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.