HofstraBBall wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:GustavBahler wrote:fishmike wrote:GustavBahler wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:fishmike wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:fishmike wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:fishmike wrote:blkexec wrote:franco12 wrote:Trade him now?
Well for the fans that wanted to trade him, this is the perfect time. But not happening. Hard to find star players who understand the nyc culture and can thrive in it.
Randle has been beasting. JB is also his savior. Randle looks different with JB on the team.
Can anyone name a time in the NBA where a team trying to build up it's program traded it's best player in the prime of their career?It NEVER happens... you know why? SPOILER: It's stupid!
Randle is playing great. There's also a real upside to Randle's game that isn't talked about enough. Plain and simple he gives up the ball. While he may pound/hold it he's no black hole and even when he's scoring a ton he's still moving the ball and looking for shooters and cutters.
Randle looks just as happy making the great pass as he does scoring. He's really integrated well with Brunson and the guy he's showing more and more chemistry with is Grimes.
The redemption tour is a hot ticket... keep it up Jules.
Sixers did it with Iggy, the Sun's did it with Marbury and the Mavs did it with Kidd. I won't say it never happens. Every situation is different, but sometimes you need to take a step back to move forward. I'm glad Jules is playing well, but let's not act like he's not capable of reverting. Let's just enjoy the ride and see where it takes the team.
Marbury was toxic and Sixers were hardly an upcoming team. Iggy was breaking down and they wanted to move on from him and Elton Brand and go young.When you say "reverting" to what do you refer? That really bad 20/10/5 season last year?
We signed him at 25 to the Fizdale squad and he wasnt bad. The team sucked, Randle played hard. Then we get MIP and 4th seed Randle. Then we get a grumpy 20/10/5 on a team with a lot of problems. Now are getting all star Randle.
Randle's been good here. Hopefully its more of the same 
"reverting" feels so negative. We all thought he could be better. So did he. Look at how's it's played out.
People were desperate last year to paint the Randle/Thibs combo as bad but it seems to be working ok short and long term
Iggy wasn't breaking down. He was still in his prime when they shipped him. By reverting I mean returning to being sub par. His entire career has seen one good season followed by one bad season. He fooled me once. Let's see him carry forward into future seasons. I hope he does. Still think we should trade him.
for who? That's just "you dont like watching Randle"You have a 25/10/5 two way forward who's 28 and shares the ball. Who are you getting back that helps us? Randle is literally playing his way into being untradeable. The way Randle shares the ball you just need to upgrade the guys around him... Or trade him for Luka/Giannis/Bam
No, it's me not getting overly excited about a team that's one game over .500. This team isn't good enough and needs to be tore down. I've been pretty consistent with the strategy the team needss to take. Rather than asking what we can get for Randle, I'll ask you what the needs could require that would make this team be taken seriously.
A few months ago, some argued that Randle should be traded post haste. That his trade value wasnt getting any higher. I thought Randle was capable of increasing his trade value, before the first deadline. And sure enough he has.
I agree, this is the time to trade him. For some of the reasons you gave, like the up and down seasons. Randle's numbers are great these days, but I still have serious doubts about his ability to be a clutch performer. Thats not including the playoffs.
We've seen All-Star level production at times from Randle, not much in the way of consistent clutch play. The numbers arent there.
From the third or fourth option a lack of clutch play is tolerable. Not from the first or second option. Doubt we can find that player without trading Randle. Dont know who is available, but at the very least I'd like to see the FO test the market.
the bold is literally just saying "I just dont like the guy"Why are you worried about "clutch" when you have a guy who draws doubles and gives up the ball? Who's already shown he will defer to a better scorer?
It makes so little sense I assume you just dont want to be honest about not liking the guy.
You arent even disagreeing with me. You're saying in effect "so what" if our go to guy isnt clutch? So what if our star cant hit the winning shot any better than a bench player? This is fanboyism on steroids.
This board used to be a good place for bball talk. Feels more like a cult these days.
Love when guys talk their views into reality.
Who the hell thinks Randle is a number ONE??
He is a good player. Strong PF who can creat mismatches and demand double teams. Makes less than most at same production level. Puts up 20/10 annually and you think we should trade him asap?. Who is in the cult?
And that's the issue. If we had a number #1 then this wouldn't be a discussion. Right now, with Randle as the #1, this team looks like a first round out. That's if they make the playoffs. I don't want to single out just Randle. RJ is going to show it too. Right now this looks like a treadmill team and the team is going to have to shake things up to get out of the rut. Wembeyama is out of the question now, but this team really needs to accumulate talent. Grimes and Quick are good starts, but this team needs more.
Is he getting a ONE's salary?
Is he keeping us from adding a ONE?
You make no sense.
With this mentality Bucks would be trading Middleton. Who makes almost double of what Randle makes. Miami has two others beside Butler who make more than Randle.
Basically every other number two and three on Chip contending team makes more than Randle.
This is the type of Knick dumb **** move we all make fun of in the past. Yet you want this FO do the same. Smh
What does salary have to do with whether he's the team's number one option or not? You're saying Luka Doncic wasn't the Mavs number 1 option last year even because THJ, KP and Dinwiddie made more than him? He still makes money and takes up cap space, am I correct? As far as I can see, this team isn't in a position to sign a true number one outright... So the answer is yes, his presence does prevent the team from signing a real star if one were to become available via free agency. I don't care what what other second and third stars make on other teams. I only care that the Knicks don't have a #1 of their own.
Salary has everything to do with it!!
Unless you think true number ones are available for rookie contracts or $25M?
Luka was Mavs draft pick. But don't mention that.
Us not having a true number one has NOTHING to do with Randle.
How is he keeping us from a true number one?
True rookie number ones don't become available when you're doing everything in your power to spin around in a perpetual hamster wheel. Salary has nothing to do with Julius being the team's #1. He is by default, whether he was $20M or $25M, because the team is middling. My point is, and I m sure you agree, is that he's not a true #1. As long as he stays that, the team will stay in a holding pattern of meaningless first round exits and low lottery picks. The Knicks need to spin Randle into more assets so they can have enough chips to trade when a superstar becomes available or they can draft one. The next two years of RJ, Randle and JB isn't getting me excited. I like the growth of IQ, Obi, Sims and Grimes, but they're likely ceilings are mid to high level role players. This team needs more.
Agree with everything you said.
However, I am sure that you know we have several players we can get rid of that make a lot of money and are not that good. The notion that in order to get a true number one is only by trading Randle is just something Randle haters say.
If you remember, we had enough assets to get DM. We chose not to. It wasn't because Randle's contract was keeping us from doing so.
To go back to what Randle is making. FOs absolutely take into account market value/production costs. Ie. "What other players are making" You see, you have to consider what it will cost to replace similar level of production. Unless the goal is not to improve. If we are paying Randle less than other teams number two's, that makes our team better. As it will allow us more cap to add a number one,three four and five. You are also ignoring the basic principle of trading a player. Who are we getting in return? Haters don't care. Some of us recognized the hate, the market, return and the talent Randle has shown on consistent basis. Despite his flaws. He is one of the best values at power forwards in the league. You don't trade that for scraps. You get him a true number one and add better pieces to the puzzle.
Randle has played great this season and yet his game warts will likely remain. Whether you like/support Randle or you don't - it's not illogical or wrong to trade a player when he's playing well. When he was struggling and a good portion of this board was more open to trading Randle - the excuses were we couldn't sell so low as his value was little.
No doubt he's played much better but it comes down to if you think he will sustain this level of play or not. My main issue is even if he does sustain this level - are we really significant to teams like Boston, Milwaukee, etc... I believe we are at least a tier beneath (prob 2 tiers). So what is realistic if we ride Randle (our best player this season) and keep him in the star role - despite he's more of a 2nd or 3rd tier star? Can we keep adding good to very good players and try to replicate the 2004 Pistons or do we use Randle (and maybe RJ too) to upgrade to a true star that is clutch, more consistent, plays both sides and leads through example even when things go south? I agree there are very few players worth paying the cost to upgrade.
I have been more supportive of trading Randle and trying to land a top draft pick this offseason (supposedly a great draft) - with the hopes that packaging our pick and a traded 1st could move us into 5-7 area where we could find a top player. Of course it's risky and Randle is 20-10 so that's safer - just don't see how we incrementally move up with mid-teen draft picks (no matter how many we have) and lots of good players that are in limbo with their roles and playing time here (eg IQ, Toppin, Cam). We oould pivot and look to move RJ instead... but who is more likely to develop/progress? A 22 y/o or a 28 y/o? Both can give you a mostly inefficient 20 pts and rebounds and ball domination (save recent Randle) but they don't seem to complement each other so do think a decision needs to be made. Who has more value on the market? Grimes looks better with Randle vs RJ so maybe we need to really look at that and pick one or the other.
Regardless of what happens (or doesn't) - we should be focused on what plan/option gives us the most opportunities to progress without getting stuck in mediocrity - which while enjoyable compared to sucking - can actually be more difficult in terms of team building.
1/3/2023 9:44 PM