Knicks get
M Bridges
J Crowder
2nd rd pick

Suns Get
J Randle
C Reddish

The money is even. This will set us back but in the short term, but Bridges is a better fit.

Rookie wrote:I've been trying to come up with a trade that would make sense for either Randle or RJ. This is the best I can do

Knicks get
M Bridges
J Crowder
2nd rd pick

Suns Get
J Randle
C Reddish

The money is even. This will set us back but in the short term, but Bridges is a better fit.

I had been trying to see if a Mikal Bridges/Julius Randle trade made sense for both teams and just couldn't get over the hump on that one for either team.

It kinda-sorta made some sense player-wise but also had a bunch of flaws too, enough that both sides would not do trade (PHO ownership is also in a tricky situation too right now where banned guy can call the trade shots stupid stupid stupid).

From the Knicks perspective, it would mean you'd have to think about changing the core of your team, and if you committed to moving Randle, you definitely are in more tank mode than playoff hopeful; that's OK but it would be a stark change in direction. Everyone would complain cause it's what they'd do.

Also, you take on Mikal - who is a SG/SF - you may need to move RJ too IMO cause you would have too much overlapping for starting minutes between RJ/Mikal/Grimes. This would be a tough change/departure for the Knicks too. OR, you would need to consider the fallout of moving one of those guys to bench and I'd guess that would be RJ but who knows.

Tricky tricky trade.

Rookie wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:Posters continue to trade Randle. Knicks will not. If it needs to be explained you aren’t paying attention.

Oh sorry, I didn't know that you and Leon play golf on Sundays. Knicks haven't traded depressed assets for pennies on the dollar, that's a good thing. Randle is no longer a depressed asset, he is tradable. That's also a good thing. It's a business.

The Knicks are not tearing it down, rebuilding, tanking.

They are looking to make the playoffs, even have some success.

Randle is arguably their best player, certainly second best at worst.

He stays on the court. He brings toughness. He’s pretty much a guaranteed double double and mostly plays good defense sometimes top notch.

His contract, regardless of what some naysayers put out there, is very manageable and reasonable.

What do you get back in these circumstances that warrants “trading Randle?”

I don’t know who you play golf with - myself I don’t play - I find it, uh, a soft sport. But if they’re telling you it’s time to trade Randle I don’t understand what their reasoning is. Of course it isn’t impossible. But Bridges, Crowder, and a second rounder isn’t the motivation. I surely doubt with a first rounder either. I understand you are motivated, that’s fine. But Leon did tell me during our 25 mile hike it ain’t happening.

Rose, Isiah, Cam, Fournier for Westbrook and a couple of second rounders. Clears $25MM off the cap and the team doesn’t really lose anything. Like Hartenstein, but doesn’t seem to be a great fit here.

Fournier, 1st rounder, second rounder for Gary Trent Jr

Obi, Reddish for Josh Hart

fishmike wrote:

franco12 wrote:Before last nights embarrassingly performance of our 2021-22 season, I thought a player like DeRozan could be the piece that puts us into contention for Conference Finals.

Now, I'm not sure we avoid a play in scenario.

We have some nice players that have shown flashes - but we are short of the talent needed for a championship.

We probably should be marginal sellers at the deadline, not buyers.

So one game was enough to sway you from contender to play in?

Don't know about Franco, but even during our wins, I was not confident in us making noise in the playoffs. This team appeared to head str8 into the same situation as before. Make the playoffs and get knocked out 1st round. I've asked this question before, and I'm not surprised nobody can answer. Is it better to make the playin / playoffs, and get swept or knocked out. Or use the Load Management excuse and rest our best players. Let IQ and Obi run the show. Tank for a higher position, and hope the scouting department can find a gem in this so-called deep draft.

New role players, same coach, RJ and Randle still here, same result.

We don't like to trade players with high value, thats stupid. But when they lose value, we say wait until we increase their value before we trade them. We increase their value and say, lets keep them. It's stupid to trade your top player. Then your top player(s) has another dud. It feels like knick fans been on this merry go round for too long now. Will this ride every stop going in circles?

martin wrote:

Rookie wrote:I've been trying to come up with a trade that would make sense for either Randle or RJ. This is the best I can do

Knicks get
M Bridges
J Crowder
2nd rd pick

Suns Get
J Randle
C Reddish

The money is even. This will set us back but in the short term, but Bridges is a better fit.

I had been trying to see if a Mikal Bridges/Julius Randle trade made sense for both teams and just couldn't get over the hump on that one for either team.

It kinda-sorta made some sense player-wise but also had a bunch of flaws too, enough that both sides would not do trade (PHO ownership is also in a tricky situation too right now where banned guy can call the trade shots stupid stupid stupid).

From the Knicks perspective, it would mean you'd have to think about changing the core of your team, and if you committed to moving Randle, you definitely are in more tank mode than playoff hopeful; that's OK but it would be a stark change in direction. Everyone would complain cause it's what they'd do.

Also, you take on Mikal - who is a SG/SF - you may need to move RJ too IMO cause you would have too much overlapping for starting minutes between RJ/Mikal/Grimes. This would be a tough change/departure for the Knicks too. OR, you would need to consider the fallout of moving one of those guys to bench and I'd guess that would be RJ but who knows.

Tricky tricky trade.

Yeah, that's all I got. It's the only trade scenario I could find that comes close to meeting both teams needs. I did prioritize sending Randle to the Western Conference. The new Pho owner put out a statement that he's looking to upgrade and he's willing to go over the cap to do it. Bridges is the type of player we need to target. He's also the right age to be a core player. At some point, the conversation is going to switch to fit with the Knicks. Right now Randle, RJ and Brunson aren't a good fit.

To begin the season we tried to prioritize pace. That just didn't work with this group. We slowed it down a little and started playing some fun basketball where the ball wasn't sticking and we were scoring with ease. It just looked effortless and games were fun to watch. Then we morphed into this iso heavy low assist version we are now. We can go long stretches without scoring and nothing on offense comes easy. The 2nd unit used to have a change of pace and outscore the 1st unit. Now they are iso heavy as well. This probably doesn't get fixed by the trade deadline.

jskinny35 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Panos wrote:If it's me, i would trade RJ + parts for a better complimentary piece. Hopefully someone who can shoot with some court vision to pass . Some speed would be a bonus.
Also for the right piece i would part with Mitch.
Great defense and rebounding, zero ability to score

really hard to tell how patient to be with RJ. He has those games where he shows post moves and passing and slashing and bashing... and other games where you think he would look great playing in China. Is he working on his game? Is he getting better? I would think the staff have the read on him.

I think what makes me consider holding on to RJ is how he played much better in the 2nd half of last season when he assumed more of a dominant role. He still has his warts but when the offense ran through him more I felt the ball moved around the court more. Neither RJ or Randle seem to have great vision, passing and/or any exceptional quality that would support running the offense around them. Just feel we've seen enough to recognize the limited ceiling with both these guys playing on the court together. I'd go with youth as there may be more options that way.

So JSkinny, you eloquently explained the offensive issues with RJ and Randle, and it's hard to argue that point. Eventhough I think their offense is better than their defense (for whatever thats worth)
I've also talked about my issues with RJ and Randle (now add Brunson) on the defensive end. This is why I've said many times, if the Big 3 are not having a good game, our chances of winning is slim, because they do not make any winning plays on defense to cover up offensive inefficiencies. On top of that, the big 3 are the leaders by default. And since they are ISO heavy, all the surrounding players pick up those same ISO tendencies.

So in summary, RJ and Randle are weak on offense and defense. Yet the FO decided to build around these guys? And you wonder why thibs and company are having an up and down year. Building around 2 players who are inconsistent on offense or defense is a recipe for disaster. I was skeptical when this decision was first made, after drafting RJ and pairing him with Randle. RJ is best when the offense flows through him. You saw that at Duke, even with Zion on the team. I thought it was best to move on from Randle after his Most Improved Year heading into his contract year. Personally I did not trust COVID Randle (and still don't), but hard to argue his All Star performance, so I get it. But I also thought thats when we can get an All Star in return that fits with RJ. Just my own NBA 2k management experience. I'll wait for all the UK / NBA management experts to disagree with my thinking. Again, it's a long season, so I'll wait it out. But so far, it's not looking too well, regarding how we will look in the playoffs / playin (assuming we make it).

I know it sounds crazy to complain about a player who currently ranked #9 on the All Star voting, which is great for Randle and I hope Brunson is an All Star as well. But this is a team sport. Individual accolades is great stuff, but doesn't mean anything if the team is no better than a 1st round exit with or without Randle. But RJ or Randle needs to move. I say simply move RJ to the bench so the offense can run through him. Let Randle and Brunson develop a solid 2 man game. Or use load management excuse (missed free throws, crappy crunch time play, etc...) to sit them and get a higher draft pick and add some length from the draft.

fishmike wrote:

blkexec wrote:

fishmike wrote:

franco12 wrote:Before last nights embarrassingly performance of our 2021-22 season, I thought a player like DeRozan could be the piece that puts us into contention for Conference Finals.

Now, I'm not sure we avoid a play in scenario.

We have some nice players that have shown flashes - but we are short of the talent needed for a championship.

We probably should be marginal sellers at the deadline, not buyers.

So one game was enough to sway you from contender to play in?

Don't know about Franco, but even during our wins, I was not confident in us making noise in the playoffs. This team appeared to head str8 into the same situation as before. Make the playoffs and get knocked out 1st round. I've asked this question before, and I'm not surprised nobody can answer. Is it better to make the playin / playoffs, and get swept or knocked out. Or use the Load Management excuse and rest our best players. Let IQ and Obi run the show. Tank for a higher position, and hope the scouting department can find a gem in this so-called deep draft.

New role players, same coach, RJ and Randle still here, same result.

We don't like to trade players with high value, thats stupid. But when they lose value, we say wait until we increase their value before we trade them. We increase their value and say, lets keep them. It's stupid to trade your top player. Then your top player(s) has another dud. It feels like knick fans been on this merry go round for too long now. Will this ride every stop going in circles?

why would you be? We are pretty average and surely not better than the top 1-4 teams. Rotation is 24 years old. Avoiding the play-in would be a hell of a good season. Im not sure the guys are there yet when it comes to making a run. We are some pieces or some experience away... unless Brunson scores 40 a game like he did when Luka was out

I don't think it matters. If Brunson scores 40, his man scores 25-30. Or RJ's man also scored 40 (or have a career scoring day). Meanwhile, Randle is still chucking away, and his man is also killing. Brunson's 40 means nothing on this team, which is not constructed very well. Now Brunson's crunch time buckets is where the money is at.

But I don't have a lot of faith in Thibs, RJ and Randle trio. Sometimes certain players or people may never develop the chemistry thats needed to win consistently and thats ok. The question is when will the FO see this and make adjustments.

KnickDanger wrote:

Rookie wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:Posters continue to trade Randle. Knicks will not. If it needs to be explained you aren’t paying attention.

Oh sorry, I didn't know that you and Leon play golf on Sundays. Knicks haven't traded depressed assets for pennies on the dollar, that's a good thing. Randle is no longer a depressed asset, he is tradable. That's also a good thing. It's a business.

Not my intention to direct my post at you although you sure enough were looking to “trade Randle.” And posters have been seeking to devalue and then trade him for a few years now. Were you among those suggesting attaching first rounders to him to get back a Westbrook or Wall? Regardless, you are correct, he is no longer so devalued, no thanks to fans. And he could could conceivably bring back value. My point, the Knicks are not going to trade him, could be presented as why would they trade him?

The Knicks are not tearing it down, rebuilding, tanking.

They are looking to make the playoffs, even have some success.

Randle is arguably their best player, certainly second best at worst.

He stays on the court. He brings toughness. He’s pretty much a guaranteed double double and mostly plays good defense sometimes top notch.

His contract, regardless of what some naysayers put out there, is very manageable and reasonable.

What do you get back in these circumstances that warrants “trading Randle?”

I don’t know who you play golf with - myself I don’t play - I find it, uh, a soft sport. But if they’re telling you it’s time to trade Randle I don’t understand what their reasoning is. Of course it isn’t impossible. But Bridges, Crowder, and a second rounder isn’t the motivation. I surely doubt with a first rounder either. I understand you are motivated, that’s fine. But Leon did tell me during our 25 mile hike it ain’t happening.

If I trade Randle, I want a good young player who would be a good fit on this team. Next spin class, please ask Leon what he thinks of Bridges.

Bridges being a starter with playoff experience and on a good contract with 3 more years is a plus. Efficient shooting and good defense is also a plus. If I were to trade Randle, it would have to make the team better in the long run. Putting the ball in Brunson's hands is also good for the team in the long run. Bridges also helps with pace and space. He's a very good young player with no character issues that we know of

blkexec wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Panos wrote:If it's me, i would trade RJ + parts for a better complimentary piece. Hopefully someone who can shoot with some court vision to pass . Some speed would be a bonus.
Also for the right piece i would part with Mitch.
Great defense and rebounding, zero ability to score

really hard to tell how patient to be with RJ. He has those games where he shows post moves and passing and slashing and bashing... and other games where you think he would look great playing in China. Is he working on his game? Is he getting better? I would think the staff have the read on him.

I think what makes me consider holding on to RJ is how he played much better in the 2nd half of last season when he assumed more of a dominant role. He still has his warts but when the offense ran through him more I felt the ball moved around the court more. Neither RJ or Randle seem to have great vision, passing and/or any exceptional quality that would support running the offense around them. Just feel we've seen enough to recognize the limited ceiling with both these guys playing on the court together. I'd go with youth as there may be more options that way.

So JSkinny, you eloquently explained the offensive issues with RJ and Randle, and it's hard to argue that point. Eventhough I think their offense is better than their defense (for whatever thats worth)
I've also talked about my issues with RJ and Randle (now add Brunson) on the defensive end. This is why I've said many times, if the Big 3 are not having a good game, our chances of winning is slim, because they do not make any winning plays on defense to cover up offensive inefficiencies. On top of that, the big 3 are the leaders by default. And since they are ISO heavy, all the surrounding players pick up those same ISO tendencies.

So in summary, RJ and Randle are weak on offense and defense. Yet the FO decided to build around these guys? And you wonder why thibs and company are having an up and down year. Building around 2 players who are inconsistent on offense or defense is a recipe for disaster. I was skeptical when this decision was first made, after drafting RJ and pairing him with Randle. RJ is best when the offense flows through him. You saw that at Duke, even with Zion on the team. I thought it was best to move on from Randle after his Most Improved Year heading into his contract year. Personally I did not trust COVID Randle (and still don't), but hard to argue his All Star performance, so I get it. But I also thought thats when we can get an All Star in return that fits with RJ. Just my own NBA 2k management experience. I'll wait for all the UK / NBA management experts to disagree with my thinking. Again, it's a long season, so I'll wait it out. But so far, it's not looking too well, regarding how we will look in the playoffs / playin (assuming we make it).

I know it sounds crazy to complain about a player who currently ranked #9 on the All Star voting, which is great for Randle and I hope Brunson is an All Star as well. But this is a team sport. Individual accolades is great stuff, but doesn't mean anything if the team is no better than a 1st round exit with or without Randle. But RJ or Randle needs to move. I say simply move RJ to the bench so the offense can run through him. Let Randle and Brunson develop a solid 2 man game. Or use load management excuse (missed free throws, crappy crunch time play, etc...) to sit them and get a higher draft pick and add some length from the draft.

blkexec

Yes - we are setup in a semi-flawed way to begin with as we have a bargain basement "big 3" that have played very close to their ceiling (Most teams that don't have a top tier talent are so it's not the end of the world). I was right there with you wanting to sell high on Randle after his terrific system because I believe your best player can't just be good/very good. Your teams best player has to possess something that is elite - especially if the offense is centered around a specific player. It can be athleticism, court vision, decision making, etc...but the teams that are feared in the playoffs all have somebody with one or several of these qualities. Yes you can try to build a 2004 Pistons teams with all very good (not no great) players but that's not really an option since we have Thibs and he likes to pick 1-3 players and rely on them heavily.

I don't think it's crazy to complain about a top 9 ranked player because you mentioned it is a team game and not about individual players (or stocks). At the end of the day we should feel like we have a sound formula, a coach that brings out the best in the roster we have, and players that complement each other and have solid chemistry.

Agree about RJ and Randle not complementing each other - they seem more like they take turns to make sure each player gets their touches/isos. I could kinda knock Brunson for similar reasons but he has better court vision, is more clutch and makes better decisions overall. At this point it would be better to break those two up - even if it means moving RJ to the bench. I don't think that will work long-term so maybe finding a trade would be best.

At this point I see Brunson and Grimes as our backcourt as they complement each other and are solid enough overall. I would look for a stretch 4 to replace Randle ideally (had mentioned Lauri last season but that ship has sailed) and give RJ a season to see how he performs in Randle's role and with more floor spacing. Another way to go would be to find a three team deal where Randle goes to a Miami/playoff team and we get a lesser teams pick for this 2023 draft. We package a few with a player and try to get into the top 7 where we could hopefully draft a player worth building around. Love RJ - but would part with him if it increases the likelihood we find that player. Giving the majority of shots to RJ, Randle and Brunson with the occasional kick out (Grimes) or lob (Mitch) doesn't make us tough to defend in my opinion. And the whole thing you wrote about Randle's value is spot on IMO! Seems those in his corner don't feel he can ever be traded as we've run the whole range of a player's value the past few seasons with him.

Totally agree with you on playing IQ, Toppin (Cam too) and focusing on developing the younger players for a season so we can find out what we have and be equipped to make decisions on their future. Thibs running the show means this won't happen but as a fan it's pretty frustrating that we can't entertain any alternative plans with Thibs running the team...even if the likely destination ends at mediocrity. Netting a better draft pick while playing youth is what the Rileys, Spurs, Ainge's, etc would do for great drafts. It's not tanking if you actually have young players you need to make decision on financially and your have a mid-range ceiling anyway.