blkexec wrote:Question. Instead of Mitch starting, what if iHart started and / or Al Horford. Would we have won this game?

I love Mitch and he’s been my guy for a while. But watching him play feels like he’s a backup on a good team. His IQ when he’s away from the rim (offense or defense) he looks lost and lacks confidence. Replace him with a non athletic vet with high IQ and I believe we win this game. I think Taj Gipson would’ve impacted this game more than Mitch overall. And I’ve felt like that for a while now but was hoping Mitch IQ increases with time and it will. Just not seeing it last night. Maybe it’s the KO affect.

1st game so I will not overreact. But this year will reveal some things about this team. I believe it will be clear which direction we need to go and we needed to see this group together again for confirmation (I guess).

Plus we are still in a great situation for a mid season trade.

Mitch didn't have a good game. He still has band hands and he's not a good defensive matchup on Porzingis. But this is all stuff we knew. Game was won and lost at the FT line where our best players didnt deliver on opportunities.

blkexec wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Grimes looks like a quality 3D bench player. IQ is playing on a level right now that we may never see from Grimes.

The more time passes, the more ridiculous this looks.

IQ should’ve been the starter instead of burks. That way the FO would see if IQ was capable or not. Clearly the FO had their eyes on Brunson for a while and saw Grimes as a perfect SG. But then we sit EF? Our best 3 pt shooter. Instead of just going bong him a reduced role. I remember saying EF would be perfect off the bench and somebody said, we didn’t pay him 18 mil to come off the bench. Lmao so we pay him 18 mil to sit on the bench?

LOL until towards middle of last year, IQ was not good at running the PG role, even from the bench. You just have forgotten. It's also why you thought McBride should start. Those things literally don't make sense.

And you are asking why sit Fournier when he played totally ****ty? Couldn't shoot and his defense was in line with Jose Calderon? Play that guy instead of giving his minutes to IQ, Grimes, McBride? You want Thibs to NOT develop the young guys again?

Sitting Fournier literally turned last year's season around in addition to Josh Hart coming on board. That's what you are griping about.

blkexec wrote:IQ is clearly the better player all around than grimes. But this is where politics comes into play. And they love grimes. I say pay IQ whatever the market dictates and move on. Yes pay him like a starter and let him come off the bench like he did last night for whoever is bricking or for grimes (who’s not shooting).

Glad I missed the 2nd half. Forced me to see the bigger picture and stay out the weeds. We still should’ve won this game even with 2 of the big 3 playing inefficient. I always feel like this team as constructed, can’t win if 2 of our big 3 are inefficient. Because all three are volume shooters, when they have an off night, it kills the team.

But the fact is we still almost won, gives me hope that this team can now win game if 2 of our 3 are playing bad or not impactful.

With Celtics, brown wasn’t impactful but Tatum and KP was and they barely won.

Both IQ and Grimes are gonna be really nice players for the Knicks.

martin wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:IQ might be getting the Brunson treatment that Dallas gave him. Underestimate IQ at our peril. Sign him and as long as he is heslthy he is worth it.

I mean, if you choose to ignore that Jalen Brunson was an UFA and IQ will be an RFA, then yeah, the analogy is near perfect.

The point is that Dallas had Brunson evaluated with a predetermined value and that prevented them from treating him as a top priority. They alienated him as a result. Knicks can be alienating IQ now to where he may force his way out off the team and the team will suffer as a result.

Insofar as anyone can tell, none of what you are describing is happening. Literally the opposite.

How do you know ? You know what's going on behind the scenes ?

martin wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

martin wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:IQ might be getting the Brunson treatment that Dallas gave him. Underestimate IQ at our peril. Sign him and as long as he is heslthy he is worth it.

I mean, if you choose to ignore that Jalen Brunson was an UFA and IQ will be an RFA, then yeah, the analogy is near perfect.

The point is that Dallas had Brunson evaluated with a predetermined value and that prevented them from treating him as a top priority. They alienated him as a result. Knicks can be alienating IQ now to where he may force his way out off the team and the team will suffer as a result.

Insofar as anyone can tell, none of what you are describing is happening. Literally the opposite.

How do you know ? You know what's going on behind the scenes ?

I don't. It's you who has started the pronouncements, I'm just following what I see through the media.

How did you come to your conclusions?

I speculated that an organization can make a player disgruntled which happens during the negotiation process as a potential risk of not extending IQ. That's all. Players get bitter at organizations all the time. It was you who " Literally said that's not going to happen ". My statement was conjecture about something the lack of the extension allows now. You responded with a definite response that this " Literally won't happen " So I ask you how you know that ?

Alpha1971 wrote:

martin wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

martin wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:IQ might be getting the Brunson treatment that Dallas gave him. Underestimate IQ at our peril. Sign him and as long as he is heslthy he is worth it.

I mean, if you choose to ignore that Jalen Brunson was an UFA and IQ will be an RFA, then yeah, the analogy is near perfect.

The point is that Dallas had Brunson evaluated with a predetermined value and that prevented them from treating him as a top priority. They alienated him as a result. Knicks can be alienating IQ now to where he may force his way out off the team and the team will suffer as a result.

Insofar as anyone can tell, none of what you are describing is happening. Literally the opposite.

How do you know ? You know what's going on behind the scenes ?

I don't. It's you who has started the pronouncements, I'm just following what I see through the media.

How did you come to your conclusions?

I speculated that an organization can make a player disgruntled which happens during the negotiation process as a potential risk of not extending IQ. That's all. Players get bitter at organizations all the time. It was you who " Literally said that's not going to happen ". My statement was conjecture about something the lack of the extension allows now. You responded with a definite response that this " Literally won't happen " So I ask you how you know that ?

Because IQ told us so. Because all of the important players have told us this. Repeatedly. The FO has tried to operate this way (and you def need to make some jumps of conclusion without making some wild conjecture), it's why they also move Obi to a good situation for nada. They are showing us how they operate. Same with the Josh Hart weirdness with his contract. And how they engaged RJ and Randle before him. You can get a sense of it.

The Knicks have IQ on a RFA basis, so none of what you point to with Brunson holds to any of this because they are entirely different situations. And this is not an Ayton type thing; it's at the opposite end of spectrum.

nycericanguy wrote:Here's the thing, if IQ plays himself into a max deal, it's a win win for us. Because all of a sudden he could be the centerpiece in a trade for a star this season. or we simply have us a great young player.

if we had signed him for 4/100m or so, and he blew up, well trading him wouldn't be an option for another year.

nycericanguy wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:Here's the thing, if IQ plays himself into a max deal, it's a win win for us. Because all of a sudden he could be the centerpiece in a trade for a star this season. or we simply have us a great young player.

if we had signed him for 4/100m or so, and he blew up, well trading him wouldn't be an option for another year.

Base year compensation makes sign and trades awfully difficult. Even Quick gets the max, his outgoing salary would be half of that while the team he goes to still has to have enough cap space to absorb his salary.

that would have applied if we extended him, but now it doesnt apply he's much easier to trade

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2022/06/hoops-rumors-glossary-base-year-compensation-2.html

The BYC rules apply to a player who meets all of the following criteria in a sign-and-trade:

He is a Bird or Early Bird free agent.
His new salary is worth more than the minimum.
He receives a raise greater than 20%.
His team is at or above the cap immediately after the signing.
If the player meets those criteria and is included in a sign-and-trade deal, his outgoing salary for matching purposes is considered to be his previous salary or 50% of his new salary, whichever is greater. For the team he is being signed-and-traded to, his incoming figure for matching purposes is his full new salary.

nycericanguy wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:Here's the thing, if IQ plays himself into a max deal, it's a win win for us. Because all of a sudden he could be the centerpiece in a trade for a star this season. or we simply have us a great young player.

if we had signed him for 4/100m or so, and he blew up, well trading him wouldn't be an option for another year.

Base year compensation makes sign and trades awfully difficult. Even Quick gets the max, his outgoing salary would be half of that while the team he goes to still has to have enough cap space to absorb his salary.

that would have applied if we extended him, but now it doesnt apply he's much easier to trade

It applies to Bird and Early Bird Rights. Even IQ did accept a qualifying offer, he would have a no trade clause anyway and he becomes unrestricted. There's a reason you don't see as many sign and trades. If we trade him now, he's still only making $4M. It kind of makes salary matching difficult.

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2022/06/hoops-rumors-glossary-base-year-compensation-2.html

The BYC rules apply to a player who meets all of the following criteria in a sign-and-trade:

He is a Bird or Early Bird free agent.
His new salary is worth more than the minimum.
He receives a raise greater than 20%.
His team is at or above the cap immediately after the signing.
If the player meets those criteria and is included in a sign-and-trade deal, his outgoing salary for matching purposes is considered to be his previous salary or 50% of his new salary, whichever is greater. For the team he is being signed-and-traded to, his incoming figure for matching purposes is his full new salary.

right now he's easier to trade because its just $4m to match +/- 150%, nothing tricky. obviously if we're trading him for a star we have Evan as salary filler. or it could be an RJ + IQ trade for a star as well.

martin wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

martin wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

martin wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:IQ might be getting the Brunson treatment that Dallas gave him. Underestimate IQ at our peril. Sign him and as long as he is heslthy he is worth it.

I mean, if you choose to ignore that Jalen Brunson was an UFA and IQ will be an RFA, then yeah, the analogy is near perfect.

The point is that Dallas had Brunson evaluated with a predetermined value and that prevented them from treating him as a top priority. They alienated him as a result. Knicks can be alienating IQ now to where he may force his way out off the team and the team will suffer as a result.

Insofar as anyone can tell, none of what you are describing is happening. Literally the opposite.

How do you know ? You know what's going on behind the scenes ?

I don't. It's you who has started the pronouncements, I'm just following what I see through the media.

How did you come to your conclusions?

I speculated that an organization can make a player disgruntled which happens during the negotiation process as a potential risk of not extending IQ. That's all. Players get bitter at organizations all the time. It was you who " Literally said that's not going to happen ". My statement was conjecture about something the lack of the extension allows now. You responded with a definite response that this " Literally won't happen " So I ask you how you know that ?

Because IQ told us so. Because all of the important players have told us this. Repeatedly. The FO has tried to operate this way (and you def need to make some jumps of conclusion without making some wild conjecture), it's why they also move Obi to a good situation for nada. They are showing us how they operate. Same with the Josh Hart weirdness with his contract. And how they engaged RJ and Randle before him. You can get a sense of it.

The Knicks have IQ on a RFA basis, so none of what you point to with Brunson holds to any of this because they are entirely different situations. And this is not an Ayton type thing; it's at the opposite end of spectrum.

Martin, I can fully and humbly admit that I'm just the guy talking BS about the team in the barber shop. I don't know anything more then anyone else just talking for entertainment. Just speculating. Might be wrong and might be right and we will find out later. Your also a guy in the barber shop talking as much BS as everyone else. Yet, you don't realize your just talking crap and you think your crap is informed and doesn't stink. You have no greater insight or knowledge then anyone else but boy you like to believe you do. Every barber shop got that person too. You answered with several paragraphs of nothing this front office tells how they operate that's true. They are risk averse, indecisive, and protecting what future assets that they don't trade unless a deal is perfect... Obi that trade for nada proved nothing good for the front office and it is more worrisome. I just think you have become an apologist for everything the FO does at this point or doesn't do. Said in friendship and with a sense of humor aiight ✌️✌️✌️✌️ this is all just peoples opinions you can't in my opinion dispute my conjecture with you conjecture and claim yours is more factual.