Rookie wrote:

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

Shockingly, you just tell us what you want whereas my point is about what the team wants and will do. But it gives us a chance to go at each other which is fun.

Next time you play Mahjong with Leon's wife maybe you can pick up some more insights.

KnickDanger wrote:

Rookie wrote:

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

Shockingly, you just tell us what you want whereas my point is about what the team wants and will do. But it gives us a chance to go at each other which is fun.

Next time you play Mahjong with Leon's wife maybe you can pick up some more insights.

I’m going to have to leave that to you. Maybe you can ask Leon what the team wants next time when your bagging his groceries

Jmpasq wrote:

ekstarks94 wrote:Should have made the D. Mitchell trade…

The Cavs offer was a lot better. The team should try to move RJ for og anunoby

I have a hard time seeing any team that would trade for RJ. If I were Toronto, I do not do that trade straight up. I would need picks, other consideration.

I think the starters are better with IQ rather than RJ. With RJ out there the 3 point shooting is way too unsteady. I don't know if there's an easy way out of this problem. RJ's contract is difficult to trade, I don't think the Knicks are interested, they already had a deal for Donovan Mitchell on the table this summer and decided to hold on to him.

I think the Knicks best asset is their FRP for this summer. The possibility of the Knicks crapping out for the rest of the season is pretty high, they have one of the harder remaining schedules left. You have to figure there's something like 3% odds the Knicks pick moves up in the lottery at this point. I don't think that will happen but realistically, it's possible.

Knicks have a lot of semi dead salary in D Rose and Fournier to make deals.

I would do Fournier Hart and Reddish and 2023 unprotected FRP for Rozier and Plumlee.

Plumlee can hold the fort for Robinson for the next month, apnd then adds a different dimension for when Robinson comes back. Rozier can start with Brunson and Grimes and then RJ and IQ can wreck teams from the bench. The new Knicks are just good enough to get the 6 seed and just bad enough to possibly get in the lottery.

ekstarks94 wrote:Should have made the D. Mitchell trade…

I think the Jazz were alway using the Knicks to get more from the Cavs. The only way that deal with the Jazz would of gotten done is if they drained every single asset we had. If we gave them Mitch, Quickley, Grimes, RJ, Obi, 3 unprotected firsts and every extra pick we had the deal might of gotten done.

Jmpasq wrote:

ekstarks94 wrote:Should have made the D. Mitchell trade…

I think the Jazz were alway using the Knicks to get more from the Cavs. The only way that deal with the Jazz would of gotten done is if they drained every single asset we had. If we gave them Mitch, Quickley, Grimes, RJ, Obi, 3 unprotected firsts and every extra pick we had the deal might of gotten done.

Ainge did not care about those protected picks…if anything they may take a pick swap or a lesser player off the table..

Steven A said what pissed Ainge off was Rose and West showing up at the Mavs/Jazz game also…and the goal was we are paying that “tax” regardless.

To me it was RJ, Quick, Obi, Cam, & 3 FRP picks and at least 2 swaps….Ainge wanted control of our draft for 5 yrs…

Out of this all..I blame Thibs…his stubbornness devalued our asset chest….if he played quick last yr like he is this yr…maybe that takes a pick or two off the table..or we move him to a 3rd team to cover the picks required….

It is the same crap he is doing to Obi…

He only knows one way to coach..but he wants Rose to bring in talent…but part of the deal is to grow and groom in house talent(quick/obi) and fix distressed assets(Cam) to raise the value. He of all people should understand that…

Knixkik wrote:

ekstarks94 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

ekstarks94 wrote:Should have made the D. Mitchell trade…

I think the Jazz were alway using the Knicks to get more from the Cavs. The only way that deal with the Jazz would of gotten done is if they drained every single asset we had. If we gave them Mitch, Quickley, Grimes, RJ, Obi, 3 unprotected firsts and every extra pick we had the deal might of gotten done.

Ainge did not care about those protected picks…if anything they may take a pick swap or a lesser player off the table..

Steven A said what pissed Ainge off was Rose and West showing up at the Mavs/Jazz game also…and the goal was we are paying that “tax” regardless.

To me it was RJ, Quick, Obi, Cam, & 3 FRP picks and at least 2 swaps….Ainge wanted control of our draft for 5 yrs…

Out of this all..I blame Thibs…his stubbornness devalued our asset chest….if he played quick last yr like he is this yr…maybe that takes a pick or two off the table..or we move him to a 3rd team to cover the picks required….

It is the same crap he is doing to Obi…

He only knows one way to coach..but he wants Rose to bring in talent…but part of the deal is to grow and groom in house talent(quick/obi) and fix distressed assets(Cam) to raise the value. He of all people should understand that…

All of those protected picks are useless for a star trade. They are good to move for Eric Gordon level players.

Depends on the protected pick. The Hornets pick they gave up for Cam is probably in line with Gordon's value. It wasn' t a "real" first rounder in the sense that it needed a lot of help to convey Bucks and Mavs pick have value as a mid to late 20s first rounder. The Wizards pick is hard to calculate, but it has potential to reach low lottery. The good news is that the Wiz don't appear to be tanking.