martin wrote:Knickoftime wrote:martin wrote:Knickoftime wrote:blkexec wrote:blkexec wrote:Knickoftime wrote:blkexec wrote:KnickDanger wrote:gradyandrew wrote:I'm feeling more and more KAT is the guy we should be targeting.
Haters would love him.
Because I haven’t been corrupted with the images of his decline, I see nothing wrong adding a talent like this FOR THE RIGHT PRICE.
If he’s better in the post I would’ve mind trying a lineup with him at center. Randle shooting 3. Brunson has Randle, Grimes or IQ open, and KAT in the post? Not sure how anybody would frown on that. This is coming from a “defense wins championships guy”. I just have a feeling The All Mighty Thibs will make KAT a better defender than he was in Minnesota.
So, who wants to tell him...?
🤣
This is not timberwolves thibs. This guy is a mix of old school, new school, whisperer therapy, all kinds of new age stuff. KAT will be joining a better team environment and structure. Players like hart and Jules, you can’t fail. KAT is too talented to pass on. For the right price. I’m not over paying.
This seems to follow the same "trade Randle while his value is at an all-time high"...
KAT is KAT. If is price is right, it's for a reason.
The fact his the Knicks system is dependent on interior rim protection. Kat and Randle on the floor together means there is none.
I don't think the Knicks or Thibs views the offensive upside so vast they literally abandon rim protection.
And I do not bank on the notion the second time around Thibs will defense whisper KAT into being a player he has not been since college a decade ago.
The Knicks system is probably shaped by the current makeup of the roster,
They signed a guy who rim protects and does little on offense BECAUSE of their team principle.
The current make-up of the roster and the team principals is a co-dependent, two-way street. They beget one another.
It would be a very effective 5 out with guys like RJ Randle Hart everyone diving to rim on offense with no interior defense to worry about in KAT on perimeter.
It MIGHT be.
Knicks are currently 5th on offense with below average production from 3 from the wings, and have been better the last 20 games as Randle, Barrett, Quickley and Hart's %s have improved.
With potential improvement (from 5th) built in, I'm not sure you abandon rim protection for a new offensive make-up.
That's speculative, but I think they choose to sign Mitch for 4 years BECAUSE his skillset is what they want out of a center. I don't think they built a system around mitch because they signed Mitch.
You are making your argument based off of signing a back up player and then a bunch of assumptions.
Mitchell Robinson is the starting center. I suspect the Knicks signed Robinson to be their starting center and Isiah Hartenstein to be his back-up on purpose.
Assuming that's what you meant.
If I understand you right, I think you and I disagree on the Knicks regard for Robinson.
As to the rest of my argument (which I was led to believe I am encouraged to make)...
Knicks are currently 5th on offense (1) with below average production from 3 from the wings (2), and have been better the last 20 games (3) as Randle, Barrett, Quickley and Hart's %s have improved (4) (5). With potential improvement (from 5th) built in (6), I'm not sure you abandon rim protection for a new offensive make-up (7).
That's speculative, but I think they choose to sign Mitch for 4 years BECAUSE his skillset is what they want out of a center. I don't think they built a system around mitch because they signed Mitch (8).
1. Fact
2. Fact
3. Fact
4. Fact
5. The Knicks vastly improved 3 point shooting being a factor in their improved record/play is not a fact, and may be correlation rather than causation, but I think their relationship is a reasonable conclusion.
6. Assumption, qualified as such ("potential")
7. My argument/opinion, based on the preceding facts and the fact Mitchell Robinson signed a long-term contract, IS the Knicks starting center, and the Knicks have not acquired another center to be the starter, YES. That's my argument/opinion.
8. Yes, also my opinion, stated the potential offensive improvement was speculative and my thoughts on Robinson is what I think.
What facts do you dispute? What in your opinion contradicts my expressed opinion?