Philc1 wrote:joec32033 wrote:Philc1 wrote:joec32033 wrote:TPercy wrote:I'd prefer to keep him unless he'd prefer to take a bigger role elsewhere. He comes off as pretty supportive in his interviews so if his teammates and coaches like having him around then why not?
I kind of agree with this, as long as he is ok with it. His pedigree and leadership are worth it for a a young team like this. Plus there are other pieces (some in the rotation) that I think we can use to upgrade. I like the Porter and Fournier deals in that article. They need to upgrade talent not do talent swaps. I doubt AR would be a deal breaker in those trades.
We already have solid veteran leadership on the roster who are also better players like Randle and Bullock.
Rivers has a pedigree of being on winning teams, in the playoffs, and experience with big time games/moments. Neither Randle or Bullock have the same. Rivers has experience that our "veterans", exempting Rose, don't have. Bullock, Burks, Rivers are all on the same level. The only reason Rivers doesn't play is he is a PG/SG while Burks and Bullock can play the 3.
I’m not sure how valuable that “pedigree of being on winning teams” is if you can’t play effectively on either side of the court
Bullock, Burks, Frank all play the same position as Rivers and are better
I think it all depends. Before Rose came, Rivers and IQ was great. To me, they are all at the same level, just different player types. Lately, Bullock, Burks and Frank have been playing better. Or have been playing period. If you swop Rivers for Burks, we would say lets trade Burks. Same with Bullock and Frank. It's all about who's in Thibs top 10 and who's not. Which doesn't always correlate to whos the better player. Rivers is a good player, stuck on a team in a crowded position. But when he gets hot, he can single handedly change the momentum of a game.
Born in Brooklyn, Raised in Queens, Lives in Maryland.
The future is bright, I'm a Knicks fan for life!