BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Martin... for the sake of monotony, can we lock all future "Trade Randle" threads?

From the recent interview, it is obvious that Rose wants to stick with what we have.
And why would Rose want to do a lateral move or in this case downgrade just for picks?
I did not see a mention that the Suns would be willing to include any picks?
If Crowder wants to go to "where he is needed", why would he come to the Knicks to back up Obi?

I second that. This "trade Randle at all costs" banter is getting tiresome, let alone that I am yet to see anyone here give a compelling reason to dump a solid, if unspectacular, 20-10 player for a bag of unpeeled potatoes.

There are conceivably 100 players in this league who could score 20 points a game if given the same amount of shots and minutes as Julius. Julius is one of the most inefficient of all of them. Sack of potatoes? I'd trade Randle for a knish.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2022_per_minute.html

Yawn!! We can come up with a lot more lists of "conceivables"! My neighbors son thinks it's conceivable that he will become a millionaire despite living in the basement at the age of 30 and without ever going to college.

100 players? Please post statistical evidence of those that have done so? Not just the ole BS "I think so" rant. And I'm sure you can come up with 50 that are nearly averaging that for their careers? Some leave out that he did so with others having the main role. Ie. Davis. As for the ones you think can do it, why haven't they? They don't get the minutes? Shots? Is there a special process they keep missing out on? Is there an application process? (I always thought in the real world you had to earn them through years of production in games and practices) You also have to have that bull/alpha mentality. You also have to be able to do so despite teams defensive focussing on you. That's where the consistency has some weight. BUT MOST importantly, please post which of the 100 players that have averaged 20/10 want anything to do with the Knicks?!!

Fyi, You can be okay with trading Randle for a bag of potatoes but that just shows the level of perspective. One that, luckily for us, is not the same at the management level. This is the kind of impatient thinking that has kept the Knicks from developing in the past. Randle is a young solide player who can improve. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG. If he doesn't, the smart move is not the bag of potatoes but to trade him to a team needing a proven 20/10 in the playoffs.

I can think of one statistic off the bat. One of the most inefficient scorers in the league. No getting around it. He's not good enough to be a 20 point a scorer on a functional team. I've seen him actively destroy the offense with his weak long twos and contested midrange jumpers. Spinning doesn't equal winning. I won't call him trash. But he's a sixth man on a good team. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG? So basically, you're saying he will be a better player if he changes the way he's played for his entire career? Don't see it. I hope he proves me wrong, but I don't want to waste the salary cap space to watch him try and do it.

Think you keep.missing my point. I am not saying that Randle is the best player in the world. Not even saying I like how he plays. Just saying that if we are going to give up on guys with potential, fairly young and have a record of production but have weaknesses, we would have to trade ALL of the players on the roster. We would also not accept over 80% of the players in the league. Most who have no where near Randle level of production.

And If you think about it, what's harder to change/add to a player? Getting him to take better shots or to give him the kind of ability/game that enables him to be an NBA All Star? No matter what anyone says about Randle, he was an All Star, parrennial 20/10 guy. That is not easy to do. So why should we give up on him?? You call that player development. Imo, that's just some fan knee jerk.

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Martin... for the sake of monotony, can we lock all future "Trade Randle" threads?

From the recent interview, it is obvious that Rose wants to stick with what we have.
And why would Rose want to do a lateral move or in this case downgrade just for picks?
I did not see a mention that the Suns would be willing to include any picks?
If Crowder wants to go to "where he is needed", why would he come to the Knicks to back up Obi?

I second that. This "trade Randle at all costs" banter is getting tiresome, let alone that I am yet to see anyone here give a compelling reason to dump a solid, if unspectacular, 20-10 player for a bag of unpeeled potatoes.

There are conceivably 100 players in this league who could score 20 points a game if given the same amount of shots and minutes as Julius. Julius is one of the most inefficient of all of them. Sack of potatoes? I'd trade Randle for a knish.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2022_per_minute.html

Yawn!! We can come up with a lot more lists of "conceivables"! My neighbors son thinks it's conceivable that he will become a millionaire despite living in the basement at the age of 30 and without ever going to college.

100 players? Please post statistical evidence of those that have done so? Not just the ole BS "I think so" rant. And I'm sure you can come up with 50 that are nearly averaging that for their careers? Some leave out that he did so with others having the main role. Ie. Davis. As for the ones you think can do it, why haven't they? They don't get the minutes? Shots? Is there a special process they keep missing out on? Is there an application process? (I always thought in the real world you had to earn them through years of production in games and practices) You also have to have that bull/alpha mentality. You also have to be able to do so despite teams defensive focussing on you. That's where the consistency has some weight. BUT MOST importantly, please post which of the 100 players that have averaged 20/10 want anything to do with the Knicks?!!

Fyi, You can be okay with trading Randle for a bag of potatoes but that just shows the level of perspective. One that, luckily for us, is not the same at the management level. This is the kind of impatient thinking that has kept the Knicks from developing in the past. Randle is a young solide player who can improve. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG. If he doesn't, the smart move is not the bag of potatoes but to trade him to a team needing a proven 20/10 in the playoffs.

I can think of one statistic off the bat. One of the most inefficient scorers in the league. No getting around it. He's not good enough to be a 20 point a scorer on a functional team. I've seen him actively destroy the offense with his weak long twos and contested midrange jumpers. Spinning doesn't equal winning. I won't call him trash. But he's a sixth man on a good team. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG? So basically, you're saying he will be a better player if he changes the way he's played for his entire career? Don't see it. I hope he proves me wrong, but I don't want to waste the salary cap space to watch him try and do it.

Think you keep.missing my point. I am not saying that Randle is the best player in the world. Not even saying I like how he plays. Just saying that if we are going to give up on guys with potential, fairly young and have a record of production but have weaknesses, we would have to trade ALL of the players on the roster. We would also not accept over 80% of the players in the league. Most who have no where near Randle level of production.

And If you think about it, what's harder to change/add to a player? Getting him to take better shots or to give him the kind of ability/game that enables him to be an NBA All Star? No matter what anyone says about Randle, he was an All Star, parrennial 20/10 guy. That is not easy to do. So why should we give up on him?? You call that player development. Imo, that's just some fan knee jerk.

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Martin... for the sake of monotony, can we lock all future "Trade Randle" threads?

From the recent interview, it is obvious that Rose wants to stick with what we have.
And why would Rose want to do a lateral move or in this case downgrade just for picks?
I did not see a mention that the Suns would be willing to include any picks?
If Crowder wants to go to "where he is needed", why would he come to the Knicks to back up Obi?

I second that. This "trade Randle at all costs" banter is getting tiresome, let alone that I am yet to see anyone here give a compelling reason to dump a solid, if unspectacular, 20-10 player for a bag of unpeeled potatoes.

There are conceivably 100 players in this league who could score 20 points a game if given the same amount of shots and minutes as Julius. Julius is one of the most inefficient of all of them. Sack of potatoes? I'd trade Randle for a knish.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2022_per_minute.html

Yawn!! We can come up with a lot more lists of "conceivables"! My neighbors son thinks it's conceivable that he will become a millionaire despite living in the basement at the age of 30 and without ever going to college.

100 players? Please post statistical evidence of those that have done so? Not just the ole BS "I think so" rant. And I'm sure you can come up with 50 that are nearly averaging that for their careers? Some leave out that he did so with others having the main role. Ie. Davis. As for the ones you think can do it, why haven't they? They don't get the minutes? Shots? Is there a special process they keep missing out on? Is there an application process? (I always thought in the real world you had to earn them through years of production in games and practices) You also have to have that bull/alpha mentality. You also have to be able to do so despite teams defensive focussing on you. That's where the consistency has some weight. BUT MOST importantly, please post which of the 100 players that have averaged 20/10 want anything to do with the Knicks?!!

Fyi, You can be okay with trading Randle for a bag of potatoes but that just shows the level of perspective. One that, luckily for us, is not the same at the management level. This is the kind of impatient thinking that has kept the Knicks from developing in the past. Randle is a young solide player who can improve. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG. If he doesn't, the smart move is not the bag of potatoes but to trade him to a team needing a proven 20/10 in the playoffs.

I can think of one statistic off the bat. One of the most inefficient scorers in the league. No getting around it. He's not good enough to be a 20 point a scorer on a functional team. I've seen him actively destroy the offense with his weak long twos and contested midrange jumpers. Spinning doesn't equal winning. I won't call him trash. But he's a sixth man on a good team. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG? So basically, you're saying he will be a better player if he changes the way he's played for his entire career? Don't see it. I hope he proves me wrong, but I don't want to waste the salary cap space to watch him try and do it.

Think you keep.missing my point. I am not saying that Randle is the best player in the world. Not even saying I like how he plays. Just saying that if we are going to give up on guys with potential, fairly young and have a record of production but have weaknesses, we would have to trade ALL of the players on the roster. We would also not accept over 80% of the players in the league. Most who have no where near Randle level of production.

And If you think about it, what's harder to change/add to a player? Getting him to take better shots or to give him the kind of ability/game that enables him to be an NBA All Star? No matter what anyone says about Randle, he was an All Star, parrennial 20/10 guy. That is not easy to do. So why should we give up on him?? You call that player development. Imo, that's just some fan knee jerk.

Randle's been in the league for 8 seasons now. He's not a young player. He's a vet and we've seen enough from him. And he's making real money now. He had about as much untapped potential as Nia Long. We know where Randle can take us and it's not far. Randle is like that crazy ex you keep around because she looks hot (20 & 10). But the more you delve, the more you find there's nothing of substance and you eventually figure out it's better to move on.

Randle has always been inefficient when he played without a PG but much better when he had one, ergo the signing of Brunson.

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Martin... for the sake of monotony, can we lock all future "Trade Randle" threads?

From the recent interview, it is obvious that Rose wants to stick with what we have.
And why would Rose want to do a lateral move or in this case downgrade just for picks?
I did not see a mention that the Suns would be willing to include any picks?
If Crowder wants to go to "where he is needed", why would he come to the Knicks to back up Obi?

I second that. This "trade Randle at all costs" banter is getting tiresome, let alone that I am yet to see anyone here give a compelling reason to dump a solid, if unspectacular, 20-10 player for a bag of unpeeled potatoes.

There are conceivably 100 players in this league who could score 20 points a game if given the same amount of shots and minutes as Julius. Julius is one of the most inefficient of all of them. Sack of potatoes? I'd trade Randle for a knish.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2022_per_minute.html

Yawn!! We can come up with a lot more lists of "conceivables"! My neighbors son thinks it's conceivable that he will become a millionaire despite living in the basement at the age of 30 and without ever going to college.

100 players? Please post statistical evidence of those that have done so? Not just the ole BS "I think so" rant. And I'm sure you can come up with 50 that are nearly averaging that for their careers? Some leave out that he did so with others having the main role. Ie. Davis. As for the ones you think can do it, why haven't they? They don't get the minutes? Shots? Is there a special process they keep missing out on? Is there an application process? (I always thought in the real world you had to earn them through years of production in games and practices) You also have to have that bull/alpha mentality. You also have to be able to do so despite teams defensive focussing on you. That's where the consistency has some weight. BUT MOST importantly, please post which of the 100 players that have averaged 20/10 want anything to do with the Knicks?!!

Fyi, You can be okay with trading Randle for a bag of potatoes but that just shows the level of perspective. One that, luckily for us, is not the same at the management level. This is the kind of impatient thinking that has kept the Knicks from developing in the past. Randle is a young solide player who can improve. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG. If he doesn't, the smart move is not the bag of potatoes but to trade him to a team needing a proven 20/10 in the playoffs.

I can think of one statistic off the bat. One of the most inefficient scorers in the league. No getting around it. He's not good enough to be a 20 point a scorer on a functional team. I've seen him actively destroy the offense with his weak long twos and contested midrange jumpers. Spinning doesn't equal winning. I won't call him trash. But he's a sixth man on a good team. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG? So basically, you're saying he will be a better player if he changes the way he's played for his entire career? Don't see it. I hope he proves me wrong, but I don't want to waste the salary cap space to watch him try and do it.

Think you keep.missing my point. I am not saying that Randle is the best player in the world. Not even saying I like how he plays. Just saying that if we are going to give up on guys with potential, fairly young and have a record of production but have weaknesses, we would have to trade ALL of the players on the roster. We would also not accept over 80% of the players in the league. Most who have no where near Randle level of production.

And If you think about it, what's harder to change/add to a player? Getting him to take better shots or to give him the kind of ability/game that enables him to be an NBA All Star? No matter what anyone says about Randle, he was an All Star, parrennial 20/10 guy. That is not easy to do. So why should we give up on him?? You call that player development. Imo, that's just some fan knee jerk.

Randle's been in the league for 8 seasons now. He's not a young player. He's a vet and we've seen enough from him. And he's making real money now. He had about as much untapped potential as Nia Long. We know where Randle can take us and it's not far. Randle is like that crazy ex you keep around because she looks hot (20 & 10). But the more you delve, the more you find there's nothing of substance and you eventually figure out it's better to move on.

Randle took us to the 4 spot with a bunch of average NBA ball players and a couple of "unproven" young guys. And if you were expecting Randle to take us anywhere, by himself, you are more unrealistic than I thought. 27 is absolutely young and where guys roll into their prime. Randle is a beast down low and a very good secondary or tertiary piece. Just because he has not single handedly taken us to a chip does not mean getting rid of him will. And again, if we are trading guys that won't lead us to a chip by themselves, we would have to trade EVERYONE.

Imo, you don't get rid of ANYONE until you have an alternative who has consistently proven that they can do better. Have not heard all the " trade Randle for a bag of potatoes" guys suggest anyone who could replace Randle and do what they claim he has not done? Crowder is definitely not that.

BigDaddyG wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Martin... for the sake of monotony, can we lock all future "Trade Randle" threads?

From the recent interview, it is obvious that Rose wants to stick with what we have.
And why would Rose want to do a lateral move or in this case downgrade just for picks?
I did not see a mention that the Suns would be willing to include any picks?
If Crowder wants to go to "where he is needed", why would he come to the Knicks to back up Obi?

I second that. This "trade Randle at all costs" banter is getting tiresome, let alone that I am yet to see anyone here give a compelling reason to dump a solid, if unspectacular, 20-10 player for a bag of unpeeled potatoes.

There are conceivably 100 players in this league who could score 20 points a game if given the same amount of shots and minutes as Julius. Julius is one of the most inefficient of all of them. Sack of potatoes? I'd trade Randle for a knish.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2022_per_minute.html

Yawn!! We can come up with a lot more lists of "conceivables"! My neighbors son thinks it's conceivable that he will become a millionaire despite living in the basement at the age of 30 and without ever going to college.

100 players? Please post statistical evidence of those that have done so? Not just the ole BS "I think so" rant. And I'm sure you can come up with 50 that are nearly averaging that for their careers? Some leave out that he did so with others having the main role. Ie. Davis. As for the ones you think can do it, why haven't they? They don't get the minutes? Shots? Is there a special process they keep missing out on? Is there an application process? (I always thought in the real world you had to earn them through years of production in games and practices) You also have to have that bull/alpha mentality. You also have to be able to do so despite teams defensive focussing on you. That's where the consistency has some weight. BUT MOST importantly, please post which of the 100 players that have averaged 20/10 want anything to do with the Knicks?!!

Fyi, You can be okay with trading Randle for a bag of potatoes but that just shows the level of perspective. One that, luckily for us, is not the same at the management level. This is the kind of impatient thinking that has kept the Knicks from developing in the past. Randle is a young solide player who can improve. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG. If he doesn't, the smart move is not the bag of potatoes but to trade him to a team needing a proven 20/10 in the playoffs.

I can think of one statistic off the bat. One of the most inefficient scorers in the league. No getting around it. He's not good enough to be a 20 point a scorer on a functional team. I've seen him actively destroy the offense with his weak long twos and contested midrange jumpers. Spinning doesn't equal winning. I won't call him trash. But he's a sixth man on a good team. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG? So basically, you're saying he will be a better player if he changes the way he's played for his entire career? Don't see it. I hope he proves me wrong, but I don't want to waste the salary cap space to watch him try and do it.

Think you keep.missing my point. I am not saying that Randle is the best player in the world. Not even saying I like how he plays. Just saying that if we are going to give up on guys with potential, fairly young and have a record of production but have weaknesses, we would have to trade ALL of the players on the roster. We would also not accept over 80% of the players in the league. Most who have no where near Randle level of production.

And If you think about it, what's harder to change/add to a player? Getting him to take better shots or to give him the kind of ability/game that enables him to be an NBA All Star? No matter what anyone says about Randle, he was an All Star, parrennial 20/10 guy. That is not easy to do. So why should we give up on him?? You call that player development. Imo, that's just some fan knee jerk.

Randle's been in the league for 8 seasons now. He's not a young player. He's a vet and we've seen enough from him. And he's making real money now. He had about as much untapped potential as Nia Long. We know where Randle can take us and it's not far. Randle is like that crazy ex you keep around because she looks hot (20 & 10). But the more you delve, the more you find there's nothing of substance and you eventually figure out it's better to move on.

Randle has always been inefficient when he played without a PG for most of his career. but much better when he had one, ergo the signing of Brunson.

So you're pretty much saying Randle is better when he doesn't have the ball in his hands? How's that different than Obi? At least Obi knows how to move without the ball and create space by cutting to the basket. Better than watching Randle clog the paint and demand the ball for inaccurate off the dribble mid-range jumpers. This roster has four guys making over $29M and it's clearly not good enough for anything outside the play-in. Randle is a luxury the team can't really afford.

He’s best as a pick and roll player top of the key and someone who can beat his man one on one quickly. The problem is that he thinks he’s Iverson so he frequently made that harder on himself than he should have.

I have very little faith in Randle. I will root for him to do well while he’s a Knick. I’d rather trade him now before his value can sink further since I don’t believe in Rock-Bottom.

Why do we think Knicks coaching and FO don’t understand what fans do regarding Jules?
What if he took on the role that Crowder has?
I read Randle sucks at defense. He don’t.
I read he don’t pass the ball. He does.
He is inefficient. thats what happens when lose more than win.
He was the guy on the road that practiced when they landed. “We here”. He was the guy that tore it up two years ago.
Personally, I like the guy. I hope he can stick to the good dad/husband thing. Very rare for you young man to marry college sweetheart and be a super young dad. I like his interviews. I like his personality.
Shushing the crowd? Players talk **** all the time. Fans talk **** all the time. Get over it.
Im rooting for the guy to succeed and do it as a knick! Don’t mean it has to be forever.
At the same time I hope Randle can play some 3 and get OBI more minutes.
I think some fans have him stereotyped in the bad moments.
He looks to be a bit trimmer then his first season here which he was a beast.
If he increases his trade value, why trade him? Don’t that mean he is playing better? More in the team concept?
I think he needs to define his role and perhaps be less ambitious. He need just play to his contract, not exceed it.

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Martin... for the sake of monotony, can we lock all future "Trade Randle" threads?

From the recent interview, it is obvious that Rose wants to stick with what we have.
And why would Rose want to do a lateral move or in this case downgrade just for picks?
I did not see a mention that the Suns would be willing to include any picks?
If Crowder wants to go to "where he is needed", why would he come to the Knicks to back up Obi?

I second that. This "trade Randle at all costs" banter is getting tiresome, let alone that I am yet to see anyone here give a compelling reason to dump a solid, if unspectacular, 20-10 player for a bag of unpeeled potatoes.

There are conceivably 100 players in this league who could score 20 points a game if given the same amount of shots and minutes as Julius. Julius is one of the most inefficient of all of them. Sack of potatoes? I'd trade Randle for a knish.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2022_per_minute.html

Yawn!! We can come up with a lot more lists of "conceivables"! My neighbors son thinks it's conceivable that he will become a millionaire despite living in the basement at the age of 30 and without ever going to college.

100 players? Please post statistical evidence of those that have done so? Not just the ole BS "I think so" rant. And I'm sure you can come up with 50 that are nearly averaging that for their careers? Some leave out that he did so with others having the main role. Ie. Davis. As for the ones you think can do it, why haven't they? They don't get the minutes? Shots? Is there a special process they keep missing out on? Is there an application process? (I always thought in the real world you had to earn them through years of production in games and practices) You also have to have that bull/alpha mentality. You also have to be able to do so despite teams defensive focussing on you. That's where the consistency has some weight. BUT MOST importantly, please post which of the 100 players that have averaged 20/10 want anything to do with the Knicks?!!

Fyi, You can be okay with trading Randle for a bag of potatoes but that just shows the level of perspective. One that, luckily for us, is not the same at the management level. This is the kind of impatient thinking that has kept the Knicks from developing in the past. Randle is a young solide player who can improve. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG. If he doesn't, the smart move is not the bag of potatoes but to trade him to a team needing a proven 20/10 in the playoffs.

I can think of one statistic off the bat. One of the most inefficient scorers in the league. No getting around it. He's not good enough to be a 20 point a scorer on a functional team. I've seen him actively destroy the offense with his weak long twos and contested midrange jumpers. Spinning doesn't equal winning. I won't call him trash. But he's a sixth man on a good team. He will have a better year as long as he takes less 3pt shots, gives up ball handling, plays downhill and establishes a rapport with a true PG? So basically, you're saying he will be a better player if he changes the way he's played for his entire career? Don't see it. I hope he proves me wrong, but I don't want to waste the salary cap space to watch him try and do it.

Think you keep.missing my point. I am not saying that Randle is the best player in the world. Not even saying I like how he plays. Just saying that if we are going to give up on guys with potential, fairly young and have a record of production but have weaknesses, we would have to trade ALL of the players on the roster. We would also not accept over 80% of the players in the league. Most who have no where near Randle level of production.

And If you think about it, what's harder to change/add to a player? Getting him to take better shots or to give him the kind of ability/game that enables him to be an NBA All Star? No matter what anyone says about Randle, he was an All Star, parrennial 20/10 guy. That is not easy to do. So why should we give up on him?? You call that player development. Imo, that's just some fan knee jerk.

Randle's been in the league for 8 seasons now. He's not a young player. He's a vet and we've seen enough from him. And he's making real money now. He had about as much untapped potential as Nia Long. We know where Randle can take us and it's not far. Randle is like that crazy ex you keep around because she looks hot (20 & 10). But the more you delve, the more you find there's nothing of substance and you eventually figure out it's better to move on.

Randle took us to the 4 spot with a bunch of average NBA ball players and a couple of "unproven" young guys. And if you were expecting Randle to take us anywhere, by himself, you are more unrealistic than I thought. 27 is absolutely young and where guys roll into their prime. Randle is a beast down low and a very good secondary or tertiary piece. Just because he has not single handedly taken us to a chip does not mean getting rid of him will. And again, if we are trading guys that won't lead us to a chip by themselves, we would have to trade EVERYONE.

Imo, you don't get rid of ANYONE until you have an alternative who has consistently proven that they can do better. Have not heard all the " trade Randle for a bag of potatoes" guys suggest anyone who could replace Randle and do what they claim he has not done? Crowder is definitely not that.

I can't remember the last time Randle has been a beast down low, unless you're counting crazy spinovers in the paint and contested turn around jump shots. We have Obi, who the FO needs to make a decision on soon. It's not about who can lead the team to a chip. It's who can jell with the team and become part of the foundation. No one should be thinking championship this season. It's about building to that. I don't see it with Randle, one fluky All-Star season aside. He's no longer on a bargain contract and it's debatable if he even fits with the current timeline.And he's been trash 2 out of three seasons. And he kills the offense. And his defensive effort is too erratic to count on. And his inability to control his emotions has cost the team games. This team may very well have to trade everyone when it's all said and done. But I think it's safe to say that Randle is not part of the solution.

Why does the FO need to make a decision on Obi real soon?? He facing a max? He is doing fine. Will get more minutes as he improves. Have we not learned anything from being premature on other young hopefulls? Ie Frank, Knox, etc etc.

All Star selections are not flukes. That's just things haters say.

Why is it that every poster that brings up their advanced stats as the reason to trade Randle are the same that push Obi? A kid who has yet to post any substantial production. Would respect the ones who at least admit it's about curiously over rationale.

Hey, do not think we will ever agree. Two different mind sets. Reason why these Randle discussions are redundant. I want to be patient with Randle. Despite his flaws and your view that all his accomplishments were meaningless. See no reason to trade him for a bag of potatoes. Especially since there is no viable alternative and we had no PG last year. Hoping Obi is that one day but do not think Randle will keep him from being it. Only a lack of improvement will.

Club option next season and a QO of $9M the year after. Time flies and the FO will have to decide to crap or get off the pot. As for Obi's advanced stats compared to Randle's at the same point in their careers... trust me, you really don't want to make comparison. And if you really want to keep it 100, Randle's didn't really distinguish himself that much over Obi with his advanced stats last season. Now, can Obi continue on that pace with starters minutes? Don't know, but the Knicks need to find out. Again, I've seen enough from Randle to confidently say that he probably isn't the answer. Now could he have another fluke season? Anything is possible. But is he likely to have another fluke season? Imma say no.

BigDaddyG wrote:
Club option next season and a QO of $9M the year after. Time flies and the FO will have to decide to crap or get off the pot. As for Obi's advanced stats compared to Randle's at the same point in their careers... trust me, you really don't want to make comparison. And if you really want to keep it 100, Randle's didn't really distinguish himself that much over Obi with his advanced stats last season. Now, can Obi continue on that pace with starters minutes? Don't know, but the Knicks need to find out. Again, I've seen enough from Randle to confidently say that he probably isn't the answer. Now could he have another fluke season? Anything is possible. But is he likely to have another fluke season? Imma say no.

You may believe that Obi will get you 20-10 if given 35 minutes a game without exposing the team on defense. And that may end up being true. But I have not seen enough from Obi to convince me of that yet. So, I would not hurry with trading away our top scorer for a bag of potatoes, especially given that our second-leading scorer is not an epitome of efficiency either. A bag of potatoes will not get you too many buckets or haul you down too many rebounds.

Randle had a couple of seasons where his eFG was more than respectable. So, there is reason to believe that he may turn it around just like there is a reason to believe that Obi may turn it up.

gradyandrew wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:
Club option next season and a QO of $9M the year after. Time flies and the FO will have to decide to crap or get off the pot. As for Obi's advanced stats compared to Randle's at the same point in their careers... trust me, you really don't want to make comparison. And if you really want to keep it 100, Randle's didn't really distinguish himself that much over Obi with his advanced stats last season. Now, can Obi continue on that pace with starters minutes? Don't know, but the Knicks need to find out. Again, I've seen enough from Randle to confidently say that he probably isn't the answer. Now could he have another fluke season? Anything is possible. But is he likely to have another fluke season? Imma say no.

Are you confident he probably isn't the answer, or probably confident he is? Why not just say so either way so we can be confident that you probably are wrong?

Guess what- Randle also had a positive +/- when sharing time with IQ. I think it's clear that Obi and Randle are different players. I'm happy to see if adding Brunson is the missing piece to the Knicks becoming a good team again. If it makes you happier to expect them to fail, I'm confident you will probably have something to complain about all season.

You're right. Randle isn't the answer. Happy? I'm confident that you will still find a way make excuses for Randle even though it's clear he's choking the offense. I'm confident that when the ball movent is stifled and Brunson and RJ don't have enough space to do their thing, you will blame them instead of the obvious red flag. I'm confident that Randle had a fluke season and will continue to disappoint.

Clean wrote:People rely too much on numbers and not how the team flows. All of Obi's points come in the flow of the offense or in transition. Fans should hold both of those aspects of his game in high regard because of how we hated ISO Melo and ISO Randle. I would also like to point out we are constantly the worst fast breaking team every single year. Do you understand how much more worse we would be without Obi? Obi averages something like 19pts and 6rebs in games Randle does not play. The problem with him is his game relies too much on his team to find him on leak outs and cuts. Which is why once Quick figured out how to play PG Obi's game exploded. How many of Quicks assists were on cuts and leak outs to Obi? With Rose, Brunson, Hart(Passing/Shooting) and PG capable Quick if given enough time this should be a good year for Obi.

This! Another underrated aspect of Obi is his ability to make quick decisions with the ball. He is a ball and body mover as the ball never sticks and he never operates outside of the offense. His constant cutting and slashing and finding holes in the defense is a pure pg's dream....