ramtour420 wrote:Some of you guys are strange. Dennis freaking Shroder turned down a 21mil per year 4 year contract. Let that sink in for a second? You want to pay Lonzo 15-18 mil? Are you nuts? He is not good enough for you because is is not the best PG in the league? Guess what, he would not be available if he was the best. Or the price would be Barrett or Randle.

Everyone has been repeating the mantra of " ... We need to find more guys like Randle, just before they break out and become an All Star " well guess what, that involves risk because they are not a sure thing yet, because they have holes in their games, maybe they are misused or whatever. Do you see where I am going with this? If Lonzo did not have question marks we would have no way to get him.

We are so enamored with Mitch. Yet here we are on a 6 game winning streak. Also Mitchell has not improved a bit so far. Nothin. Lonzo has. Lonzo is a Jason Kidd clone who found his shooting touch 10 years quicker. Here is my take, whichever amount we sign Lonzo for will be a bargain 2-3 years down the road.

Lonzo is not a Jason Kidd clone and this overrating of his prowess is what's causing the disconnect. Instead of a gambling on a guy who might turn out to be a PG, how about the Knicks gamble on a guy we know is a PG

ramtour420 wrote:Some of you guys are strange. Dennis freaking Shroder turned down a 21mil per year 4 year contract. Let that sink in for a second? You want to pay Lonzo 15-18 mil? Are you nuts? He is not good enough for you because is is not the best PG in the league? Guess what, he would not be available if he was the best. Or the price would be Barrett or Randle.

Everyone has been repeating the mantra of " ... We need to find more guys like Randle, just before they break out and become an All Star " well guess what, that involves risk because they are not a sure thing yet, because they have holes in their games, maybe they are misused or whatever. Do you see where I am going with this? If Lonzo did not have question marks we would have no way to get him.

We are so enamored with Mitch. Yet here we are on a 6 game winning streak. Also Mitchell has not improved a bit so far. Nothin. Lonzo has. Lonzo is a Jason Kidd clone who found his shooting touch 10 years quicker. Here is my take, whichever amount we sign Lonzo for will be a bargain 2-3 years down the road.

He is making 11mm today. 5 year max is 28mm? I dunno, I see guys like Frazier getting 18mm, Fred Van Vleet getting 4 years 85mm and think that's pretty much the market spread. I have Lonzo below both of those gents currently.

That said, I agree with most of your analysis of getting guys early. I think the benefit of Randle was his 19mm per year contract. If they signed him at $25mm he'd be under far more scrutiny. You want to say $19mm or 20mm for Lonzo? I'm not opposed. I just think 18mm is a solid offer.

EwingsGlass wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:Some of you guys are strange. Dennis freaking Shroder turned down a 21mil per year 4 year contract. Let that sink in for a second? You want to pay Lonzo 15-18 mil? Are you nuts? He is not good enough for you because is is not the best PG in the league? Guess what, he would not be available if he was the best. Or the price would be Barrett or Randle.

Everyone has been repeating the mantra of " ... We need to find more guys like Randle, just before they break out and become an All Star " well guess what, that involves risk because they are not a sure thing yet, because they have holes in their games, maybe they are misused or whatever. Do you see where I am going with this? If Lonzo did not have question marks we would have no way to get him.

We are so enamored with Mitch. Yet here we are on a 6 game winning streak. Also Mitchell has not improved a bit so far. Nothin. Lonzo has. Lonzo is a Jason Kidd clone who found his shooting touch 10 years quicker. Here is my take, whichever amount we sign Lonzo for will be a bargain 2-3 years down the road.

Lonzo is not a Jason Kidd clone and this overrating of his prowess is what's causing the disconnect. Instead of a gambling on a guy who might turn out to be a PG, how about the Knicks gamble on a guy we know is a PG

I think you are overstating his weaknesses. He might actually be exactly what the Knicks need in a guy that can lead a transition offense and then allow the half court sets to run through Randle and Barrett.

This "maybe a point guard" logic is flawed - at least from my perspective, where I have been outspoken that Elf uses the same portion of the floor as Barrett - allowing opposing teams to pack the paint. I think Lonzo, Barrett and Randle all bring different but complimentary skill sets. Lonzo has good tenacity on defense with some added length. It feels like a no brainer to me. Seems like his flaw is that he wasn't Lebron in his rookie season. I am truly interested in what this coaching staff could do for him - and what he could do for us.

completely agree.

EwingsGlass wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:Some of you guys are strange. Dennis freaking Shroder turned down a 21mil per year 4 year contract. Let that sink in for a second? You want to pay Lonzo 15-18 mil? Are you nuts? He is not good enough for you because is is not the best PG in the league? Guess what, he would not be available if he was the best. Or the price would be Barrett or Randle.

Everyone has been repeating the mantra of " ... We need to find more guys like Randle, just before they break out and become an All Star " well guess what, that involves risk because they are not a sure thing yet, because they have holes in their games, maybe they are misused or whatever. Do you see where I am going with this? If Lonzo did not have question marks we would have no way to get him.

We are so enamored with Mitch. Yet here we are on a 6 game winning streak. Also Mitchell has not improved a bit so far. Nothin. Lonzo has. Lonzo is a Jason Kidd clone who found his shooting touch 10 years quicker. Here is my take, whichever amount we sign Lonzo for will be a bargain 2-3 years down the road.

Lonzo is not a Jason Kidd clone and this overrating of his prowess is what's causing the disconnect. Instead of a gambling on a guy who might turn out to be a PG, how about the Knicks gamble on a guy we know is a PG

I think you are overstating his weaknesses. He might actually be exactly what the Knicks need in a guy that can lead a transition offense and then allow the half court sets to run through Randle and Barrett.

This "maybe a point guard" logic is flawed - at least from my perspective, where I have been outspoken that Elf uses the same portion of the floor as Barrett - allowing opposing teams to pack the paint. I think Lonzo, Barrett and Randle all bring different but complimentary skill sets. Lonzo has good tenacity on defense with some added length. It feels like a no brainer to me. Seems like his flaw is that he wasn't Lebron in his rookie season. I am truly interested in what this coaching staff could do for him - and what he could do for us.

ramtour420 wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:Some of you guys are strange. Dennis freaking Shroder turned down a 21mil per year 4 year contract. Let that sink in for a second? You want to pay Lonzo 15-18 mil? Are you nuts? He is not good enough for you because is is not the best PG in the league? Guess what, he would not be available if he was the best. Or the price would be Barrett or Randle.

Everyone has been repeating the mantra of " ... We need to find more guys like Randle, just before they break out and become an All Star " well guess what, that involves risk because they are not a sure thing yet, because they have holes in their games, maybe they are misused or whatever. Do you see where I am going with this? If Lonzo did not have question marks we would have no way to get him.

We are so enamored with Mitch. Yet here we are on a 6 game winning streak. Also Mitchell has not improved a bit so far. Nothin. Lonzo has. Lonzo is a Jason Kidd clone who found his shooting touch 10 years quicker. Here is my take, whichever amount we sign Lonzo for will be a bargain 2-3 years down the road.

Lonzo is not a Jason Kidd clone and this overrating of his prowess is what's causing the disconnect. Instead of a gambling on a guy who might turn out to be a PG, how about the Knicks gamble on a guy we know is a PG

I think you are overstating his weaknesses. He might actually be exactly what the Knicks need in a guy that can lead a transition offense and then allow the half court sets to run through Randle and Barrett.

This "maybe a point guard" logic is flawed - at least from my perspective, where I have been outspoken that Elf uses the same portion of the floor as Barrett - allowing opposing teams to pack the paint. I think Lonzo, Barrett and Randle all bring different but complimentary skill sets. Lonzo has good tenacity on defense with some added length. It feels like a no brainer to me. Seems like his flaw is that he wasn't Lebron in his rookie season. I am truly interested in what this coaching staff could do for him - and what he could do for us.

So you're saying we should sign Lonzo because Payton sucks? Payton likely isn't going to be here next season anyway and he shouldn't factor into any future decisions. Again, I'm not saying the Knicks couldn't use Lonzo. But I'm not sold on him as a PG and I'm against the idea of overpaying for him on the basis that he's a "rising star" at the position. He's had the ball taken out of his hands by three different people pro coaches. His fundamental weaknesses as a lead guard are the same ones he's had since he was at UCLA. Stop the insanity. This is a clear case of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

First of all Payton sucking may have to do with his weaknesses and strengths in relation to our team needs. Our top two players need the paint and so does Payton. And he is not as good at penetrating. We need playmaking from our guards- Noel, Mitch and Obi can all get easy points off of better PG play. Payton gives zero there. Fast breaks are our weakness and Payton is a big reason for that. Lastly Payton's shooting ... Another major weakness.

Lonzo covers every single one of those points since they are all his strengths. Thats multiple round pegs that fit like a glove in this teams round holes.

It’s so ridiculous to me that Payton is trying so hard for his next contract when all he has to do is go back to his passing ways and hire a shooting coach. Some pgs have shots beyond repair like Lonzo and even he made drastic changes to his shot within 2-3 years(Another reason why I believe in him). Payton isn’t one of them yet he makes 0 progress. If we got last season/Pelicans Payton + improved shooting he’d make 5x his salary while helping a desperate Knicks team. Sigh.

BigDaddyG wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:Some of you guys are strange. Dennis freaking Shroder turned down a 21mil per year 4 year contract. Let that sink in for a second? You want to pay Lonzo 15-18 mil? Are you nuts? He is not good enough for you because is is not the best PG in the league? Guess what, he would not be available if he was the best. Or the price would be Barrett or Randle.

Everyone has been repeating the mantra of " ... We need to find more guys like Randle, just before they break out and become an All Star " well guess what, that involves risk because they are not a sure thing yet, because they have holes in their games, maybe they are misused or whatever. Do you see where I am going with this? If Lonzo did not have question marks we would have no way to get him.

We are so enamored with Mitch. Yet here we are on a 6 game winning streak. Also Mitchell has not improved a bit so far. Nothin. Lonzo has. Lonzo is a Jason Kidd clone who found his shooting touch 10 years quicker. Here is my take, whichever amount we sign Lonzo for will be a bargain 2-3 years down the road.

Lonzo is not a Jason Kidd clone and this overrating of his prowess is what's causing the disconnect. Instead of a gambling on a guy who might turn out to be a PG, how about the Knicks gamble on a guy we know is a PG

I think you are overstating his weaknesses. He might actually be exactly what the Knicks need in a guy that can lead a transition offense and then allow the half court sets to run through Randle and Barrett.

This "maybe a point guard" logic is flawed - at least from my perspective, where I have been outspoken that Elf uses the same portion of the floor as Barrett - allowing opposing teams to pack the paint. I think Lonzo, Barrett and Randle all bring different but complimentary skill sets. Lonzo has good tenacity on defense with some added length. It feels like a no brainer to me. Seems like his flaw is that he wasn't Lebron in his rookie season. I am truly interested in what this coaching staff could do for him - and what he could do for us.

So you're saying we should sign Lonzo because Payton sucks? Payton likely isn't going to be here next season anyway and he shouldn't factor into any future decisions. Again, I'm not saying the Knicks couldn't use Lonzo. But I'm not sold on him as a PG and I'm against the idea of overpaying for him on the basis that he's a "rising star" at the position. He's had the ball taken out of his hands by three different people pro coaches. His fundamental weaknesses as a lead guard are the same ones he's had since he was at UCLA. Stop the insanity. This is a clear case of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

I don't follow your logic on connecting Lonzo signing just because Payton sucks (although it's a good start TBH). And generally, unless you are signing a proven all star, you are always going to overpay because the player is "rising" in your eyes; it is about projection.

I don't watch Lonzo so I'm at a disadvantage. I think it's easy to see that he has been a PG on teams that already have dominant ball handlers who want to be PGs: LeBron, Jrue, Zion. Who is the egg and who is the chicken? Don't know necessarily when Stan took the ball out of Lonzo's hands but when you can't spread the floor with Zion and you also have guys like Bledsoe and Ingram that need the ball in their hands, it's a complicated situation to say the least.

Can Lonzo fit in with Randle/RJ would be my question. I feel like more so than Bledsoe, Zion, Ingram (and certainly LeBron). Randle puts in a lot of energy getting his own shot and RJ probably handles the ball too much considering his ball handling and passing vision/decision making.

No idea if Lonzo is a long term fit - could the Knicks use a guy who relentlessly pushes the ball - but I do see the possibility of synergy and certainly the added dimension player - PnR guy, alley oop passer, fast break ball handler, and guy who is just looking to pass - in Ball.

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:Some of you guys are strange. Dennis freaking Shroder turned down a 21mil per year 4 year contract. Let that sink in for a second? You want to pay Lonzo 15-18 mil? Are you nuts? He is not good enough for you because is is not the best PG in the league? Guess what, he would not be available if he was the best. Or the price would be Barrett or Randle.

Everyone has been repeating the mantra of " ... We need to find more guys like Randle, just before they break out and become an All Star " well guess what, that involves risk because they are not a sure thing yet, because they have holes in their games, maybe they are misused or whatever. Do you see where I am going with this? If Lonzo did not have question marks we would have no way to get him.

We are so enamored with Mitch. Yet here we are on a 6 game winning streak. Also Mitchell has not improved a bit so far. Nothin. Lonzo has. Lonzo is a Jason Kidd clone who found his shooting touch 10 years quicker. Here is my take, whichever amount we sign Lonzo for will be a bargain 2-3 years down the road.

Lonzo is not a Jason Kidd clone and this overrating of his prowess is what's causing the disconnect. Instead of a gambling on a guy who might turn out to be a PG, how about the Knicks gamble on a guy we know is a PG

I think you are overstating his weaknesses. He might actually be exactly what the Knicks need in a guy that can lead a transition offense and then allow the half court sets to run through Randle and Barrett.

This "maybe a point guard" logic is flawed - at least from my perspective, where I have been outspoken that Elf uses the same portion of the floor as Barrett - allowing opposing teams to pack the paint. I think Lonzo, Barrett and Randle all bring different but complimentary skill sets. Lonzo has good tenacity on defense with some added length. It feels like a no brainer to me. Seems like his flaw is that he wasn't Lebron in his rookie season. I am truly interested in what this coaching staff could do for him - and what he could do for us.

So you're saying we should sign Lonzo because Payton sucks? Payton likely isn't going to be here next season anyway and he shouldn't factor into any future decisions. Again, I'm not saying the Knicks couldn't use Lonzo. But I'm not sold on him as a PG and I'm against the idea of overpaying for him on the basis that he's a "rising star" at the position. He's had the ball taken out of his hands by three different people pro coaches. His fundamental weaknesses as a lead guard are the same ones he's had since he was at UCLA. Stop the insanity. This is a clear case of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

I don't follow your logic on connecting Lonzo signing just because Payton sucks (although it's a good start TBH). And generally, unless you are signing a proven all star, you are always going to overpay because the player is "rising" in your eyes; it is about projection.

I don't watch Lonzo so I'm at a disadvantage. I think it's easy to see that he has been a PG on teams that already have dominant ball handlers who want to be PGs: LeBron, Jrue, Zion. Who is the egg and who is the chicken? Don't know necessarily when Stan took the ball out of Lonzo's hands but when you can't spread the floor with Zion and you also have guys like Bledsoe and Ingram that need the ball in their hands, it's a complicated situation to say the least.

Can Lonzo fit in with Randle/RJ would be my question. I feel like more so than Bledsoe, Zion, Ingram (and certainly LeBron). Randle puts in a lot of energy getting his own shot and RJ probably handles the ball too much considering his ball handling and passing vision/decision making.

No idea if Lonzo is a long term fit - could the Knicks use a guy who relentlessly pushes the ball - but I do see the possibility of synergy and certainly the added dimension player - PnR guy, alley oop passer, fast break ball handler, and guy who is just looking to pass - in Ball.

Up thread. My point is that Elfrid Payton shouldn't be a consideration on any move the Knicks make in the future. The question, at least in my mind, isn't whether Lonzo fits. He's a three and D wing with some playmaking skills. His skillset would fit a number of teams. My questions center on him being regarded as the point guard of the future. I don't see it. He doesn't attack the paint and he gets rendered useless in the half court on many nights. Look up his old UCLA scouting reports(where he shot about 40% from three that year.) Same issues, same concerns. If you're trying to sell me in the idea that Lonzo is an upgrade over Bullock, I'll buy in and wouldn't be opposed to paying accordingly. If the idea is to bring Lonzo as the PG of the future, I have enough serious doubts to say no, that's a mistake.

wargames wrote:Ya’ll realize there are a decent number of PG or Combo PGs that should be in our draft range

Josh Giddey
Tre Mann
Jaden Springer
Sharifs Cooper
Jared Butler
Ayo Dosunmu
Joel Ayayi
Daishen Nix

If the Knicks are looking they could probably come away with three of them and hope to hit on one. I rather they do that, try to keep some of the role players (Burk, Bullock, Rose. And Noel) and then also have money for Lavine or Beal.

I think keeping what we got, getting better PG play through the draft, and adding a high level scorer like Lavine or Beal is a better chance of a championship than adding Ball.

Like we have enough draft picks to hunt for a better PG, and back up PG. Ball is injury prone on the low, and I just get Timmy vibes from him the more I watch him. Aka I don’t think he would be reliable third option.

We don’t expect ball to be a first second or third option.

We expect him to be a floor general, play defense and Knock down the open 3.

Create more easy bucket opportunities in transition (Robinson/Toppin etc)

As far as your point I’ve had that theory as well. I have issues with a lot of guys on that list.

I’ve online scouted them extensively.

1. Nix would be a good floor general but don’t expect him to make a jump shot. Basically he would be a better version of Elfrid.

2. Sharif Cooper yea he can get anywhere on the court but he is Defensive liability(short)and he can’t shoot.

3. Tre Mann is just a jump shooter. If his pull up jumpers are not falling he is useless. Makes a lot of mistakes and can be trapped.

4. Jaden Springer will be taken before pick 15

Maybe

Jared butler
Ayo dosunmo
Joel
Josh Giddey