of the vast difference in chemistry, defensive efforts and fit/spacing.

Our current situation answers the question about why we would need Bullock with those other players on the team.

I think had we signed both EF would be back on the bench and Bullock would have rejoined the starting unit. That would have at least offered us the luxury to focus on other roster problems (eg PG, C, Randle-ball).

The more I think about it - I think they forced Thibs hand knowing he would have played Bullock over EF and they didn't want to deal wit that difference in the FO.

Fournier, Bullock, RJ, Grimes, Burks. That is too many SGs and not one true SF.

And then there is the issue of the salary cap that impedes spending money, it's not really a Dolan/Knicks thing at all.

I don't follow all of what you are saying but I don't think you are considering everything.

First, most SG/SF are interchangeable. Having an extra one that actually played/started at SF last year would be helping right now. It wasn't either or - we could have signed both without any negative cap impact (allowed to go over to resign him). I agree Bullock is limited but not many people were guarding Trae Young last playoffs when he took off (least not SF's).

If you thought Bullock was limited - what do you possibly see in EF that's better? And he cost more... Bottom line is if FO thought they needed more shot creators - they could have brought him in and Bullock - but they didn't and that's why this is so confusing to many fans here. Bullock left and signed a similar contract to what we could have paid him. I stand by what I said before - Bullock was a better fit at about 1/2 the cost. Not sure what else is left to consider? And with all that said I do anticipate Fournier will improve as the season goes on and find some type of role here. I suspect it will be off the bench in time.

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

Jimbo5 wrote:It was reported that Thibs was lobbying hard to resign Bullock, instead of giving in, the front office prioritized EF, on paper a way way better offensive player but a questionable defensive player.

Im not busting the balls of the front office when it comes to the contract they gave out over the summer, they are still all reasonable to a certain extent but its their ability to evaluate a player's fit in the team is whats iffy.

I would rather focus my efforts in signing Lonzo then figure out wing help as the secondary move. Aside from Lonzo i dont have any free agents on the top of my head that iwould like to sign last summer. Maybe even Lonzo is not the correct free agent if the front office believes Deuce or IQ can step up in a year or 2. Maybe they are better off looking for 1 year rentals for the cap space they gave to EF and Kemba.

Im just worried about the FO's thought process when the trade rumors heats up. I dont want them to get Dame, Wall, Westbrook or Schroder.I think Ben Simmons is the closest player that can fit the defensive 1st mentality of the team but his lack of 3pt shooting is a concern, Thibs so far hasn't shown the ability to cover up the weaknesses of his players, atleast not this season. I dont want the FO to mortgage the team's future for a superstar big name that is not fit to the style Thibs wants to play.

The crazy thing about the Bullock vs EF signing was they could have signed EF and still resigned Bullock due to his rights. I'm guessing they figured Thibs would never play EF if Bullock was still on the roster. Otherwise - why not sign the FA and resign the guy that was glue for us last year?

Let's baseline this, before THIS season everyone could agree that EF was an upgrade to Bullock. Catch and shoot WHILE being able to put the ball on the floor. Maybe not as good as a defender but Bullock was never that stout at defending.

After that, why would you need or want Bullock on the team when you have Burks, Grimes, RJ, EF?

Also, why does everyone seem to not think that Bullock wanted a better contract that maybe Dallas was offering that would be more than the Knicks wanted to give him?

I did not agree with the EF signing and on the day of the trade questioned EF for his salary vs RB for his lower salary. I didn't realize at the time they could have had both and since money is rarely an issue with the Knicks/Dolan - thought they made an error. I recall there being an article suggesting the Knicks deprioritized Bullock to chase Fournier - so Bullock looked elsewhere. Think they could have had both by explaining there intention to sign EF and promise to come back and resign Bullock. That was the only information released shortly after the signing so don't think Dallas outbid when the amount is what he could have signed for here. Maybe he did feel slighted though when Knicks talked up prioritizing EF?

Either way I think the Knicks blew it because of the vast difference in chemistry, defensive efforts and fit/spacing.

Our current situation answers the question about why we would need Bullock with those other players on the team.

I think had we signed both EF would be back on the bench and Bullock would have rejoined the starting unit. That would have at least offered us the luxury to focus on other roster problems (eg PG, C, Randle-ball).

The more I think about it - I think they forced Thibs hand knowing he would have played Bullock over EF and they didn't want to deal wit that difference in the FO.

Fournier, Bullock, RJ, Grimes, Burks. That is too many SGs and not one true SF.

And then there is the issue of the salary cap that impedes spending money, it's not really a Dolan/Knicks thing at all.

I don't follow all of what you are saying but I don't think you are considering everything.

With this day in age, positionless basketball is here to stay. And the key to positionless basketball is the ability to play multiple positions. All those players are positionless types of players. So u can never have too many of those. Now Kemba for example is not positionless. He only plays 1 position. Same with Mitch….1 position.

Let’s take the cavs for example. Garland can play both guard positions. Allen, Mobley and Markannen(sp?) can play PF or center with no problem. This flexibility helps in todays game. The Knicks don’t have this same flexibility at the 2 important positions. EF and Kemba are two new players we added that lack positionless skills. EF is a SG. Not a pg or SF. Kemba is a PG. FO failed in bringing in guys that lack position flexibility. So it’s hard to find a fit for those types of players unless they are superstars. And even superstars play multiple positions.

Also bullocks value is not measured by how many points he scored. We have scorers. Bullock is a backup player who started for us and was great not good on defense all season. Playoff time, the entire team was off including Randle. But he gave us some insight into what we or Randle needs for the team to be successful. And if bullock was an average defender, that’s an even more reason to try and bring him back. Average or not, he was our best guard defender last year, guarding 3 positions. Take him out and we are stuck with below average guard defenders. All of that is very critical. He’s more important than you think. I can go into Elf as well, and what he provided, but let’s stay with RB. bullock is probably a better fit than even Burks, as far as a team player. Burks is better iso. EF is also a better iso player. So if Kemba. Bullock is still a better fit than all of them. Just goes to show you, u don’t need high priced players to build a successful team. I don’t care if EF puts up 30 tonight. He’s not a 2 way player. And his catch and shoot game is inconsistent. U can argue that bullock is a better catch and shoot player than EF because that’s what bullock does. That’s his specialty and sometimes having average skills across the board is worse than having a defined skill set like just catch and shoot. EF or Kemba are better players if they was the main focal point. They are not complimentary players with other stars like Randle.

But I agree. We may be jumping the gun a little like thibs did with Kemba. But for me, it doesn’t take all year to see who fits and who doesn’t. Kemba is a good player, but thibs feels like he’s not the right fit. EF might be the best shooter on the team and he has a resume of success, plus 3 pt shooting is what we need. But he’s not a knick type player who gives it all on both ends. He reserves his defensive energy for offense. I never liked Allan Houston for example. Probably because I felt he was over paid and I’m a john Starla fan since I was young. But compared to EF, Allan Houston looks like he was miles ahead of EF. Knicks needs blue collar get dirty type of players. If EF isn’t hitting his shot, he’s useless. If Kemba isn’t hitting his shot he’s also useless. Bullock can go 0-7 and we still got the lead cause it’s his defense and floor spacing to compliments Randle and RJ. Bullock learned where to go on the floor when Randle has the ball. And he’s ready to shoot. EF waits for the ball, so that he can dribble drive or create or shoot, depending on if he feels hot or not.

blkexec wrote:

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

Jimbo5 wrote:It was reported that Thibs was lobbying hard to resign Bullock, instead of giving in, the front office prioritized EF, on paper a way way better offensive player but a questionable defensive player.

Im not busting the balls of the front office when it comes to the contract they gave out over the summer, they are still all reasonable to a certain extent but its their ability to evaluate a player's fit in the team is whats iffy.

I would rather focus my efforts in signing Lonzo then figure out wing help as the secondary move. Aside from Lonzo i dont have any free agents on the top of my head that iwould like to sign last summer. Maybe even Lonzo is not the correct free agent if the front office believes Deuce or IQ can step up in a year or 2. Maybe they are better off looking for 1 year rentals for the cap space they gave to EF and Kemba.

Im just worried about the FO's thought process when the trade rumors heats up. I dont want them to get Dame, Wall, Westbrook or Schroder.I think Ben Simmons is the closest player that can fit the defensive 1st mentality of the team but his lack of 3pt shooting is a concern, Thibs so far hasn't shown the ability to cover up the weaknesses of his players, atleast not this season. I dont want the FO to mortgage the team's future for a superstar big name that is not fit to the style Thibs wants to play.

The crazy thing about the Bullock vs EF signing was they could have signed EF and still resigned Bullock due to his rights. I'm guessing they figured Thibs would never play EF if Bullock was still on the roster. Otherwise - why not sign the FA and resign the guy that was glue for us last year?

Let's baseline this, before THIS season everyone could agree that EF was an upgrade to Bullock. Catch and shoot WHILE being able to put the ball on the floor. Maybe not as good as a defender but Bullock was never that stout at defending.

After that, why would you need or want Bullock on the team when you have Burks, Grimes, RJ, EF?

Also, why does everyone seem to not think that Bullock wanted a better contract that maybe Dallas was offering that would be more than the Knicks wanted to give him?

I did not agree with the EF signing and on the day of the trade questioned EF for his salary vs RB for his lower salary. I didn't realize at the time they could have had both and since money is rarely an issue with the Knicks/Dolan - thought they made an error. I recall there being an article suggesting the Knicks deprioritized Bullock to chase Fournier - so Bullock looked elsewhere. Think they could have had both by explaining there intention to sign EF and promise to come back and resign Bullock. That was the only information released shortly after the signing so don't think Dallas outbid when the amount is what he could have signed for here. Maybe he did feel slighted though when Knicks talked up prioritizing EF?

Either way I think the Knicks blew it because of the vast difference in chemistry, defensive efforts and fit/spacing.

Our current situation answers the question about why we would need Bullock with those other players on the team.

I think had we signed both EF would be back on the bench and Bullock would have rejoined the starting unit. That would have at least offered us the luxury to focus on other roster problems (eg PG, C, Randle-ball).

The more I think about it - I think they forced Thibs hand knowing he would have played Bullock over EF and they didn't want to deal wit that difference in the FO.

Fournier, Bullock, RJ, Grimes, Burks. That is too many SGs and not one true SF.

And then there is the issue of the salary cap that impedes spending money, it's not really a Dolan/Knicks thing at all.

I don't follow all of what you are saying but I don't think you are considering everything.

With this day in age, positionless basketball is here to stay. And the key to positionless basketball is the ability to play multiple positions. All those players are positionless types of players. So u can never have too many of those. Now Kemba for example is not positionless. He only plays 1 position. Same with Mitch….1 position.

Let’s take the cavs for example. Garland can play both guard positions. Allen, Mobley and Markannen(sp?) can play PF or center with no problem. This flexibility helps in todays game. The Knicks don’t have this same flexibility at the 2 important positions. EF and Kemba are two new players we added that lack positionless skills. EF is a SG. Not a pg or SF. Kemba is a PG. FO failed in bringing in guys that lack position flexibility. So it’s hard to find a fit for those types of players unless they are superstars. And even superstars play multiple positions.

Also bullocks value is not measured by how many points he scored. We have scorers. Bullock is a backup player who started for us and was great not good on defense all season. Playoff time, the entire team was off including Randle. But he gave us some insight into what we or Randle needs for the team to be successful. And if bullock was an average defender, that’s an even more reason to try and bring him back. Average or not, he was our best guard defender last year, guarding 3 positions. Take him out and we are stuck with below average guard defenders. All of that is very critical. He’s more important than you think. I can go into Elf as well, and what he provided, but let’s stay with RB. bullock is probably a better fit than even Burks, as far as a team player. Burks is better iso. EF is also a better iso player. So if Kemba. Bullock is still a better fit than all of them. Just goes to show you, u don’t need high priced players to build a successful team. I don’t care if EF puts up 30 tonight. He’s not a 2 way player. And his catch and shoot game is inconsistent. U can argue that bullock is a better catch and shoot player than EF because that’s what bullock does. That’s his specialty and sometimes having average skills across the board is worse than having a defined skill set like just catch and shoot. EF or Kemba are better players if they was the main focal point. They are not complimentary players with other stars like Randle.

But I agree. We may be jumping the gun a little like thibs did with Kemba. But for me, it doesn’t take all year to see who fits and who doesn’t. Kemba is a good player, but thibs feels like he’s not the right fit. EF might be the best shooter on the team and he has a resume of success, plus 3 pt shooting is what we need. But he’s not a knick type player who gives it all on both ends. He reserves his defensive energy for offense. I never liked Allan Houston for example. Probably because I felt he was over paid and I’m a john Starla fan since I was young. But compared to EF, Allan Houston looks like he was miles ahead of EF. Knicks needs blue collar get dirty type of players. If EF isn’t hitting his shot, he’s useless. If Kemba isn’t hitting his shot he’s also useless. Bullock can go 0-7 and we still got the lead cause it’s his defense and floor spacing to compliments Randle and RJ. Bullock learned where to go on the floor when Randle has the ball. And he’s ready to shoot. EF waits for the ball, so that he can dribble drive or create or shoot, depending on if he feels hot or not.

Yes - all of this!!

It’s hard to evaluate any player on this team without a pass first pg.
The way the team played last night with McBride is encouraging.

Randle plays with Fournier like he did with Bullock and that is not Fournier’s game.
Randle throws a lot of grenades, meaning a lot of passes late in the shot clock and it forces players into awkward shots. McBride did a better job of driving and kicking out, from any PG I’ve seen on the team this year.