New scenery and a fan base that will embrace him if he performs well is good motivation to do so.

Also, just like the rest of the core of the Knicks, he'll be auditioning for his next paycheck in 2015 as well.

Knixkik wrote:We know what he can't do based on the conversations on this board, but he wasn't brought in for what he can't do. What he was brought in for in my opinion is to replace JR Smith as our 2nd option on offense. Do you believe he is better suited as our 2nd option than JR? I for one believe he is a great fit at PF next to Melo and Chandler and compliments this team perfectly. He is a true stretch 4. He is only 1 year removed from back to back 20 ppg seasons, so there is reason to believe while he isn't someone you want to build your offense around, he can thrive as a secondary scorer. What do you think?

I'm warming up to this very idea. We really don't have a choice -- he's here, it's a reality.

We can't possibly be done building however. There needs to be much more forthcoming -- we need another speedy PG; another wing that can shoot/score; and at least 1 more capable big man that can patrol the interior and rebound the ball. All about shoring up weaknesses, filling holes and improving depth (if and when guys break down, I want solid options to plug in at the ready). We look to be at least 3 capable players away from a complete rotation right now..

holfresh wrote:Kiki Vandeweghe was brought in to be the second scorer behind Ewing...U don't know until he steps into it in game situations...My only assumption is that he will provide more production than Novak and Camby..

kiki was also past his prime as well.. and I am a huge kiki fan.. I think injuries really slowed him down..

holfresh wrote:I still think the Knicks should pursue a legit number two scorer using Chandler as a trade chip if necessary ..

Problem with that is you are getting rid of our best post defender. It also makes getting Bargs irrelevant if you aren't going to use him as a secondary scoring option. I think we only trade him if we can upgrade the PG position and have a reasonable backup option for center. But any deal involving Chandler would likely be creating a hole to fill another. I think he stays.

Knixkik wrote:

holfresh wrote:I still think the Knicks should pursue a legit number two scorer using Chandler as a trade chip if necessary ..

Problem with that is you are getting rid of our best post defender. It also makes getting Bargs irrelevant if you aren't going to use him as a secondary scoring option. I think we only trade him if we can upgrade the PG position and have a reasonable backup option for center. But any deal involving Chandler would likely be creating a hole to fill another. I think he stays.

Thus the reason I suggested Knicks try to do a Larry Sanders, Ellis for Chandler type deal...You can put Bargs in the role of a second scoring option, doesn't mean he will become that...

ChuckBuck wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:We know what he can't do based on the conversations on this board, but he wasn't brought in for what he can't do. What he was brought in for in my opinion is to replace JR Smith as our 2nd option on offense. Do you believe he is better suited as our 2nd option than JR? I for one believe he is a great fit at PF next to Melo and Chandler and compliments this team perfectly. He is a true stretch 4. He is only 1 year removed from back to back 20 ppg seasons, so there is reason to believe while he isn't someone you want to build your offense around, he can thrive as a secondary scorer. What do you think?

was scoring the knicks problem? or was it the inability to get rebounds, stops, etc? I used to like bargs, I just don't think he likes the NBA.. He loves what comes with playing in the NBA, but I think the guy wants to be elsewhere. he is damaged in that aspect... His heart is not here.. bringing him to NY isn't going to change that.. not sure what happened to his shooting stroke, but it seems off.. he doesn't defend or rebound.. I am just trying to figure out, how does this address the knicks problems?

you keep talking about him complimenting melo and chandler... what good is that? complimenting a flawed structure does what? maybe if we had Dwight howard I could see where having a healthy and well playing Bargnani can help, but honestly I rather have ryan anderson who is better... Again, not saying bargs is a bad player.. not sure if he is a good player in the NBA anymore, and even so.. how does this help the knicks in their area of weakness..not having a stretch 4 was not the knicks problem... rebounding, points in the paint and an efficient scorer was.... we haven't addressed any of that yet..

Correct, scoring was the reason we lost to Indiana. We defended Indiana fine.

The 2 games we won against Indy was because our offense exploded, and wasn't stagnant.

so getting pounded on the boards and in the paint had nothing to do with it... just scoring?

As moses malone said " can't shoot the ball, if you aint got the ball".....

tkf wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:We know what he can't do based on the conversations on this board, but he wasn't brought in for what he can't do. What he was brought in for in my opinion is to replace JR Smith as our 2nd option on offense. Do you believe he is better suited as our 2nd option than JR? I for one believe he is a great fit at PF next to Melo and Chandler and compliments this team perfectly. He is a true stretch 4. He is only 1 year removed from back to back 20 ppg seasons, so there is reason to believe while he isn't someone you want to build your offense around, he can thrive as a secondary scorer. What do you think?

was scoring the knicks problem? or was it the inability to get rebounds, stops, etc? I used to like bargs, I just don't think he likes the NBA.. He loves what comes with playing in the NBA, but I think the guy wants to be elsewhere. he is damaged in that aspect... His heart is not here.. bringing him to NY isn't going to change that.. not sure what happened to his shooting stroke, but it seems off.. he doesn't defend or rebound.. I am just trying to figure out, how does this address the knicks problems?

you keep talking about him complimenting melo and chandler... what good is that? complimenting a flawed structure does what? maybe if we had Dwight howard I could see where having a healthy and well playing Bargnani can help, but honestly I rather have ryan anderson who is better... Again, not saying bargs is a bad player.. not sure if he is a good player in the NBA anymore, and even so.. how does this help the knicks in their area of weakness..not having a stretch 4 was not the knicks problem... rebounding, points in the paint and an efficient scorer was.... we haven't addressed any of that yet..

Correct, scoring was the reason we lost to Indiana. We defended Indiana fine.

The 2 games we won against Indy was because our offense exploded, and wasn't stagnant.

so getting pounded on the boards and in the paint had nothing to do with it... just scoring?

As moses malone said " can't shoot the ball, if you aint got the ball".....

Exactly. Different era.

Unless you have a dominant post player and frontcourt ala a Shaq or prime Duncan, small ball or versatile teams like the Heat get outrebounded and still win games.

The 2 NBA Finalists actually finished 21st(Spurs) and dead last 30th(Heat). The Clippers finished 18th and the Knicks 26th.

Yes. I'd say rebounds is important, but doesn't really effect wins and losses to the extent it did in eras past. Of course in the Knicks case they should be better than 26th, ideally, but when it comes down to it, we didn't matchup or play to our strengths against Indiana.

playa2 wrote:Absolutely he can be our 2nd option and JR the 3rd option if he stays. Prigionni will like playing with Barganni.

We could have used Copeland the same way we will use Barganni on the perimiter, ask Woody !

Basically Bargnani is like a better 7 foot Copeland.

ChuckBuck wrote:

tkf wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:We know what he can't do based on the conversations on this board, but he wasn't brought in for what he can't do. What he was brought in for in my opinion is to replace JR Smith as our 2nd option on offense. Do you believe he is better suited as our 2nd option than JR? I for one believe he is a great fit at PF next to Melo and Chandler and compliments this team perfectly. He is a true stretch 4. He is only 1 year removed from back to back 20 ppg seasons, so there is reason to believe while he isn't someone you want to build your offense around, he can thrive as a secondary scorer. What do you think?

was scoring the knicks problem? or was it the inability to get rebounds, stops, etc? I used to like bargs, I just don't think he likes the NBA.. He loves what comes with playing in the NBA, but I think the guy wants to be elsewhere. he is damaged in that aspect... His heart is not here.. bringing him to NY isn't going to change that.. not sure what happened to his shooting stroke, but it seems off.. he doesn't defend or rebound.. I am just trying to figure out, how does this address the knicks problems?

you keep talking about him complimenting melo and chandler... what good is that? complimenting a flawed structure does what? maybe if we had Dwight howard I could see where having a healthy and well playing Bargnani can help, but honestly I rather have ryan anderson who is better... Again, not saying bargs is a bad player.. not sure if he is a good player in the NBA anymore, and even so.. how does this help the knicks in their area of weakness..not having a stretch 4 was not the knicks problem... rebounding, points in the paint and an efficient scorer was.... we haven't addressed any of that yet..

Correct, scoring was the reason we lost to Indiana. We defended Indiana fine.

The 2 games we won against Indy was because our offense exploded, and wasn't stagnant.

so getting pounded on the boards and in the paint had nothing to do with it... just scoring?

As moses malone said " can't shoot the ball, if you aint got the ball".....

Exactly. Different era.

Unless you have a dominant post player and frontcourt ala a Shaq or prime Duncan, small ball or versatile teams like the Heat get outrebounded and still win games.

The 2 NBA Finalists actually finished 21st(Spurs) and dead last 30th(Heat). The Clippers finished 18th and the Knicks 26th.

Yes. I'd say rebounds is important, but doesn't really effect wins and losses to the extent it did in eras past. Of course in the Knicks case they should be better than 26th, ideally, but when it comes down to it, we didn't matchup or play to our strengths against Indiana.

I wouldn't exactly say that..Indy completely destroyed us on the glass with second chance points...It won the series for them..We still need scoring tho..One is not exclusive of the other..