Alpha1971 wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:I dont think the Vassell/Jaden contracts helped us either, but we must feel pretty confident about being able to make a big trade this year, OR IQ really wanted a huge bag.

Much rather keep IQ and trade Grimes

+1

Wouldn't mind a Brunson/IQ backcourt

Chandler wrote:am i the only that thinks this has the earmarks of IQ being positioned as a trade chip?

No

Clean wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Clean wrote:Cool with me. I am good with not paying the reported 25mil a year he wanted due to his piss poor playoffs. We need to avoid another Randle situation. So if he plays well this year and also does well in the playoffs then I don't mind paying him what he wants. If he plays bad in the playoffs again then his number comes down. Regular season stats no longer impress me. Randle showed me that they are useless come playoff time.

I'm no Randle apologist but his contract seems pretty cost effective for his production. While he sucked a couple years back against Atlanta, he basically played last season's playoffs on one foot.

Yeah I don’t get it. Randle is great value at his contract. Rarely misses games and gets us far in the regular season. I get the playoff struggles, but he’s still underpaid. Randle played in the playoffs through an ankle injury that required offseason surgery. Hard to criticize this time.

I don't want to derail this thread but let me explain my thought process. He is a great value depending on what you value. If you just want good regular season stats and someone who won't be constantly injured then he is perfect for you.

If you want someone who will not be easy to throw off their game. Someone who is efficent. Someone who knows how to play within the flow of an offense. Someone who knows what style of play that is in his best interest to play. Someone who does not constantly get lost on defense. Someone who has nothing else to pivot to when team starts gameplanning for him in important games then that contract no longer seems like a great value.

People put too much stock in regular season where teams don't gameplan for you. When I was not sold on Quick as a PG his main issue was breakingdown the defense and poor shooting%. He fixed it in the regular season last year. Once people gameplanned for him in the playoffs he was having those same issues.

My issue with Randle hate has always been the unreasonable expectation and lack of acknowledgement for accomplishment. Some seem to think 25/10 is as easy as getting a dirty dog in the city.
They also think player getting 20/10 for a career and. Asking All Star nods are available on any given day for what Randle is making

I bolded what you said to show that you obviously recognize what takes place in the playoffs. And I agree. Teams do focus on a teams best player and make other guys beat them. We saw it twice with Randle and also saw it last year with teams taking out our best player on the second unit (IQ). Will agree that players/Randle have to make adjustments and not force things but to expect Randle to do what elite $40M/50M dollar supercars are expected to do, is imo shortsighted. Do not think anyone ever thought he could take over a game despite being double teamed and having teams committed to stopping him. Feel there are only a handful of players who can do that. Randle will have a better showing once we start putting better players around him so that he is not the one we are counting on to beat other teams full defensive attention.

Chandler wrote:am i the only that thinks this has the earmarks of IQ being positioned as a trade chip?

This certainly makes it more likely than not he’s gone by this time next year in my opinion. Still a chance he gets resigned but I think both parties are going to keep options open and look around the league. Quickley wants to start and he’s probably limited here to being a 6th man. Teams that jump out at me are Minnesota, Toronto, San Antonio and Utah as teams who could be interested in him as a long term starter. I don’t see player fits for the Knicks with San Antonio or Utah, so it would be strictly for picks if the Knicks went that route. Maybe in a 3-team trade next summer to bring back a star. Toronto for Anunoby makes sense but not sure how this lawsuit impacts them as trade partners. The one I see as more likely is Quickley plus other players and picks to Minnesota for Towns if things don’t break right for Minnesota this year. Knicks have built-in backup PG replacements in McBride and Jokubaitis, plus Arcidiacono will be on the roster as 15th man for as long as Thibs and Brunson are here. So it feels more likely than not Quickley is moved to a team where he can start and the Knicks can improve the starting lineup.

MS wrote:This was a tremendous error. The second mistake of the offseason. Giving Obi to a rival wasn’t smart either.

Immanuel Quickley has averaged 21.7 points, 5.0 rebounds and 4.9 assists in 27 games as a starter in his career. That’s not taking into his defensive rating which is amongst the highest in the league.

He’s the guy we need on the bench and the only guy we have that consistently fills it up, was the third best player on the team. This should have been done a long time ago!

Not positive here but don’t think Indy extended Obi either - not sure if they could have or were restricted for some reason.

blkexec wrote:Grimes vs IQ

If we have to trade one. Who and why?

IQ fills a need at backup PG but can also be our starting SG.
Grimes is built to be a prototypical SG.

IQ has learned to play with volume scorers like JB and Randle. Grimes still figuring that out but looks better in preseason and he might have a career year.

we have more options to replace IQ at backup PG. DDV, Miles and even Rokas looks promising.

but either can play SG and even guard some SF's. so it comes down to who you think will be better. Hard to say, I go back and forth, but I lean toward IQ being better.

Nalod wrote:Of the two, Grimes starts.
So Its not my opinion, its Thibs. Take it from me, Listen to Thibs more than Nalod!!!
Does that mean IQ is being denied? Only in hindsight.
Can IQ beat Grimes and earn his place? I would say so.
Does FO and Coaching staff see it? What is Grimes ceiling?

Logically I have to go with who starts and who comes off the bench. IQ has made himself into a very good player and perhaps as we know not all good teams resign everyone for many reasons. Thus, Im ok with IQ going RFA and getting his market value then. I'd rather pay a higher price for a more finished product than gamble on a work in progress.
Again, we are not privy to any numbers asked or offered.

Grimes starts as well b/c he's low usage and that's a better fit with 3 high usage starters.

The more time passes, the more ridiculous this looks.

GustavBahler wrote:Grimes looks like a quality 3D bench player. IQ is playing on a level right now that we may never see from Grimes.

The more time passes, the more ridiculous this looks.

IQ should’ve been the starter instead of burks. That way the FO would see if IQ was capable or not. Clearly the FO had their eyes on Brunson for a while and saw Grimes as a perfect SG. But then we sit EF? Our best 3 pt shooter. Instead of just going bong him a reduced role. I remember saying EF would be perfect off the bench and somebody said, we didn’t pay him 18 mil to come off the bench. Lmao so we pay him 18 mil to sit on the bench?

IQ is clearly the better player all around than grimes. But this is where politics comes into play. And they love grimes. I say pay IQ whatever the market dictates and move on. Yes pay him like a starter and let him come off the bench like he did last night for whoever is bricking or for grimes (who’s not shooting).

Glad I missed the 2nd half. Forced me to see the bigger picture and stay out the weeds. We still should’ve won this game even with 2 of the big 3 playing inefficient. I always feel like this team as constructed, can’t win if 2 of our big 3 are inefficient. Because all three are volume shooters, when they have an off night, it kills the team.

But the fact is we still almost won, gives me hope that this team can now win game if 2 of our 3 are playing bad or not impactful.

With Celtics, brown wasn’t impactful but Tatum and KP was and they barely won.

Guess I can bring up the same question with IQ. Do you think we win this game if IQ was the starter instead of grimes?

Hypothetical question that really means nothing. Just another bar room discussion.