nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.

the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?

RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.

I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.

To be fair, I don't think the Knicks have 1 ball handler that I would really trust under pressure. IQ, Brunson are not at that level.

Teams like Miami and Boston are always going to give Knicks fits because of that IMO

i mean those are great defensive teams, they are going to give most teams fits.

but I think we beat MIA last year if we had a guy like Lavine. it was scoring and shooting more than forced TO's that really hurt us against MIA.

haha you just backdoor'ed your Lavine trade. love it

And yes, just against the elite teams.

Lavine or DM is what this team needs, but Lavine probably costs less.

Have had my eye in LaVine for some time because like the body type and scoring efficiency with potential to put up 4pm in big game BUT at same time his play style is a bit soft defensively and something seems just a bit missing.

LivingLegend wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.

the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?

RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.

I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.

To be fair, I don't think the Knicks have 1 ball handler that I would really trust under pressure. IQ, Brunson are not at that level.

Teams like Miami and Boston are always going to give Knicks fits because of that IMO

i mean those are great defensive teams, they are going to give most teams fits.

but I think we beat MIA last year if we had a guy like Lavine. it was scoring and shooting more than forced TO's that really hurt us against MIA.

haha you just backdoor'ed your Lavine trade. love it

And yes, just against the elite teams.

Lavine or DM is what this team needs, but Lavine probably costs less.

Have had my eye in LaVine for some time because like the body type and scoring efficiency with potential to put up 4pm in big game BUT at same time his play style is a bit soft defensively and something seems just a bit missing.

i agree but if he's cheap enough I'd take the risk that Thibs can figure it out. say what you want but Lavine's scoring, shooting and efficiency has been on par with DM & Booker for 5 years.

foosballnick wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

LivingLegend wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.

the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?

RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.

I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.

To be fair, I don't think the Knicks have 1 ball handler that I would really trust under pressure. IQ, Brunson are not at that level.

Teams like Miami and Boston are always going to give Knicks fits because of that IMO

i mean those are great defensive teams, they are going to give most teams fits.

but I think we beat MIA last year if we had a guy like Lavine. it was scoring and shooting more than forced TO's that really hurt us against MIA.

haha you just backdoor'ed your Lavine trade. love it

And yes, just against the elite teams.

Lavine or DM is what this team needs, but Lavine probably costs less.

Have had my eye in LaVine for some time because like the body type and scoring efficiency with potential to put up 4pm in big game BUT at same time his play style is a bit soft defensively and something seems just a bit missing.

i agree but if he's cheap enough I'd take the risk that Thibs can figure it out. say what you want but Lavine's scoring, shooting and efficiency has been on par with DM & Booker for 5 years.

My opinion is that fans have not caught up to the implications of the new CBA and how being over the Apron and 2nd Apron will basically completely hamstring a team. Lavine will make between $40 - $49M per year over the next 4 seasons. This means that even after you give up assets for him, he will also essentially be taking the spot of 2 guys on the Knicks current roster. For all his offensive ability - he's got question marks on his knee and can be soft defensively.

that stuff is for the FO to figure out.

that being said, 2nd apron doesn't mean you CANT keep your own guys, it just makes trades or signings more difficult. You're pretty much locked into the team unless you shed salary.

but we are a long way from being there.

Nalod wrote:Its been reiterated that he don't want NY and if Scott Perry speaks for what our outlook is by not having disgruntled dudes here we will pass.
I don't know if he is or not but that contract is bear to have and seems like Leon/Rosas/Aller got this.
We are respectable and while the next jump is the hardest its not likely on the whims of past performance.
Lavine is a fine player and has done well the last 5 years. Its the remainder of his contract going forward Im worried about.

I'm not worried about it either. Lavine don't fit. I understand there are some players you bring in regardless based on their talent, but Lavine ain't one of them. I think the Magic, Sixers, Heat and Pacers (Not sure how they're feeling about Mathurin these days) are the best fits. And to be fair to Lavine, he hasn't historically been a "disgruntled" star. The Bulls are a dumpster fire and I'm sure most of that team would say they8 like to leave if you did an informal poll.

EwingsGlass wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Nalod wrote:Its been reiterated that he don't want NY and if Scott Perry speaks for what our outlook is by not having disgruntled dudes here we will pass.
I don't know if he is or not but that contract is bear to have and seems like Leon/Rosas/Aller got this.
We are respectable and while the next jump is the hardest its not likely on the whims of past performance.
Lavine is a fine player and has done well the last 5 years. Its the remainder of his contract going forward Im worried about.

I'm not worried about it either. Lavine don't fit. I understand there are some players you bring in regardless based on their talent, but Lavine ain't one of them. I think the Magic, Sixers, Heat and Pacers (Not sure how they're feeling about Mathurin these days) are the best fits. And to be fair to Lavine, he hasn't historically been a "disgruntled" star. The Bulls are a dumpster fire and I'm sure most of that team would say they8 like to leave if you did an informal poll.

Hope Sixers take Lavine. That would be wonderful.

PHI would be the favorites if they got Lavine.

nycericanguy wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Nalod wrote:Its been reiterated that he don't want NY and if Scott Perry speaks for what our outlook is by not having disgruntled dudes here we will pass.
I don't know if he is or not but that contract is bear to have and seems like Leon/Rosas/Aller got this.
We are respectable and while the next jump is the hardest its not likely on the whims of past performance.
Lavine is a fine player and has done well the last 5 years. Its the remainder of his contract going forward Im worried about.

I'm not worried about it either. Lavine don't fit. I understand there are some players you bring in regardless based on their talent, but Lavine ain't one of them. I think the Magic, Sixers, Heat and Pacers (Not sure how they're feeling about Mathurin these days) are the best fits. And to be fair to Lavine, he hasn't historically been a "disgruntled" star. The Bulls are a dumpster fire and I'm sure most of that team would say they8 like to leave if you did an informal poll.

Hope Sixers take Lavine. That would be wonderful.

PHI would be the favorites if they got Lavine.

We clearly have different opinions about Lavine’s ability to help teams win games. I see Lavine as an overpriced player that is injured very often whose fgame is reliant on his athleticism. He is a half-hearted defender. On offense, needs the ball in his hands to be remotely effective.

If the goal of basketball is to win games and to outscore your opponent, he does neither of these things. His career win loss is 210-357 and his career plus minus is -1657. The fact is that he cannot win games.

Knixkik wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:Look at the Clips and their “4 Star” roster. So glad the FO has resisted pressure from the gasbags and bing bongers.

Just because a player was a star doesn’t mean he is for his entire career. Westbrook hasn’t been a star in years. Harden has fallen off I think. So you have 2 stars and 2 former stars. The issue is the former stars getting current star treatment. Otherwise westbrook wouldn’t be starting and harden wouldn’t have landed with the clippers. The league changes fast. Guys like Maxey and Haliburton have replaced guys like Westbrook and harden as stars of the league. It comes down to not everyone is lebron or KD or Steph and can remain a star in his mid 30s.

Good point. Aging stars are more hit and miss when it comes to availability and consistency.

GustavBahler wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:Look at the Clips and their “4 Star” roster. So glad the FO has resisted pressure from the gasbags and bing bongers.

Just because a player was a star doesn’t mean he is for his entire career. Westbrook hasn’t been a star in years. Harden has fallen off I think. So you have 2 stars and 2 former stars. The issue is the former stars getting current star treatment. Otherwise westbrook wouldn’t be starting and harden wouldn’t have landed with the clippers. The league changes fast. Guys like Maxey and Haliburton have replaced guys like Westbrook and harden as stars of the league. It comes down to not everyone is lebron or KD or Steph and can remain a star in his mid 30s.

Good point. Aging stars are more hit and miss when it comes to availability and consistency.

Lavine has been very durable and he'll only be 31 at the start of his final contract year.

EwingsGlass wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:Look at the Clips and their “4 Star” roster. So glad the FO has resisted pressure from the gasbags and bing bongers.

Just because a player was a star doesn’t mean he is for his entire career. Westbrook hasn’t been a star in years. Harden has fallen off I think. So you have 2 stars and 2 former stars. The issue is the former stars getting current star treatment. Otherwise westbrook wouldn’t be starting and harden wouldn’t have landed with the clippers. The league changes fast. Guys like Maxey and Haliburton have replaced guys like Westbrook and harden as stars of the league. It comes down to not everyone is lebron or KD or Steph and can remain a star in his mid 30s.

Good point. Aging stars are more hit and miss when it comes to availability and consistency.

Lavine has been very durable and he'll only be 31 at the start of his final contract year.

Which definition of “durable” are you using? He misses an average of 20 games a year.

He makes 40mm and has a 15% trade kicker.

Hard pass for me.

he had 1 surgery 6-7 years ago, since then when comparing his offensive numbers with DM and Booker, he's played more games than both of them and thats despite the fact that CHI was resting him on B2B's even when he was healthy coming off the surgery. I guess you wouldn't want DM or Booker either? since those guys aren't durable according to you and dont defend either? Just saying there's no perfect player out there, we have a window where we can go for it and our biggest need is scoring and shooting and Lavine is elite at both of those. He would easily be our best scorer.

stars get max. a guy who puts up 25/5/5 on near 48/40/84 is going to get max. Anyone worth trading for is going to be making max.

gradyandrew wrote:Two best teams are Nuggets and Boston, each with 4 guys who fit the "starsp" criteria in Jokic, Murray, Gordon, and Porter Jr. and Tatum, KP, Brown, and Holiday. Gordon has a below max contract but I think that has more to do with him valuing winning over the big contract dollars.You could compare Gordon to Jerami Grant as an example for the winning team tax.

Until Knicks can hang with Boston Philly and Milwaukee, they are still a second tier team.

see, I disagree. Starphuck implies, to me anyway, cashing in your chips and depleting the rest of your roster to acquire stars, like the Clippers of present day

The Nuggets guys are homegrown. So they might have some star power, but its mostly homegrown. Murray is great but never voted to an all star game. Aaron Gordon, was labelled a bust, but can play, never been to ASG. Porter Jr, a stud who fell because people were afraid of his injury history, also never been to ASG. To me, the Nuggets are the quintessential 'buy low' team

As for the Celtics, they drafted two supermax studs, and made some moves that at first glance appear like a starphuck, but I don't think so. They traded a lockdown defender to get a stretch 5, which is something that the Cs sorely needed. Jaylen Brown looks even better with KP. Then, they replaced their lockdown defender with a better lockdown defender. I think their acquisitions filled needs, as opposed to the Clippers who just built a fantasy team

Nalod wrote:Thus far I trust this FO and perhaps blindly if they deemed it with enthusiasm to go for Lavine I’d root for it too work.
What choice do we have? Not endorse it if it don’t work be that guy who ****s on it and gets off on being right? LOL…..
I’d put a nalodian spinover on it that it was a good idea that did not execute!

Truth if it failed and team falters, knick fans have little patience anymore. Bulls have sucked for a while but they had a dynasty to build on a few good runs since. Its been a while but we are barren for 50 years with only one good run in between in the ewing era. The 1999 short season was fun as hell, but SAS kicked our ass and we were pretty beat by the time the series came around.

I trust the FO in terms of negotiation of salaries. In terms of roster construction, still have concerns.