dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

blkexec wrote:

MS wrote:Rondo is problem.

Garnett, Pierce and Allen really kept him in check and he still had multiple problems. He was a disaster in Dallas and his been no saint in Sactown. So why bring on a personality like that when you have good chemistry and good guys in the lockroom.

Rondo is a risk worth taking, IF he's the final championship piece to the puzzle. Right now, we are not a Rondo addition away from winning a championship. But if we hit on all of our free agency targets, (big and small)....we could be! But knowing how things went this last off season, my guess is no.....And if thats the case, Rondo can single handidly destroy your team / coach. So it depends on what pieces we add, similar to the vets Rondo had in Boston. He needs to be in a good fit for him to succeed.

Rondo is not a consideration under any circumstances. It took 3 superstars and a willing coach to even keep him in check. I don't think the Knicks, even if they added say a Durant would be able to keep Rondo in check. Fisher doesn't have that sort of coach pull either.

It would be Phil's task to get through to him. Rondo is considered a genius but has some sort of socialization issue.

Phil ain't the head coach any more. It would take coach and players and the Knicks got other things to deal with

but he is around. maybe he'd be around enough or commit to being around enough if rondo ended up here. the issue would not only be rondo's personality but how well he could function in the triangle where the point guard's role is much less orchestrating and drive and kick and more making entry passes to post bigs and draining corner threes.

it would not be a great fit even without the behavioral issues.

Seems like Rondo does better when given a blank system, where he can improvise. But when he's in a system with too many contraints, he struggles. At least that was the case in Dallas. But Fisher isn't that type. Fisher allows his players to play during the game. Thats why some people even question if we are running the triangle. And thats why Melo is ranked 2nd in ISO plays behind James Harden. The coach in Dallas is different....He would pull Melo out of the game, similar to what he did with Rondo. Fisher does it in a more suttle way. Plus, I believe Rondo and Melo's relationship off the field, would be the main glue.....So I can see Rondo working out in NY. But I don't think it would happen. The problem with Rondo is what system or team is willing to take him and at what cost?

newyorker4ever wrote:

mreinman wrote:

newyorker4ever wrote:Let me ask you guys this. Would you rather take the chance on B.Jennings and the injury risk that comes with him or would you rather take the risk on R.Rondo and his attitude problems?? I think Rondo would be a big help for this team but would his bad attitude hurt the team more than his great play would help the team?? I think if we added a R.Rondo and a N.Batum and go to a small ball starting lineup we would be contending for deep playoff runs and maybe even a championship.

PG--R.Rondo
SG--A.Afflalo
SF--N.Batum
PF--Melo
C--KP6

To get both of them we'd have to trade for one and get the other in free agency after the year so it would be tough to do but that lineup and with some really good players coming off the bench we'd be a fun team to watch and a dangerous team to play.

I don't think that rondo would be good for us despite the attitude. Dude can't shoot a lick and he would at least have to knock down the mid range on a consistent basis.

Believe me i understand that he doesn't have a good shot but everything else he does from his defense to his getting to the basket to his great passing are thing you can win with from the PG spot.

his shooting is not good enough to play in the triangle

blkexec wrote:

newyorker4ever wrote:Let me ask you guys this. Would you rather take the chance on B.Jennings and the injury risk that comes with him or would you rather take the risk on R.Rondo and his attitude problems?? I think Rondo would be a big help for this team but would his bad attitude hurt the team more than his great play would help the team?? I think if we added a R.Rondo and a N.Batum and go to a small ball starting lineup we would be contending for deep playoff runs and maybe even a championship.

PG--R.Rondo
SG--A.Afflalo
SF--N.Batum
PF--Melo
C--KP6

To get both of them we'd have to trade for one and get the other in free agency after the year so it would be tough to do but that lineup and with some really good players coming off the bench we'd be a fun team to watch and a dangerous team to play.

I don't think it's an accurate comparison. We can obtain Jennings right now and still get Rondo next season, IF Jennings doesn't work out.

I'm not worried about his injury.....I'm all too famaliar with that. I worry more about his defense. But Jennings would be an offensive addition plus he will increase team assist. He will add much needed fire power to our starting unit, and possibly help us remove Jose's contract and give us more free agent room for next year. If they are willing to do a Jose and Jennings swap, it's a no brainer. If they want more, then thats a separate discussion.

But to respond to your post, why not have both? Jennings now....Rondo later!

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

blkexec wrote:

MS wrote:Rondo is problem.

Garnett, Pierce and Allen really kept him in check and he still had multiple problems. He was a disaster in Dallas and his been no saint in Sactown. So why bring on a personality like that when you have good chemistry and good guys in the lockroom.

Rondo is a risk worth taking, IF he's the final championship piece to the puzzle. Right now, we are not a Rondo addition away from winning a championship. But if we hit on all of our free agency targets, (big and small)....we could be! But knowing how things went this last off season, my guess is no.....And if thats the case, Rondo can single handidly destroy your team / coach. So it depends on what pieces we add, similar to the vets Rondo had in Boston. He needs to be in a good fit for him to succeed.

Rondo is not a consideration under any circumstances. It took 3 superstars and a willing coach to even keep him in check. I don't think the Knicks, even if they added say a Durant would be able to keep Rondo in check. Fisher doesn't have that sort of coach pull either.

It would be Phil's task to get through to him. Rondo is considered a genius but has some sort of socialization issue.

Phil ain't the head coach any more. It would take coach and players and the Knicks got other things to deal with

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiit9H8tO7JAhUDRyYKHZYeB3gQFgg1MAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fespn.go.com%2Fblog%2Fnew-york%2Fknicks%2Fpost%2F_%2Fid%2F51027%2Fmelo-on-recruiting-rondo-thats-tampering&usg=AFQjCNHgvJHfa9wwXAUSroNgRcUhv29kGQ

I know this article is from a couple of years ago but it's just a reminder that Melo did want Rondo in New York so you never know. If Melo went to Phil and somehow convinced him that he can keep Rondo's head right then who knows if Phil would listen or not.

crzymdups wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:I struggle to see how Jennings would fit the triangle but would not be averse to giving it a try if Calderon (and minor pieces) was (were) being dumped in the process. Worse comes to worse, we end up with an additional $9 million of cap space this offseason and an opportunity to build on what we already have.

But if we're actually trying to swing for the fences on a worthwhile opportunity, I'd do so on Lance Stephenson. Yes, he's a cancer but Zen has redeemed/wrangled similar players (Dennis Rodman) before. Needless to say, he's a knucklehead but it doesn't mean that they can't contribute positively to a winning team (see Rasheed Wallace and more recently, Hassan Whiteside). And given Stephenson's success with running elements of the triangle and the triangle outright with Brian Shaw in Indy, I'd be tempted to roll the dice on him. Like with Jennings, he is an expirer so the worse that can happen is that he doesn't work out and is cut before the end of the season. Best case scenario? We get the guy that was the best player in that Heat-Pacers conference finals that is a nightly triple double threat and elite defender within the confines of our system.

That being said, I really think that all it'd take to get Lance here is Calderon, Early and Seraphin. The Clippers improve their bench, while we get to consolidate our own and free up cap space in the process. I'd bring Stephenson off the bench and allow him to backup the SF and SG as the primary ballhandler, which will allow him to get the 30 minutes he needs to be effective.

I worry about Lance as a personality, but as a talent I think he'd be a great fit. That big, physical pressence at the 2 or 3 that can score, defend, rebound, make plays. I think it'd be a great fit. Not sure he fits with the team. After Indiana, I'd have been willing to take a flier. After Charlotte... sure. But now with the Clippers... that's three teams that have soured on him in like 18 months. I'd be worried.

Though, again, talent-wise, I think he'd be a perfect fit.

As far as personalities, I think Nic Batum brings a lot of the same capabilities on the floor, perhaps better overall... and he's more of a team approach guy. I think he'd fit better, personality-wise.

I like Batum but I just don't see him as a 2-guard especially as he ages. He'll start losing his lateral quickness and my concern is that with his length, he'd begin to compensate for said loss by using his hands to play D. That's a recipe for disaster and an open invitation to continually send guys to the line. If we had no KP, I'd be more than willing to have Batum be my hybrid forward next to Melo....the two fit each other perfectly. But KP and Batum are starters in this, so I can't see this scenario of adding Batum, panning out.

As for Stephenson, 3rd team since Indiana might be the charm. Stephenson only works if you run the triangle, allow him to be a primary ballhandler AND have strong mentors in the organization. I think we meet those conditions for him to succeed, which make his personality issues a secondary concern like it did for Rasheed in Detriot, Hassan Whiteside in Miami, Latrell Sprewell in NYK/MIN, etc.

NardDogNation wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:I struggle to see how Jennings would fit the triangle but would not be averse to giving it a try if Calderon (and minor pieces) was (were) being dumped in the process. Worse comes to worse, we end up with an additional $9 million of cap space this offseason and an opportunity to build on what we already have.

But if we're actually trying to swing for the fences on a worthwhile opportunity, I'd do so on Lance Stephenson. Yes, he's a cancer but Zen has redeemed/wrangled similar players (Dennis Rodman) before. Needless to say, he's a knucklehead but it doesn't mean that they can't contribute positively to a winning team (see Rasheed Wallace and more recently, Hassan Whiteside). And given Stephenson's success with running elements of the triangle and the triangle outright with Brian Shaw in Indy, I'd be tempted to roll the dice on him. Like with Jennings, he is an expirer so the worse that can happen is that he doesn't work out and is cut before the end of the season. Best case scenario? We get the guy that was the best player in that Heat-Pacers conference finals that is a nightly triple double threat and elite defender within the confines of our system.

That being said, I really think that all it'd take to get Lance here is Calderon, Early and Seraphin. The Clippers improve their bench, while we get to consolidate our own and free up cap space in the process. I'd bring Stephenson off the bench and allow him to backup the SF and SG as the primary ballhandler, which will allow him to get the 30 minutes he needs to be effective.

I worry about Lance as a personality, but as a talent I think he'd be a great fit. That big, physical pressence at the 2 or 3 that can score, defend, rebound, make plays. I think it'd be a great fit. Not sure he fits with the team. After Indiana, I'd have been willing to take a flier. After Charlotte... sure. But now with the Clippers... that's three teams that have soured on him in like 18 months. I'd be worried.

Though, again, talent-wise, I think he'd be a perfect fit.

As far as personalities, I think Nic Batum brings a lot of the same capabilities on the floor, perhaps better overall... and he's more of a team approach guy. I think he'd fit better, personality-wise.

I like Batum but I just don't see him as a 2-guard especially as he ages. He'll start losing his lateral quickness and my concern is that with his length, he'd begin to compensate for said loss by using his hands to play D. That's a recipe for disaster and an open invitation to continually send guys to the line. If we had no KP, I'd be more than willing to have Batum be my hybrid forward next to Melo....the two fit each other perfectly. But KP and Batum are starters in this, so I can't see this scenario of adding Batum, panning out.

As for Stephenson, 3rd team since Indiana might be the charm. Stephenson only works if you run the triangle, allow him to be a primary ballhandler AND have strong mentors in the organization. I think we meet those conditions for him to succeed, which make his personality issues a secondary concern like it did for Rasheed in Detriot, Hassan Whiteside in Miami, Latrell Sprewell in NYK/MIN, etc.

Maybe. I also worry about his NY roots making it harder for him here. But I agree with you on the talent side of things. Indiana was essentially running a very Triangle-like system during Lance's best season in Indiana.

I think I'd play Batum between the 2/3 in NY. We could go small with PG/Afflalo/Batum/Melo/KP or go bigger against some teams with Batum at the 2.

I think I'd prefer Batum over Stephenson, because while I think we have good guys here, I don't necessarily think we have the leadership on this squad to keep a guy like Lance in check. Best case scenario Lance might provide similar production to Batum at a far lower cost - but there are many scenarios worst than best case with Lance.

CrushAlot wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Knicks should call SVG right now and offer DWill for Brandon Jennings.

I thought Jose had his THjr audition tonight and Fish let him play. That deal matches straight up I believe.

I'd be fine with either!

Jennings would be a massive talent upgrade.

crzymdups wrote:Knicks should call SVG right now and offer DWill for Brandon Jennings.

Please tell me you ain't serious!!!!!

NardDogNation wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:I struggle to see how Jennings would fit the triangle but would not be averse to giving it a try if Calderon (and minor pieces) was (were) being dumped in the process. Worse comes to worse, we end up with an additional $9 million of cap space this offseason and an opportunity to build on what we already have.

But if we're actually trying to swing for the fences on a worthwhile opportunity, I'd do so on Lance Stephenson. Yes, he's a cancer but Zen has redeemed/wrangled similar players (Dennis Rodman) before. Needless to say, he's a knucklehead but it doesn't mean that they can't contribute positively to a winning team (see Rasheed Wallace and more recently, Hassan Whiteside). And given Stephenson's success with running elements of the triangle and the triangle outright with Brian Shaw in Indy, I'd be tempted to roll the dice on him. Like with Jennings, he is an expirer so the worse that can happen is that he doesn't work out and is cut before the end of the season. Best case scenario? We get the guy that was the best player in that Heat-Pacers conference finals that is a nightly triple double threat and elite defender within the confines of our system.

That being said, I really think that all it'd take to get Lance here is Calderon, Early and Seraphin. The Clippers improve their bench, while we get to consolidate our own and free up cap space in the process. I'd bring Stephenson off the bench and allow him to backup the SF and SG as the primary ballhandler, which will allow him to get the 30 minutes he needs to be effective.

There's a decemt chance that the Clips may but Lance out. I think we'd be giving up too much if we trade Calderon, Early and Seraphin. I am intrigued, but he's too much of a wildcard right now.

Stephenson is a wildcard by nature, so no there are no circumstances that will change that. The decision to acquire him should be based on your ability to mitigate those factors and put him in a system that maximizes his talents. And the last time he was in the triangle, with a former HOF'er in his ear, he was a nightly triple double threat and an all-star candidate. Even so, it's very well possible that he'll never be able to replicate the success he had in Indy and remains the marginalized malcontent that he's been in Charlotte and LA. But even if that happens, what are we really losing? At best, we're just a .500 team that isn't even in the playoffs, if it started today. Worst that happens is that we become slightly worse and still remain outside the top 8 in the east with $9 million of additional cap space this offseason. I doubt Kevin Seraphin or Cleanthony Early stick around come free agency anyway, so we might as well use them for something that furthers are ability to improve the team.