RealGM

JayTWill wrote:

stuporman wrote:

JayTWill wrote:
Bojan's shooting numbers have been around what I expected they would be. I didn't think he would be as efficient as he was in Detroit in a tougher environment. My issue with trading for him and Burks was how bad they are outside of scoring and how it didn't solve the team's problem of not having someone outside of Brunson to run the offense.

The team has been bleeding points with Bojan on the floor and the team's offense hasn't been good either. Maybe the addition of Mitch, Randle and OG changes things but so far he has had an extremely negative impact in his playing time.

It just seemed like Kemba/Fournier part 2 which so far it has been.

Aren't you the one for exaggeration...it's expiring and short contracts on bench players, not multi-year contracts for players intended to be starters. Nothing part 2 about it...but I'm sure you will come back to try and defend that take. Good luck.

My comparison to the Kemba/Fournier signings was based on the organization bringing those guys in after the offensive struggles in
the Atlanta series. I assume the thought process was that the team needed more offense which it did. Kemba fits the mold of a Thibs style on-ball scoring guard and Evan would add more scoring, spacing and some creation ability. Imo they were not good enough in that role at that stage in their careers to make up for how poorly they played on the defensive end.

They were not solely responsible for the team's decline that year but they played a role in it. This year the bench was struggling offensively after the OG trade. I assume the thought process was once again to add more scoring to the bench and more on-ball scoring ability which Thibs needs in his limited offense. I felt Burks and Bojan were not a good fit at this stage in their careers which is why I was surprised when the organization traded for them after the Kemba/Fournier experience. Alec and Bojan are both offensively talented players but I just didn't think they were a good fit at almost 33 and 35 for a Thibs team.

Is it exactly the same scenario? No. Bojan and Burks were brought in for smaller roles. Instead of paying to bring in guys that did not fit in free agency and attaching assets to get off of their contracts, this time the Knicks gave up assets for the right to pay 2 guys that don't seem to fit. The biggest difference is this time the team has enough talent outside of those guys to still be a great team but in the end they are both a bad use of assets.

The "Part 2" was about why would they bring in 2 similar style players at a late stage in their careers again when it failed the last time they did it.

Just as I suspected...adding another crap take on top of a crap take just makes it a pile of crap you are shoveling around thinking there's a credible point in it. So that would be called a part 2 you are doing according to your own reasoning...a big pile of number 2.

stuporman wrote:

JayTWill wrote:

stuporman wrote:
Aren't you the one for exaggeration...it's expiring and short contracts on bench players, not multi-year contracts for players intended to be starters. Nothing part 2 about it...but I'm sure you will come back to try and defend that take. Good luck.

My comparison to the Kemba/Fournier signings was based on the organization bringing those guys in after the offensive struggles in
the Atlanta series. I assume the thought process was that the team needed more offense which it did. Kemba fits the mold of a Thibs style on-ball scoring guard and Evan would add more scoring, spacing and some creation ability. Imo they were not good enough in that role at that stage in their careers to make up for how poorly they played on the defensive end.

They were not solely responsible for the team's decline that year but they played a role in it. This year the bench was struggling offensively after the OG trade. I assume the thought process was once again to add more scoring to the bench and more on-ball scoring ability which Thibs needs in his limited offense. I felt Burks and Bojan were not a good fit at this stage in their careers which is why I was surprised when the organization traded for them after the Kemba/Fournier experience. Alec and Bojan are both offensively talented players but I just didn't think they were a good fit at almost 33 and 35 for a Thibs team.

Is it exactly the same scenario? No. Bojan and Burks were brought in for smaller roles. Instead of paying to bring in guys that did not fit in free agency and attaching assets to get off of their contracts, this time the Knicks gave up assets for the right to pay 2 guys that don't seem to fit. The biggest difference is this time the team has enough talent outside of those guys to still be a great team but in the end they are both a bad use of assets.

The "Part 2" was about why would they bring in 2 similar style players at a late stage in their careers again when it failed the last time they did it.

Just as I suspected...adding another crap take on top of a crap take just makes it a pile of crap you are shoveling around thinking there's a credible point in it. So that would be called a part 2 you are doing according to your own reasoning...a big pile of number 2.

I guess i'm wrong and I guess Bojan and Burks do fit and it was a good use of assets. Thank you for helping me to see the error in my judgment.

JayTWill wrote:

stuporman wrote:

JayTWill wrote:
My comparison to the Kemba/Fournier signings was based on the organization bringing those guys in after the offensive struggles in
the Atlanta series. I assume the thought process was that the team needed more offense which it did. Kemba fits the mold of a Thibs style on-ball scoring guard and Evan would add more scoring, spacing and some creation ability. Imo they were not good enough in that role at that stage in their careers to make up for how poorly they played on the defensive end.

They were not solely responsible for the team's decline that year but they played a role in it. This year the bench was struggling offensively after the OG trade. I assume the thought process was once again to add more scoring to the bench and more on-ball scoring ability which Thibs needs in his limited offense. I felt Burks and Bojan were not a good fit at this stage in their careers which is why I was surprised when the organization traded for them after the Kemba/Fournier experience. Alec and Bojan are both offensively talented players but I just didn't think they were a good fit at almost 33 and 35 for a Thibs team.

Is it exactly the same scenario? No. Bojan and Burks were brought in for smaller roles. Instead of paying to bring in guys that did not fit in free agency and attaching assets to get off of their contracts, this time the Knicks gave up assets for the right to pay 2 guys that don't seem to fit. The biggest difference is this time the team has enough talent outside of those guys to still be a great team but in the end they are both a bad use of assets.

The "Part 2" was about why would they bring in 2 similar style players at a late stage in their careers again when it failed the last time they did it.

Just as I suspected...adding another crap take on top of a crap take just makes it a pile of crap you are shoveling around thinking there's a credible point in it. So that would be called a part 2 you are doing according to your own reasoning...a big pile of number 2.

I guess i'm wrong and I guess Bojan and Burks do fit and it was a good use of assets. Thank you for helping me to see the error in my judgment.

It seems you keep adding new contributions to the pile.

I'll try to offer some insight of another perspective you might not realize, just because someone has another opinion than you do this doesn't make it a direct opposite perspective so if you try to describe it in what you imagine it to be you are definitely wrong.

This is why I don't try to imagine what your opinion is, I just read the words and do the best I can to understand you. So, I'll concede that maybe these things I see as turds of wisdom in a pile coming from you are actually pure gold, it's just my point of view that sees it differently.

The only common trait I see in the two different circumstances is the veteran-ness of the players, they are near the end of their career. Although, I myself recognize at least 3 instances where the FO went that vet direction in different years and not once has it born much positive influence on winning.

Another common turd in the punch bowl in 2 of the 3 different instances I see is Burks, yet not so much his initial signing. His resigning was the 'vet' misstep and ironically the Knicks traded him away but then back during the very same contract they resigned him for in the first instance of it.

So while I disagree with your 'part 2' analysis because it's not like signing two old FAs to multiyear contracts, it still is a different 'part 2' scenario. It's actually a stinkier turd imo than making the same mistake twice with different players, it's making multiple different types of mistake with the same stinky player.

There's also the added stink of trading away a young two way player that the analysis you are comparing it to doesn't have. So not everyone who disagrees with you has the opposite opinion that you imagine it is, the world isn't a binary, it's more of a spectrum....of turds.

It seems I've smeared that turd analogy across too many areas of discussion I think I need some bleach.

stuporman wrote:

JayTWill wrote:

stuporman wrote:
Just as I suspected...adding another crap take on top of a crap take just makes it a pile of crap you are shoveling around thinking there's a credible point in it. So that would be called a part 2 you are doing according to your own reasoning...a big pile of number 2.

I guess i'm wrong and I guess Bojan and Burks do fit and it was a good use of assets. Thank you for helping me to see the error in my judgment.

It seems you keep adding new contributions to the pile.

I'll try to offer some insight of another perspective you might not realize, just because someone has another opinion than you do this doesn't make it a direct opposite perspective so if you try to describe it in what you imagine it to be you are definitely wrong.

This is why I don't try to imagine what your opinion is, I just read the words and do the best I can to understand you. So, I'll concede that maybe these things I see as turds of wisdom in a pile coming from you are actually pure gold, it's just my point of view that sees it differently.

The only common trait I see in the two different circumstances is the veteran-ness of the players, they are near the end of their career. Although, I myself recognize at least 3 instances where the FO went that vet direction in different years and not once has it born much positive influence on winning.

Another common turd in the punch bowl in 2 of the 3 different instances I see is Burks, yet not so much his initial signing. His resigning was the 'vet' misstep and ironically the Knicks traded him away but then back during the very same contract the resigned him for in the first instance.

So while I disagree with your 'part 2' analysis because it's not like signing two old FAs to multiyear contracts, it still is a different 'part 2' scenario. It's actually a stinkier turd imo than making the same mistake twice with different players, it's making multiple different types of mistake with the same stinky player.

There's also the added stink of trading away a young two way player that the analysis you are comparing it to doesn't have. So not everyone who disagrees with you has the opposite opinion that you imagine it is, the world isn't a binary, it's more of a spectrum....of turds.

It seems I've smeared that turd analogy across too many areas of discussion I think I need some bleach.

So basically you agree with most of what I said but since Kemba was here for 1 year before being traded away with an asset and Fournier was here for 2.5 years versus Burks possibly only be here for half a year and Bojan being here for .5 - 1.5 years after being acquired with assets you decided to quote me and say crap and turd a lot? OK

JayTWill wrote:

stuporman wrote:

JayTWill wrote:
I guess i'm wrong and I guess Bojan and Burks do fit and it was a good use of assets. Thank you for helping me to see the error in my judgment.

It seems you keep adding new contributions to the pile.

I'll try to offer some insight of another perspective you might not realize, just because someone has another opinion than you do this doesn't make it a direct opposite perspective so if you try to describe it in what you imagine it to be you are definitely wrong.

This is why I don't try to imagine what your opinion is, I just read the words and do the best I can to understand you. So, I'll concede that maybe these things I see as turds of wisdom in a pile coming from you are actually pure gold, it's just my point of view that sees it differently.

The only common trait I see in the two different circumstances is the veteran-ness of the players, they are near the end of their career. Although, I myself recognize at least 3 instances where the FO went that vet direction in different years and not once has it born much positive influence on winning.

Another common turd in the punch bowl in 2 of the 3 different instances I see is Burks, yet not so much his initial signing. His resigning was the 'vet' misstep and ironically the Knicks traded him away but then back during the very same contract the resigned him for in the first instance.

So while I disagree with your 'part 2' analysis because it's not like signing two old FAs to multiyear contracts, it still is a different 'part 2' scenario. It's actually a stinkier turd imo than making the same mistake twice with different players, it's making multiple different types of mistake with the same stinky player.

There's also the added stink of trading away a young two way player that the analysis you are comparing it to doesn't have. So not everyone who disagrees with you has the opposite opinion that you imagine it is, the world isn't a binary, it's more of a spectrum....of turds.

It seems I've smeared that turd analogy across too many areas of discussion I think I need some bleach.

So basically you agree with most of what I said but since Kemba was here for 1 year before being traded away with an asset and Fournier was here for 2.5 years versus Burks possibly only be here for half a year and Bojan being here for .5 - 1.5 years after being acquired with assets you decided to quote me and say crap and turd a lot? OK

I explained my view clearly and you still imagine me saying something other than what I actually said. Is that how you always discuss things on the internet? Seems like a confusing way but, hmm, well, I'll just put you on ignore so I don't have to read your crap too often. Thank you for that.

stuporman wrote:

JayTWill wrote:

stuporman wrote:
It seems you keep adding new contributions to the pile.

I'll try to offer some insight of another perspective you might not realize, just because someone has another opinion than you do this doesn't make it a direct opposite perspective so if you try to describe it in what you imagine it to be you are definitely wrong.

This is why I don't try to imagine what your opinion is, I just read the words and do the best I can to understand you. So, I'll concede that maybe these things I see as turds of wisdom in a pile coming from you are actually pure gold, it's just my point of view that sees it differently.

The only common trait I see in the two different circumstances is the veteran-ness of the players, they are near the end of their career. Although, I myself recognize at least 3 instances where the FO went that vet direction in different years and not once has it born much positive influence on winning.

Another common turd in the punch bowl in 2 of the 3 different instances I see is Burks, yet not so much his initial signing. His resigning was the 'vet' misstep and ironically the Knicks traded him away but then back during the very same contract the resigned him for in the first instance.

So while I disagree with your 'part 2' analysis because it's not like signing two old FAs to multiyear contracts, it still is a different 'part 2' scenario. It's actually a stinkier turd imo than making the same mistake twice with different players, it's making multiple different types of mistake with the same stinky player.

There's also the added stink of trading away a young two way player that the analysis you are comparing it to doesn't have. So not everyone who disagrees with you has the opposite opinion that you imagine it is, the world isn't a binary, it's more of a spectrum....of turds.

It seems I've smeared that turd analogy across too many areas of discussion I think I need some bleach.

So basically you agree with most of what I said but since Kemba was here for 1 year before being traded away with an asset and Fournier was here for 2.5 years versus Burks possibly only be here for half a year and Bojan being here for .5 - 1.5 years after being acquired with assets you decided to quote me and say crap and turd a lot? OK

I explained my view clearly and you still imagine me saying something other than what I actually said. Is that how you always discuss things on the internet? Seems like a confusing way but, hmm, well, I'll just put you on ignore so I don't have to read your crap too often. Thank you for that.

So he agrees with me that it was a bad trade but since the first two players in my comparison were acquired in free agency and the last two players were traded for with both scenarios involving assets going out in the end he is getting into a back and forth with me on the internet? Am I missing something other than he just may not like me or something I said?

Crap turd

JayTWill wrote:

stuporman wrote:

JayTWill wrote:
So basically you agree with most of what I said but since Kemba was here for 1 year before being traded away with an asset and Fournier was here for 2.5 years versus Burks possibly only be here for half a year and Bojan being here for .5 - 1.5 years after being acquired with assets you decided to quote me and say crap and turd a lot? OK

I explained my view clearly and you still imagine me saying something other than what I actually said. Is that how you always discuss things on the internet? Seems like a confusing way but, hmm, well, I'll just put you on ignore so I don't have to read your crap too often. Thank you for that.

So he agrees with me that it was a bad trade but since the first two players in my comparison were acquired in free agency and the last two players were traded for with both scenarios involving assets going out in the end he is getting into a back and forth with me on the internet? Am I missing something other than he just may not like me or something I said?

Crap turd

You're still confused even though I clearly explained it?

The Ass Brothers

I did see Bojan make a nice drive from the right wing then kick to OG for an open 3 in the left corner. On the highlights

Damaged goods.

McBride > Grimes

McBride >>>>>>>> Ntilikina

When Knicks fans initially like a trade or signing it turns out bad, but whenever they're not in favor of a deal such move turns out to be a good one. Let's hope that the next time the front office acquires someone fans will react negative towards it.

Quentin Grimes out again.

Fat Kat wrote:

Read on Twitter

Damaged goods.

Should have just traded him for Spidaman.

HopelessKnick wrote:

moocow007 wrote:Should have just pushed to trade for Demar Derozan instead. Would have required a 1st round pick instead of the 1st pick of the 2nd round that the Knicks gave back to Detroit. But what do I know.

You think Chicago would have traded their best scorer amid their season altering push into playoff territory?

You never know. But my point was more about players that were rumored to be available and which direction they should have headed. At the time, my steadfast suggestion of Derozan was a less than popular opinion here.

I get the whole "need 3 point shooting" thing. But folks just look at numbers and think that you can simply plug a guy in from one environment to another completely different environment and expect them to continue to do it. And then you get what were seeing with the B and B brothers.

Fournier fell back to earth, and Grimes out yet again

Fat Kat wrote:Fournier fell back to earth, and Grimes out yet again

Fat Kat wrote:

Fat Kat wrote:Fournier fell back to earth, and Grimes out yet again

the always good for a laugh lose lose trade

A doughnut for Evan and another DNP for Grimes.

Bojan plays better without Burks. Happy to see him have 2 straight decent games. I think our 10-man is going to be fluid between he and Burks.