HofstraBBall wrote:
Bro, this is my problem with many of your posts. You make valid points. Which you explain quite well. BUT you then go on to portray your OPINION as fact. Which you do by insinuating you have a major connection to an NBA front office. Your new one is now that you know what Brock Aller is thinking? The fact is that even the people working directly with the top decision-makers of a franchise do not know what they are thinking. Especially when we are putting into context with such broad incomplete scenarios. But that is just my opinion.

As for your point. Some of your posts on this thread seem to suggest that Randle is not worth a top 5 pick. If so, in my OPINION, I totally disagree. He is absolutely worth a top 5 pick. Especially if you look at the projected 5 teams. DET and ORL will definitely keep their picks in order to choose Suggs or Cade. Not only are those two players potential franchise players but both those teams are rebuilding. GS is an interesting case. They were thought to be contemplating giving up their pick last year. They have Thompson coming back. They have Dreymond green. Tough to see them trade for a PF in Randle. Unless they decide to move on from Green. Which would not be a bad move. They also need a SF. Think they will probably pick Kuminga but not a crazy thought that they would trade for Randle. The team that I feel would absolutely trade for Randle is OKC. Seeing as they have a ****load of draft picks including two of that may be in the top 5? Do not know Presti personally but he has not shown the stomach for being a rebuilding team for long stretches. One last thing to mention. I do not know Aller personally, but I do not think he would trade Randle for a 3 to 5 pick this year. Considering no draft pick is a sure thing and Randle is playing like an MVP!

Mirror Test it, go on.

Take a middle of the road projection. The third overall pick in the 2021 draft ( i.e. the middle of the top 5) So projections will show that as Jalen Green.

Year 1 - 7.8 million
Year 2 - 8.2 million
Year 3 - 8.6 million
Year 4 - 10.9 million

That's rough slotting for the third overall for this season, given the pandemic and the clear hit on the BRI but the league wanting some stability in the marketplace, let's use 20-21 scale into 21-22, as sports in distress of some kind usually try to repeat the previous year's cap threshold whenever possible. That's more than fair. Also let's use 120 percent of slot as that's generally nominal.

Randle's 2021-22 cap hit is 20.8 million.

Ask people here if the Knicks had the third overall pick, would they trade Jalen Green, plus the difference in cap space to use on a free agent or several free agents or to use as a buffer in a different non Green/Randle trade for Randle.

Would any of you trade cost controlled Jalen Green, knowing you've got him locked up for for years, plus an additional 12 million in cap flexibility to use for the hope that Julius Randle will sustain a level of uptick production that would defy all known understanding of basic basketball trends and analytics?

Trades into the top section of the lottery are usually volume trades. The NBA personnel structure is not really designed for volume trades. They happen but they don't often happen in the draft and at the top of the draft and that all happens for a reason. It's usually one step forward and three steps back once you've unloaded your volume and crushed your cap flexibility. It's not just Jalen Green VS Randle, it's also the opportunity cost of the difference in the cap space used to hold onto one player versus the other.

I portray my viewpoint as rational market based reality. Are there irrational actors and events in the NBA transaction ledgers from time to time? Yes. Often? No. It's only arrogant if I'm consistently wrong.

Feel free to start a new thread asking people here if they would trade Jalen Green and his cost control and potential for Julius Randle in a Mirror Test scenario.

Of course I've apparently committed some kind of heresy by saying the Knicks have a team option year on Randle so use it and evaluate him for another year to get more data on such a big decision. God forbid the team does that. Why in the entire world would I make a crazy suggestion like that?

If I was wrong more often, the Knicks would have had a better team and much sooner. It meant I was picking busts and cast offs and doing anything opposite of what I talk about was the smart move. However I was not wrong more often. And the Knicks had a worse team and for longer because of it.

Because I love this team, I wish my viewpoints and projections sailed wide left all the time. But until that changes, guys here would be well served to pay attention to the basic resource management concepts I bring up time and time again.

TPercy wrote:

On an unrelated note: have you had a chance to look at prospects for this upcoming draft? I’m curious to know if they’re any you are very high/low on?

I'll probably look at some 2nd round targets as the draft approaches, as there will likely be plenty of discussion on first round prospects, and since the Knicks might be picking later than they normally have, more talk here about prospects in the early 20's range.

I need to watch more game film before I can get more of a high/low opinion on some guys right now. I've been analyzing QBs for months now and am going to take a break from pushing film for a little bit.

One guy you might want to look at and/or start a thread about is D'Angelo Russell. I don't like him personally, but there was more than cursory chatter about him earlier in the year. Who would move and how much, I don't know, I was too invested in the recent NFL draft. Should the Knicks trade for him? How much would it cost? What are his long term projections? Those are interesting questions. I don't have all those answers now but I'll likely want to talk about it at some point.

You should start a thread on prospects you like. Be interesting to hear your takes.

HofstraBBall wrote:

..... Some of your posts on this thread seem to suggest that Randle is not worth a top 5 pick. If so, in my OPINION, I totally disagree. He is absolutely worth a top 5 pick. ....

Knicks do not have the third pick so why discuss it.......

LOL.

I'd probably have to sneak into someone's marriage counseling session at random to find goal post moving like this.

This isn't complicated - Mirror Test it. That's a basic resource management concept I've discussed over and over for years. So much that other regular posters probably use it from time to time even when I'm not around the board for months at a time.

The benefit of a Mirror Test is it immediately shows the flaws in any potential transaction. It's easy to be the horse in the horse ****ing scenario. It's much harder to be pinned against the stall door and the horse is straddling you and biting down on your ear like it was a fat juicy apple.

( The imagery is unsettling is it not? Now imagine a case of Hot Pockets underneath you as a brace....)

It's easy to say Julius Randle, having a career year and good for him, is worth a top 5 pick. It's another thing to take the other teams perspective and look at actual draft and trade history across time and come to that same conclusion.

If the Knicks had a top 5 pick ( I picked the middle ground at practical slotting without accounting for the massive BRI losses of the past couple of years ,I was more than fair) and traded it to another team for Randle, who might end up a rental not by choice, people here would be up in arms with pitchforks and torches.

If your point has merit, it will survive the Mirror Test. If you thought it could have survived the Mirror Test, you wouldn't try to move the goal posts.

TripleThreat wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

..... Some of your posts on this thread seem to suggest that Randle is not worth a top 5 pick. If so, in my OPINION, I totally disagree. He is absolutely worth a top 5 pick. ....

Knicks do not have the third pick so why discuss it.......

LOL.

I'd probably have to sneak into someone's marriage counseling session at random to find goal post moving like this.

This isn't complicated - Mirror Test it. That's a basic resource management concept I've discussed over and over for years. So much that other regular posters probably use it from time to time even when I'm not around the board for months at a time.

The benefit of a Mirror Test is it immediately shows the flaws in any potential transaction. It's easy to be the horse in the horse ****ing scenario. It's much harder to be pinned against the stall door and the horse is straddling you and biting down on your ear like it was a fat juicy apple.

( The imagery is unsettling is it not? Now imagine a case of Hot Pockets underneath you as a brace....)

It's easy to say Julius Randle, having a career year and good for him, is worth a top 5 pick. It's another thing to take the other teams perspective and look at actual draft and trade history across time and come to that same conclusion.

If the Knicks had a top 5 pick ( I picked the middle ground at practical slotting without accounting for the massive BRI losses of the past couple of years ,I was more than fair) and traded it to another team for Randle, who might end up a rental not by choice, people here would be up in arms with pitchforks and torches.

If your point has merit, it will survive the Mirror Test. If you thought it could have survived the Mirror Test, you wouldn't try to move the goal posts.

I can't speak on the subject of marriage counseling or the horse ****ing. I will trust your expertise on both. Weird analogy though. Just me?

As for goal post moving? (Good video search) My original response to you included Det, Orl, GS and Okc? Where did I mention NY? That was you! And why would NY trade their pick for someone they already have? Is this a funhouse mirror test? Which was the reason that I responded with "Why talk about something that will not happen" Seems acceptable since you are all about rational viewpoint market-based REALITY. Or do you prefer to discuss make-believe?

But let me break it down again since you did not seem to comprehend my first response: IMHO, IF AVAILABLE, one of those projected top five teams in next years draft would absolutely consider Randle instead of a potential lucky bounce of the lotto ball. I think that REAL GM's understand the uncertainty of the NBA draft. Unless your REALITY and advanced scouting expertise show that the percentage of top 5 picks that go on to be candidates for MVP is at 100%? So they would definitely value a young 26 year old who has averaged close to a double-double in every year he has been in the league. (Not just "ONE Career" year as your expertise seems to try to insinuate)

Still, waiting for your roadmap to the Knicks future? Randle? Burks? Rose? FA we should sign? Want to record it so you get full credit when it happens.

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

fitzfarm wrote:The real question is why on earth would the Knicks trade Randle who’s a superstar and arguably the best power forward in the league for a gamble. Non of these players in the top five are a sure thing they all have holes in there game. Randle is a sure thing and just now heading into his prime, he’s going to be even better over the course of his prime.

I guess that's a statement that can be said for like 98+% of draftees? LeBron, Shaq, Duncan... I'm trying to think of players who were super locks to be generational.

Let's say that this year's draft *could* be similar to that of 2003 without LeBron, and let's throw out Darko. Melo, Wade, Bosh.

Would you trade cost control for 7+ years of those guys level for Randle and then build from there with a REALLY clean cap sheet and a ****ton of picks?

Yeah, GSW is the only team that MIGHT consider it and I think they'd still give this move a hard pass if they got into the top 4. Johnathan Kuminga is talented at 5, but I've read and heard enough to see that he's probably more along the lines of the top prospect in tier 2 than he is true tier 1 prospect.

GSW would have to do a lot of salary moving but it would be interesting super small ball test case.

?
Julius
Green
Klay
Curry

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

fitzfarm wrote:The real question is why on earth would the Knicks trade Randle who’s a superstar and arguably the best power forward in the league for a gamble. Non of these players in the top five are a sure thing they all have holes in there game. Randle is a sure thing and just now heading into his prime, he’s going to be even better over the course of his prime.

I guess that's a statement that can be said for like 98+% of draftees? LeBron, Shaq, Duncan... I'm trying to think of players who were super locks to be generational.

Let's say that this year's draft *could* be similar to that of 2003 without LeBron, and let's throw out Darko. Melo, Wade, Bosh.

Would you trade cost control for 7+ years of those guys level for Randle and then build from there with a REALLY clean cap sheet and a ****ton of picks?

Yeah, GSW is the only team that MIGHT consider it and I think they'd still give this move a hard pass if they got into the top 4. Johnathan Kuminga is talented at 5, but I've read and heard enough to see that he's probably more along the lines of the top prospect in tier 2 than he is true tier 1 prospect.

GSW would have to do a lot of salary moving but it would be interesting super small ball test case.

?
Julius
Green
Klay
Curry

I'm gonna say...I think Green might have to move sixth-man in that scenario. Love Green, but the dude is struggling to give them 10 points a game.

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

fitzfarm wrote:The real question is why on earth would the Knicks trade Randle who’s a superstar and arguably the best power forward in the league for a gamble. Non of these players in the top five are a sure thing they all have holes in there game. Randle is a sure thing and just now heading into his prime, he’s going to be even better over the course of his prime.

I guess that's a statement that can be said for like 98+% of draftees? LeBron, Shaq, Duncan... I'm trying to think of players who were super locks to be generational.

Let's say that this year's draft *could* be similar to that of 2003 without LeBron, and let's throw out Darko. Melo, Wade, Bosh.

Would you trade cost control for 7+ years of those guys level for Randle and then build from there with a REALLY clean cap sheet and a ****ton of picks?

Yeah, GSW is the only team that MIGHT consider it and I think they'd still give this move a hard pass if they got into the top 4. Johnathan Kuminga is talented at 5, but I've read and heard enough to see that he's probably more along the lines of the top prospect in tier 2 than he is true tier 1 prospect.

GSW would have to do a lot of salary moving but it would be interesting super small ball test case.

?
Julius
Green
Klay
Curry

I'm gonna say...I think Green might have to move sixth-man in that scenario. Love Green, but the dude is struggling to give them 10 points a game.

Bro been doing that for years, he is there to dish and D

Easier to get away with that when you have KD. Also, the little bit of scoring he did provide has fallen off a cliff the past three years. Before, he was at least able to average 10 points a game. I mean, this board craps on Frank's scoring numbers, but Dray's haven't been that much better.

TripleThreat wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

..... Some of your posts on this thread seem to suggest that Randle is not worth a top 5 pick. If so, in my OPINION, I totally disagree. He is absolutely worth a top 5 pick. ....

As for goal post moving? (Good video search) My original response to you included Det, Orl, GS and Okc? Where did I mention NY? That was you! And why would NY trade their pick for someone they already have? Is this a funhouse mirror test? Which was the reason that I responded with "Why talk about something that will not happen" Seems acceptable since you are all about rational viewpoint market-based REALITY. Or do you prefer to discuss make-believe?

But let me break it down again since you did not seem to comprehend my first response: IMHO, IF AVAILABLE, one of those projected top five teams in next years draft would absolutely consider Randle instead of a potential lucky bounce of the lotto ball. I think that REAL GM's understand the uncertainty of the NBA draft. Unless your REALITY and advanced scouting expertise show that the percentage of top 5 picks that go on to be candidates for MVP is at 100%? So they would definitely value a young 26 year old who has averaged close to a double-double in every year he has been in the league. (Not just "ONE Career" year as your expertise seems to try to insinuate)

Still, waiting for your roadmap to the Knicks future? Randle? Burks? Rose? FA we should sign? Want to record it so you get full credit when it happens.

"The Mirror Test" is designed to force decision makers to put themselves into the shoes of the other team, to completely flip the situation so any offer will be seen through the eyes of "Win/Win" in any trade scenario.

Someone recently just posted up MRob, Obi Toppin and "picks" for Bradley Beal. Mirror Test that. If the Knicks and Wizards had completely flipped situations, and the Knicks had Beal, would they trade him for MRob, Toppin and some random vague notion of "picks" (Keep in mind the most current "natural" pick is projected so far into the early 20s) Of course you've been posting at UK too long and too frequently to pretend like you've never been exposed to discussion of the Mirror Test here.

No rational and functional team is trading a Green or a Mobley or a Kuminga for the threat of a Randle rental and/or massive regression. And I've been generous here. I could have invoked Cade Cunningham and used 80 percent of rookie slot to try to fudge the numbers and skew the scenario, but I didn't. I could have cooked the BRI hit to reduce the RSE slotting chart to gap the cap space difference between the rookie pick versus Randle's 20.8 million. I didn't do that either. I was also generous in that I said the reality of Randle's situation long term is a middle ground. Less than a 40 percent behind the arc shooter but more than his previous showings in earlier seasons. That's also more than fair.

But you've moved the goalposts again. He's worth a top 5 pick!

But no, you now decide it means top 5 lottery odds instead!

Actual trades in the NBA approximate some kind of "Win/Win" perception given the time and place. They don't tend to deviate wildly from previous NBA trade and draft history. They are defensible to the their home fan base and local media market. They tend to have a practical marketing component.

Any franchise trading Jalen Green and losing cap space to risk a possible Randle rental plus regression will have it's fan base **** a total brick. The local media market will be up in arms. The owner will probably **** another brick if he wasn't around to stop it or the GM just decided to off the reservation and gut punch a solo psychotic decision like this.

The "roadmap" has always been the same. I talk about it all the time. You take each situation and make the best market based decision you can given the time and place. You cannot predict what will unfold in terms of opportunities, you can however stockpile and put yourself in a position to strike. Daryl Morey did not know James Harden would be available for a trade at the end of a preseason and needed to be traded quickly. But he had prepared for years to stockpile and build assets and cap flexibility so when that opportunity arose, he could move in swiftly and strike hard and fast and ruthlessly. Everyone who talks about doing these four step plans down to the minute details to become a contender in 6 months is not reality.

My "roadmap" can be traced across my posting history for years. It takes time to build a team. Every year, every preseason, I talk about guys I like. I don't go in exhaustive frequency as much as Briggs does, but it's there. This last preseason, I did more analysis than I've ever done for a preseason.

You'd like me to defend myself and justify myself to you. It's not complicated. The value of my posts over time here at UK speak for themselves. Their merits speak for themselves. My analysis speaks for itself. The players I want and why speak for themselves. When I talk, people listen. Maybe not you, but lots of people stop and pay attention.

No rational and functional NBA front office is trading a 2021 top 5 lottery pick for Julius Randle. Dragging goalposts around the field won't change that.

I disagree and reiterate that you are WRONG. A top five teams would absolutely trade for Randle.(Same goalpost) Hope that dose not upset you? Funny how you cannot see how ridiculous it is to claim certainty in a made up scenario. And are you predicting that Green, Mobley and Kuminga are generational players? All stars? Or top level players? Want to get it on record so that you can get all the credit on the forum. As it appears that is important to you.

But again, it's all make believe (and you know it) because NY is not trading their 26 year old walking double double machine and potential MVP for a young draft pick who NO ONE can accurately predict an outcome for. Also, funny how you keep mentioning real world but assume a deal for Randle (even in make believe land) would be so obtuse. I am going to say that the make believe deal would have a Sign and trade. But again, even in make believe, why the **** would the Knicks trade their best player who is 26??? Is that high level TT roadmap ****?

As for your roadmap. It's what I expected. 100 plus words of non committal gas. I am just trying to get some friendly predictions. Especially from someone who is dialed in to Aller. Not holding you to it. You seem to take forum banter way too seriously. So again, what will the Knicks do with Bullock, Rose, Burks? Btw, did you already say that the Knicks will wait a year before deciding on what to do with Randle? I said they will absolutely extend him. But that is just the opinion of a guy on a fan forum.

HofstraBBall wrote:
I disagree and reiterate that you are WRONG. A top five teams would absolutely trade for Randle.(Same goalpost) Hope that dose not upset you? Funny how you cannot see how ridiculous it is to claim certainty in a made up scenario. And are you predicting that Green, Mobley and Kuminga are generational players? All stars? Or top level players? Want to get it on record so that you can get all the credit on the forum. As it appears that is important to you.

But again, it's all make believe (and you know it) because NY is not trading their 26 year old walking double double machine and potential MVP for a young draft pick who NO ONE can accurately predict an outcome for. Also, funny how you keep mentioning real world but assume a deal for Randle (even in make believe land) would be so obtuse. I am going to say that the make believe deal would have a Sign and trade. But again, even in make believe, why the **** would the Knicks trade their best player who is 26??? Is that high level TT roadmap ****?

As for your roadmap. It's what I expected. 100 plus words of non committal gas. I am just trying to get some friendly predictions. Especially from someone who is dialed in to Aller. Not holding you to it. You seem to take forum banter way too seriously. So again, what will the Knicks do with Bullock, Rose, Burks? Btw, did you already say that the Knicks will wait a year before deciding on what to do with Randle? I said they will absolutely extend him. But that is just the opinion of a guy on a fan forum.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/randlju01.html

Randle has played 67 games this season and dropped 149 three point shots so far at an extremely high conversion rate that is a clear outlier from his previous career norms. Good for him. I'm not belittling his achievements. He's worked hard and he's been playing lights out and good for him, his career and good for our beloved Knicks.

But 67 games is not enough a sample size to instantly declare him valuable enough to merit being worth a trade for a Top 5 pick in the 2021 NBA draft, which is considered to be a strong draft at that. Moreso, the production of LaMelo Ball and Anthony "Goose" Edwards is only going to make teams see the potential upside in young draftees, on top of the cost control, cost certainty and value of their eventual implied full Bird Rights. This doesn't even begin to factor in that, in any professional sport, the price and value of a draft pick rises the closer you get to said draft. The best time to trade for a 2021 NBA draft first round pick? In the 2019-2020 season. The worst and most expensive time to trade for a 2021 NBA draft first round pick? On draft night. This is true in all major sports. This is another basic resource management reality.

There are some people here who will claim the Warriors will be the exception and be open to trade if they get beyond the trade protections from the DLo/Wiggins trade. The GSW are in the tax zone. They can't just trade a draft pick for Randle outright, they actually have to move salary to get this to work on their cap sheet. Do the Warriors want to go into the tax zone for Randle? Do the Knicks want the 30 million cap cost of absorbing the rest of Wiggins' contract? It's not that simple.

A first round pick falls under the Rookie Scale Exception. It's an EXCEPTION. That means the Warriors can draft a Wiseman and pay him his slotting amount without having to move money off their cap to do it. They have to pay the tax hit on it, but it's an EXCEPTION to the traditional normalized cap sheet. The Warriors could end up with two first round picks this year, if the Oubre trade pick is saved from it's own protections. The Warriors can add two cost controlled players in a strong draft, mitigating their tax bill compared to trading for Randle's 20.8 million and then extending him ( Why would you trade a high pick for Randle unless you were going to extend him?) and keep Wiggins or move him elsewhere or they can bet on a 67 game sample size from a guy who might end up a rental and the statistical odds of some kind of regression from this season is actually quite high.

I've made my position clear since the day Phil Jackson was hired by the Knicks. The league and it's trends value 3 And D Wings. I've always pushed the Knicks to draft high floor 3 And D wings with clear defensive chops, with some indications they can hit an NBA three point shot, and hope their offense will develop and a few will break out into stars. Have always pushed that, for years, and all my touts have led that way. Because having a roster full of young cost controlled long 3 And D wings who can defend and space the floor is such a horrible thing?

If a team with a Top 5 pick in this 2021 draft offered their pick for Julius Randle and I ran the Knicks? I would shove Randle into a Suburu, duct tape the outside so he couldn't escape, then say, "So Long BeyBlade, And Thanks For All The Fish" and fire him from trebuchet into whatever city was nutty enough to trade for him.

I love what Randle is doing this year. But many want to pretend last season didn't happen. Sure he put up some volume stats, but his play was also really ****ing ugly a lot of the time. Some of you want to wash away seasons you believe "just don't count anymore" What the **** is up with that?

It's easy to just look at the last 67 games. But it's another thing to look at the entire career arc, league trends, the actual cap sheets and factor in all draft and trade history/precedent from the modern era.

You're literally running out of field to place that goal post you are dragging around. Now the problem is "He's taking it too seriously!"

martin wrote:Did not expect this

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/JCMacriNBA/status/1394748218408415234

Elf on the shelf?