KnickDanger wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:A lot of impatience percolating particularly after bad losses like the one to the Bucks. Multiple trade threads, revival of Thibs grumbling, searching for new scapegoats while Randle plays well. And of course the "getting a star" talk - business as usual. I'm on board with improving the team - who isn't? But the do something/anything reflex over staying the course revives my pre-Rose/Thibs PTSD. I am trusting the brain trust to continue to not cave in to the mob. Trust them to make moves that are prudent if not of the shiny toy variety, just as they have. Enjoying being in play and not LOL knicks.

The litmus test will be come playoff time. If the bed is crapped then get noisy I say. For the time being I choose to enjoy the upward trajectory, as others have mentioned. And the rest will do what they always do.

You entered the season believing the 9 man rotation was elite. Just because the Knicks have been terrible for two decades and Leon Rose and Co have brought the team to respectabality doesn't entitled them to your first born. It's like a battered woman that left an abusive husband being grateful to have a distant and neglectful man cause he doesn't mistreat her physically. It's ok to expect the front office to be more creative and aggressive while respecting what they have done well.

You lost me, man. Never did I feel we were elite and never did I say so. And the first born and domestic abuse metaphors…well anyway….

Forgive me for seeing the many positives. You feel free to put your focus wherever you like, say, on Tari Eason. That'll solve it!

I could be wrong, I seem to recall you as a prime apologist for this front, but if it wasn't you, fine. I know what I have been arguing since the preseason is turning out to be right. BTW Tari Eason is not a saviour, thanks for trying to overstate my position, to denigrate the argument I have been making we need a young combo forward. Who do you suggest that has his skill set and is on the low price end we can get before he becomes too expensive ? All ears.. speak up 🎤 My reasoning has been on the mark so far this season Team construction for this season was underwhelming. I never praised it as you did. Very limited options and we can be subject to exploitation by good teams. Goal should have been to be better then last season. But anyway, you'll be happy again after we beat bad teams again and DDV and the small lineup have great games.

Alpha1971 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:A lot of impatience percolating particularly after bad losses like the one to the Bucks. Multiple trade threads, revival of Thibs grumbling, searching for new scapegoats while Randle plays well. And of course the "getting a star" talk - business as usual. I'm on board with improving the team - who isn't? But the do something/anything reflex over staying the course revives my pre-Rose/Thibs PTSD. I am trusting the brain trust to continue to not cave in to the mob. Trust them to make moves that are prudent if not of the shiny toy variety, just as they have. Enjoying being in play and not LOL knicks.

The litmus test will be come playoff time. If the bed is crapped then get noisy I say. For the time being I choose to enjoy the upward trajectory, as others have mentioned. And the rest will do what they always do.

You entered the season believing the 9 man rotation was elite. Just because the Knicks have been terrible for two decades and Leon Rose and Co have brought the team to respectabality doesn't entitled them to your first born. It's like a battered woman that left an abusive husband being grateful to have a distant and neglectful man cause he doesn't mistreat her physically. It's ok to expect the front office to be more creative and aggressive while respecting what they have done well.

You lost me, man. Never did I feel we were elite and never did I say so. And the first born and domestic abuse metaphors…well anyway….

Forgive me for seeing the many positives. You feel free to put your focus wherever you like, say, on Tari Eason. That'll solve it!

I could be wrong, I seem to recall you as a prime apologist for this front, but if it wasn't you, fine. I know what I have been arguing since the preseason is turning out to be right. BTW Tari Eason is not a saviour, thanks for trying to overstate my position, to denigrate the argument I have been making we need a young combo forward. Who do you suggest that has his skill set and is on the low price end we can get before he becomes too expensive ? All ears.. speak up 🎤 My reasoning has been on the mark so far this season Team construction for this season was underwhelming. I never praised it as you did. Very limited options and we can be subject to exploitation by good teams. Goal should have been to be better then last season. But anyway, you'll be happy again after we beat bad teams again and DDV and the small lineup have great games.

Now me as a "prime apologist' - is that my schtick? Am I apologizing for a second round playoff appearance last year (look up the last time)? Am I apologizing for a coach of the year, Randle as a two time all star, great signings like Brunson , IHart, and DDv, the JHart trade, as well as some good draft picks? Apologizing for a 12 - 9 record? Well all righty then.

My schtick is defending the process, not necessarily team construction, and certainly not praising it as "elite." That is definitely you putting words in my mouth and an example of posters reading what they want to read. Which is probaly the main schtick of this board - and our society. And I am aware of team flaws and some FO miscues. In a nutshell I get tired of the rampant negativity around the Knicks especially when it is cherry picking and ignoring the great progress that has been made. Great progress that even media gasbags have had to admit (of course now they **** on the Knicks for being "second tier' - but that IS progress). And I do have at some posters whose schtick is the constant negativity and they (like you) certainly have at me. Do we "overstate and denigrate" each others' arguments? Like you did to me? It's all barstool jive talk. I just happen to be right .

Nalod wrote:Read a stupid article where we send IQ, Evan, and liek three picks in a three way were we get Derozen back.
They said Evan had two years on his deal. Wrong, its a team option.
SAS needs a PG, Bulls want picks.
Knicks are not blowing that asset base on Derozen.

It really is crazy - seems any article I read where say they have 3 teams making proposed trades.

Knicks would have the scenario (outrageous over-pay) you describe above and for same player a Laker trade would be DeRozan for a traded player exception.

KnickDanger wrote:

Nalod wrote:Read a stupid article where we send IQ, Evan, and liek three picks in a three way were we get Derozen back.
They said Evan had two years on his deal. Wrong, its a team option.
SAS needs a PG, Bulls want picks.
Knicks are not blowing that asset base on Derozen.

Three ways are overrated.

Wish I knew

Maybe for a quality backup PF and what looks to be a high first round pick. We would be able to address current needs while having a high draft pick for a backup PG to eventually become the starting PG, or Randle's eventual replacement. Cant be a low first rounder.

I was against trading IQ for a 1st rounder last year because IQ had a breakout season, But the FO's roster moves and IQ's asking price make a trade look inevitable.

I would rather see the FO go for a backup PF and a 1st rounder, than a plan B kind of trade for a star. Not the best deal for the Knicks.

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

martin wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:Bogdanovic and the Toronto players don't excite me at all. I don't think these players move the needle much for us and they will be expensive to acquire. I know it's not popular and the media clowns on TNT won't like it but I'd stay pat and continue to wait for the RIGHT star to become available.

Bogdanovic and OG shouldn't excite anyone when against the backdrop of a superstar.

But could they have short term impact like DRose or Josh Hart had in their mid season debuts? And at what cost and can they then be combined (or make a different player who is on roster disposable) in a trade this summer?

I think those could be key factors in the decision making process.

IMO, Knicks are 2 trades away from being at that top level. Still gotta make the mid sized move (or 2) too.

Bogdonavich could be that kind of spark, giving up a much needed sniper at the 4 we haven't seen since Novak. Also provides Randle injury insurance - could start and give us 20ppg + elite spacing when needed.

That said I'm not sure who we would get rid of to make room for him and there is a chance he gets Fournier'ed by Thibs if his defense and intangibles are sub par.

Bogdnavich is more impactful than Novak because he can put the ball on the court. Novak couldnt do anything from 2pt range.

I'm guessing Thibs would tolerate the lack of D as long as he was getting buckets. Thibs cant expect to keep freezing out the players the FO sends him. Perry wanted Derozan in a trade, but Thibs wanted Fournier. Would be better off not trying to play GM.

The issue is Thibs was a team president so he essentially played GM from a team building perspective. I like the idea of Bogdanovic but how does he fit into the rotation ?

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

martin wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:Bogdanovic and the Toronto players don't excite me at all. I don't think these players move the needle much for us and they will be expensive to acquire. I know it's not popular and the media clowns on TNT won't like it but I'd stay pat and continue to wait for the RIGHT star to become available.

Bogdanovic and OG shouldn't excite anyone when against the backdrop of a superstar.

But could they have short term impact like DRose or Josh Hart had in their mid season debuts? And at what cost and can they then be combined (or make a different player who is on roster disposable) in a trade this summer?

I think those could be key factors in the decision making process.

IMO, Knicks are 2 trades away from being at that top level. Still gotta make the mid sized move (or 2) too.

Bogdonavich could be that kind of spark, giving up a much needed sniper at the 4 we haven't seen since Novak. Also provides Randle injury insurance - could start and give us 20ppg + elite spacing when needed.

That said I'm not sure who we would get rid of to make room for him and there is a chance he gets Fournier'ed by Thibs if his defense and intangibles are sub par.

Bogdnavich is more impactful than Novak because he can put the ball on the court. Novak couldnt do anything from 2pt range.

I'm guessing Thibs would tolerate the lack of D as long as he was getting buckets. Thibs cant expect to keep freezing out the players the FO sends him. Perry wanted Derozan in a trade, but Thibs wanted Fournier. Would be better off not trying to play GM.

Mostly agree but we saw how Thibs felt about Fournier and Obi, getting buckets didn't really overshadow what he saw as a lack of "feel" for the intangible elements of the game.

GustavBahler wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

martin wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:Bogdanovic and the Toronto players don't excite me at all. I don't think these players move the needle much for us and they will be expensive to acquire. I know it's not popular and the media clowns on TNT won't like it but I'd stay pat and continue to wait for the RIGHT star to become available.

Bogdanovic and OG shouldn't excite anyone when against the backdrop of a superstar.

But could they have short term impact like DRose or Josh Hart had in their mid season debuts? And at what cost and can they then be combined (or make a different player who is on roster disposable) in a trade this summer?

I think those could be key factors in the decision making process.

IMO, Knicks are 2 trades away from being at that top level. Still gotta make the mid sized move (or 2) too.

Bogdonavich could be that kind of spark, giving up a much needed sniper at the 4 we haven't seen since Novak. Also provides Randle injury insurance - could start and give us 20ppg + elite spacing when needed.

That said I'm not sure who we would get rid of to make room for him and there is a chance he gets Fournier'ed by Thibs if his defense and intangibles are sub par.

Bogdnavich is more impactful than Novak because he can put the ball on the court. Novak couldnt do anything from 2pt range.

I'm guessing Thibs would tolerate the lack of D as long as he was getting buckets. Thibs cant expect to keep freezing out the players the FO sends him. Perry wanted Derozan in a trade, but Thibs wanted Fournier. Would be better off not trying to play GM.

The issue is Thibs was a team president so he essentially played GM from a team building perspective. I like the idea of Bogdanovic but how does he fit into the rotation ?

The only way I can see it working is to move Grimes. Let Hart play backup 2 and 3. Wouldnt have to play backup 4, maybe except for the toughest defensive assignments. Just off the top of my head. You might have a good reason why it wouldnt work.

Yes he would have to replace Grimes I agree. Question is does this fit the team ethos replacing such a good defender ? And also would bogdanovic adjust successfully to a role where he sees about 20-22 mpg when the full rotation (outside of center) is healthy.

Knixkik wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

martin wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:Bogdanovic and the Toronto players don't excite me at all. I don't think these players move the needle much for us and they will be expensive to acquire. I know it's not popular and the media clowns on TNT won't like it but I'd stay pat and continue to wait for the RIGHT star to become available.

Bogdanovic and OG shouldn't excite anyone when against the backdrop of a superstar.

But could they have short term impact like DRose or Josh Hart had in their mid season debuts? And at what cost and can they then be combined (or make a different player who is on roster disposable) in a trade this summer?

I think those could be key factors in the decision making process.

IMO, Knicks are 2 trades away from being at that top level. Still gotta make the mid sized move (or 2) too.

Bogdonavich could be that kind of spark, giving up a much needed sniper at the 4 we haven't seen since Novak. Also provides Randle injury insurance - could start and give us 20ppg + elite spacing when needed.

That said I'm not sure who we would get rid of to make room for him and there is a chance he gets Fournier'ed by Thibs if his defense and intangibles are sub par.

Bogdnavich is more impactful than Novak because he can put the ball on the court. Novak couldnt do anything from 2pt range.

I'm guessing Thibs would tolerate the lack of D as long as he was getting buckets. Thibs cant expect to keep freezing out the players the FO sends him. Perry wanted Derozan in a trade, but Thibs wanted Fournier. Would be better off not trying to play GM.

The issue is Thibs was a team president so he essentially played GM from a team building perspective. I like the idea of Bogdanovic but how does he fit into the rotation ?

He’d fit in over everyone not named Jalen, Julius and maybe IQ

Knixkik wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

martin wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:Bogdanovic and the Toronto players don't excite me at all. I don't think these players move the needle much for us and they will be expensive to acquire. I know it's not popular and the media clowns on TNT won't like it but I'd stay pat and continue to wait for the RIGHT star to become available.

Bogdanovic and OG shouldn't excite anyone when against the backdrop of a superstar.

But could they have short term impact like DRose or Josh Hart had in their mid season debuts? And at what cost and can they then be combined (or make a different player who is on roster disposable) in a trade this summer?

I think those could be key factors in the decision making process.

IMO, Knicks are 2 trades away from being at that top level. Still gotta make the mid sized move (or 2) too.

Bogdonavich could be that kind of spark, giving up a much needed sniper at the 4 we haven't seen since Novak. Also provides Randle injury insurance - could start and give us 20ppg + elite spacing when needed.

That said I'm not sure who we would get rid of to make room for him and there is a chance he gets Fournier'ed by Thibs if his defense and intangibles are sub par.

Bogdnavich is more impactful than Novak because he can put the ball on the court. Novak couldnt do anything from 2pt range.

I'm guessing Thibs would tolerate the lack of D as long as he was getting buckets. Thibs cant expect to keep freezing out the players the FO sends him. Perry wanted Derozan in a trade, but Thibs wanted Fournier. Would be better off not trying to play GM.

The issue is Thibs was a team president so he essentially played GM from a team building perspective. I like the idea of Bogdanovic but how does he fit into the rotation ?

The only way I can see it working is to move Grimes. Let Hart play backup 2 and 3. Wouldnt have to play backup 4, maybe except for the toughest defensive assignments. Just off the top of my head. You might have a good reason why it wouldnt work.

Yes he would have to replace Grimes I agree. Question is does this fit the team ethos replacing such a good defender ? And also would bogdanovic adjust successfully to a role where he sees about 20-22 mpg when the full rotation (outside of center) is healthy.

IDK if Bogdonavich will read the room, and be more of a Thibs kind of player. It has happened before

I couldnt stand Keith Van Horn as a player for all of his career to that point. He was soft to say the least. I was real PO'd when he became a Knick. Never thought he would show some toughness, be more of a two way player, but he was. Was sorry to see KVH and Doleac traded. They had the best fit with Marbury, but Isiah had to put his own stamp on the team, chemistry be damned.

Back to the present. I believe Thibs will show Bogdonavich more respect than he showed Obi or Fournier. I believe Thibs is smart enough to know that Bogdonovich will add needed depth.

As for the minutes, I guess its how Thibs sells it. Im guessing he would buy in if Thibs told him that the plan was to keep him relatively fresh for the playoffs, where he would get a larger role. Maybe in crunch time, depending on how Randle was playing. Thats how I would sell it.

Hard to see the fit right now.