Why he would be an attractive trade target:
-Like anyone else, I love what I see in Quickley. Still, I see him as a hybrid guard and one that could play alongside Ball very nicely while also being able to run the offense when he is in and Ball is not in.
-Ball is a very good defender and rebounder.
-Ball's intelligence and facilitation skills greatly helps the development of those that matter (Toppin, Robinson, Barrett, Knox and the aforementioned Quickley).
-Very good "grab and go" transition player.
-Two years (this year + next) of cost control less than $14mm.
Why he would not be attractive:
-Shooting remains dicey.
-Facilitation isn't drive/dish. Rather its more from the perimeter. He should be more physically imposing, almost like how Tyreke Evans was early in his career. But he doesn't compromise the defense with penetration or shooting "gravity".
-Seems to get nicked up frequently.
Why NO would trade him?
-Alexander-Walker
-Lewis Jr.
-Bledsoe (admittedly not a long term piece)
What we wouldn't trade for him?
Toppin, Robinson, Barrett, Quickley, our picks or those that we own from Dallas
Our collection of 2nd round picks unlikely to do it
One creative trade might be Mitchell Robinson + DSJ for Lonzo Ball + Jaxson Hayes but that may not be enough, despite how much I like Hayes upside.
15
PTS
13.1
TRB
4.1
AST
4.1
FG%
44.9
45.2
FG3%
31.0
FT%
68.8
eFG%
47.3
PER
12.7
WS
0.3
10
PTS
11.9
TRB
4.0
AST
4.4
FG%
38.7
FG3%
28.2 (yucky)
FT%
58.3 (yucky again)
eFG%
47.1
PER
9.5
WS
0.0
Doesn't move the needle at all unless you think he's playing through injury and will improve. His rebounds and assists are down, likely due to less minutes this year? his PPG is up. His FT % is up. It was gross before. Now it's just stinky.
Tillman looks like a find too.
I'd be interested because the Knicks still need to get better in the backcourt and while Lonzo wouldn't fix the Knicks weakness of shooting, he'd fit how they're playing now. The defensive, grind it out style they're playing is a good fit for Lonzo. His defense, rebounding would make Thibs happy. Maybe they can help him get the shot better. It's hard to be optimistic about that because the jumper looks so damn broken.
I'd be interested because the Knicks still need to get better in the backcourt and while Lonzo wouldn't fix the Knicks weakness of shooting, he'd fit how they're playing now. The defensive, grind it out style they're playing is a good fit for Lonzo. His defense, rebounding would make Thibs happy. Maybe they can help him get the shot better. It's hard to be optimistic about that because the jumper looks so damn broken.
GOOD TAKE
This. If you have him and Mitch/Noel on the floor at the same time, you have 3 shooting options. That puts you at a massive disadvantage.
NTILIKINA has really shown very little as an NBA player. His confidence and durability issues have really hampered his development.
Quote:
Except his name is Frank Ntilikina?
NTILIKINA has really shown very little as an NBA player. His confidence and durability issues have really hampered his development.
But he has a decent handle and can play D pretty well is what I meant. Ball sucks too but will command too many minutes. I would prefer to have a rotation of Quickley, Rivers and Frank over sending assets for Lonzo
I really dont know what you are talking about now. What pieces? Quickley very much looks the part to be at least a good NBA PG. What pieces? So far, we have a power forward who can score in and out as well as put the ball on the floor (dont need a point for JR), one good 3 point shooter....two if you classify Knox as good and thats really it. Barrett is not a focal point. Its not like the Sixers where you have an inside out game with a big who can shoot from 3.
I just said Ball is not a good option because he lacks what we HAVE lacked at point. Why would you cycle in a shitty shooting PG when we have 2 guys who already look the part of at least a competent PG?
let who we have develop as best we can and worry about making a real push next season with another year under some of these guy's belts.
But what stuck out with me about RJ is his mid-range game. He gets in the lane and elevates for the floater really well. The problem is that he misses a lot of them, but the ball is right on the rim. Only a matter of time before he develops the touch and those shots start falling.
The guy can shoot from anywhere on the floor.
He has to keep working on accuracy and learn not to telegraph his drives to the basket. He seems to decide drive or dish before he takes off. He needs to develop more split second decision making.
This guy is going to be a good player. Maybe not a superstar but a 22/7/5 player for sure.
But what stuck out with me about RJ is his mid-range game. He gets in the lane and elevates for the floater really well. The problem is that he misses a lot of them, but the ball is right on the rim. Only a matter of time before he develops the touch and those shots start falling.
The guy can shoot from anywhere on the floor.
He has to keep working on accuracy and learn not to telegraph his drives to the basket. He seems to decide drive or dish before he takes off. He needs to develop more split second decision making.
This guy is going to be a good player. Maybe not a superstar but a 22/7/5 player for sure.
Im sorry to be rude, but you couldnt be more wrong. Paint game is NOT considered mid range. Think Duncan...Lamarcus Alridge,Mason's game. Scoring. 6-8 feet away is NOT mid range.
Also, RJ CANNOT "shoot from anywhere"...not even close. But he is developing into a nice slasher and his defense has been imptoving. Lets not make him out to be Tatum....who can shoot from anywhere.