foosballnick wrote:fwk00 wrote:foosballnick wrote:fwk00 wrote:But what if we win???
Is it meaningful in any longer term sense?OK. Walker plays a few games, then... back to injured... ineffective due to playing on sore knees...?????
It's like putting bubble gum to stop a faucet leak.
The larger, unanswered question is 'How serious is Thibs about winning a ring this year?'
Which is to say, how many years of tinkering can happen before the players we have start to go downhill?
I almost think the FO has to go all in on winning now while we have the assets to make a deal or two that gets us to at least the ECF. Otherwise its just a .500ish team with a thin playoff profile. The coming ratcheted up schedule will be the metric.
I think you have to be more specific regarding which players will start to go downhill. Are we really only talking about Randle? Barrett, Toppin, MitchRob, IQ, Deuce, Reddish, Sims, and Grimes are all 23 and under. Rose, Burks, Noel have team options and with Kemba (UFA) are only guaranteed through next year. Fournier has 2 more years than a team option. Taj is already on the downside.
Isn't going all-in with a starphuck type move when the rest of the roster is not positioned to go all-in on winning kind of what got the Knicks in trouble and set them back for years in the past?
Well, 'downhill' has many meanings. Lack of minutes for the youth (and there are many) means diminished trade values.
Rose, Kemba, Mitch have all had a share of injuries... there will be others. AND, we have more picks making their way in in the next draft. So there's quantity a plenty.
If you bother to read any page of posts you'll read 1. "The Eastern Conference is weak this year", 2, 'Thibs is a genious "great" coach', and that we are in a cohort of mediocre teams all of whom are interchangeable going into the playoffs.
Will there be a better season to "go all in" and take the second half and playoffs by surprise?
I'm not feeling a downside here. I'm not suggesting gut the team. We have a LOT of tradeable assets that could get us a better PG and a hungry vet or two.
I look at Minny and can't help but think their need for a PF and our need for a PG align pretty damned nicely. Russell is expensive and expendable there (Edwards and Nowell). Obie isn't getting minutes here.
I loved Russell's game with the Nets... can't help but think its a sheer opportunity move to take on that contract and run with it ( we have how many PGs in waiting here, in G-League, and overseas)?
Send Obie, a second-rounder and some useable ballast their way - Russell and a strong bench player our way and call it a wash (given the fiscal windfall for Minny).
Make some decisions at center and harden the bench. If thibs can't make a long playoff run with that then let's agree he ain't "a great coach" yet.
I don't have a problem with Russell - but more on that in a moment.
Not sure who is saying the Eastern Conference is weak - but IMO the Eastern Conference is actually tougher this year. There are more teams that are just plain better than previous years. Bulls at full health are much tougher, Heat are better, Nets and Bucks are about the same, Cavs are much better, Hornets and Wizards are also better. Conversely only the Pacers and Hawks are performing worse, Sixers maybe only a tick down.
"Go all in" to me means the Knicks would have to completely sell out in order to be able to compete at a Nets/Bucks level in a 7 game series. Looking at the current roster - not sure how we get there as both of those teams have 3 players performing who can essentially play at a level equal or above any of our current best players. I might also be able to make a case that the Cavs and Bulls are close to fitting that category as well. Just don't think this is the year to go all in given the Knicks current roster and the competition.
Regarding Russell - I like him as a player, and he's still only 25 - but I think you are minimizing what the Timberwolves would want in return for him by trade. Obi, a second and flotsam will not get it done, nor will it likely work from a Salary Cap perspective. Russell makes $30M, and I'm hard pressed to come up with a package including Obi that would work. Likely would also have to include 1st rounders as well. Aside from giving up a bunch of players - Russell coming back to the Knicks does not elevate the team to Nets/Bucks etc level. That all being said - I might move Randle for Russell as the principles. Something like Russell, Naz Reid and either McDaniels / Vanderbilt for Randle, Kemba and Noel. While it doesn't elevate us to "win now" it give the Knicks a solid young PG with a young promising PF and young Center who can play D and also stretch the floor a bit.
Man, what a great response. Thank you so much. Critical thinking is becoming a lost art.
Yes. Let me also put Russell off to the side in order to engage your thought-provoking ideas.
When I listed the three memes that keep showing up in numerous postings I was baiting the trade assumption intentionally. I like the fact that you questioned those ideas. I happen to agree that the Eastern teams we are contending with have mostly improved. I think fans look at the close clustering of those teams in the W-L columns and think the teams are interchangeable. They obviously aren't and quite frankly we and the Pacers are the most dubious of the bunch.
And even in that regard, our lot is precarious in that our closing schedule is a ball buster. So let me assume you generally agree with this. In saying so, we are really challenging the idea that this team has made much progress at all and in doing so all the happy talk about the FO doing wonders really gets called into question. True?
Likewise, the trinity of FO, Thibs, and team chemistry is called into question as well. In other words, a hard look in the Knicks mirror is worth taking.
So let's examine what a mid-season trade going "all-in" might mean.
First, there *is* a distinct likelihood that the Knicks fail to make the playoffs given the schedule, competition for position, and rawness (on display every game) of the team. So the minimum criteria for justifying a trade would be to make the playoffs and "all in" simply to not look pathetic and ignite the firestorm of firing Thibs that will inevitably follow.
But aside from that, how good or bad is this team in reality. Personally, I am predisposed to believe "all-in" doesn't have to mean gutting the roster of assets. It could mean simply ratcheting up the quality of players on the floor and consolidating the glut of look-alike redundant players on the bench. I'm not an optimist when it comes to rookie or sophomore yutes stepping into PG duty roles as It is well documented that PG candidates take 3 - 5 years to hit a starting role stride. And so, fans who say we just develop our team around promising second-rounders lose my confidence.
I never meant to imply we could beat the Bucks/Nets in the playoffs although the right "all-in" kind of trade might get us into that ECF game (assuming Thibs lives up to the hype).
Okay, so even more specifically, what does "all-in" mean at a minimum? To me, and I know this is obvious, get a G-Dmd PG in here.
If they don't trade for Brunson, I still like the idea of teasing out Russell from Minny. I don't think there are any teams looking to take on big contracts so I think the price might be less than you describe.
But I like your speculation that Randle be in that package. Again, if we assess this team honestly, is building around Randle sensible. I think not but I doubt that the current regime would do that trade.
I would try to structure a Russell trade around OBI and then fill out the cash match with Kemba, Burks, and Noel, and a couple of picks. Minny might move a body or two our way just for symmetry.
Sims gets promoted, Reddish minutes open up, Knicks sign a hungry vet or two for role playing instead of pros in waiting.
1/19/2022 2:03 PM