Author Topic: Julius Randle Available?  (Read 3852 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Julius Randle Available?
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2022, 07:54:46 AM »

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6857
  • Tommy Points: 391
Last year's efficiency looks like it was a fluke for Randle.  I don't think the current Randle really adds very much that will help win games.  If you like last year's Randle you may as well go after the highly efficient John Collins instead.  I think Collins helps you win games even though he isn't the playmaker that we are all craving.  I've liked some of the Collins trade proposals that I've seen on here centering around Smart/Horford/draft pick.

It probably was. I don’t think Randle is 1st option/best player material, which is what the Knicks are doing right now, and he crept up on a lot of teams last year. If Collins was the Hawks best player, he wouldn’t be doing too well nor would he be as efficient as he is today. 

Anyway, Randle as 2nd (or maybe 3rd), I think he will look very good.


- LilRip

Re: Julius Randle Available?
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2022, 08:46:31 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11228
  • Tommy Points: 860
Centers are going to be much more impactful once more (thank goodness we have TL) and running double bigs isn’t as bad of a strategy as it was a few years ago.

Off topic, is that why you think the Cavs are so succesful now? I don't watch enough to know, but it's very interesting.

I agree and disagree.  I agree that bigs (either center or PF) are impactful.  I disagree that it was ever different from this.  Good bigs are hard to come by so teams that didn't have good bigs tried to get around this with small ball line ups.  Tall ball is and always was better than small ball (assuming the Tall ones are actually good).

As to Randle, I think he would be a nice addition to Tatum and Brown.  I would prefer him to most of suggestions for PGs that have been thrown around.  Randle is not the perfect PF but plenty good enough.  You would essentially replace Horford with Randle.  That is a major upgrade at the position that needs an upgrade the most.  I just don't see a deal.  Giving up Smart or RWill would be fair (and it might take both) but filling one hole would just create another hole.

Re: Julius Randle Available?
« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2022, 08:57:29 AM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14457
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
Centers are going to be much more impactful once more (thank goodness we have TL) and running double bigs isn’t as bad of a strategy as it was a few years ago.

Off topic, is that why you think the Cavs are so succesful now? I don't watch enough to know, but it's very interesting.

I agree and disagree.  I agree that bigs (either center or PF) are impactful.  I disagree that it was ever different from this.  Good bigs are hard to come by so teams that didn't have good bigs tried to get around this with small ball line ups.  Tall ball is and always was better than small ball (assuming the Tall ones are actually good).

As to Randle, I think he would be a nice addition to Tatum and Brown.  I would prefer him to most of suggestions for PGs that have been thrown around.  Randle is not the perfect PF but plenty good enough.  You would essentially replace Horford with Randle.  That is a major upgrade at the position that needs an upgrade the most.  I just don't see a deal.  Giving up Smart or RWill would be fair (and it might take both) but filling one hole would just create another hole.
I view this statement, in turn, as a result of the classic big men generally not possessing a 3-point shot combined with the illusion that Analytics (take as many 3's as possible) is all that matters.  Now big men frequently have a 3-point shot (Porzingis, Turner, etc) or they develop it in response to this trend (Horford, Randle).

Re: Julius Randle Available?
« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2022, 09:30:56 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11228
  • Tommy Points: 860
Centers are going to be much more impactful once more (thank goodness we have TL) and running double bigs isn’t as bad of a strategy as it was a few years ago.

Off topic, is that why you think the Cavs are so succesful now? I don't watch enough to know, but it's very interesting.

I agree and disagree.  I agree that bigs (either center or PF) are impactful.  I disagree that it was ever different from this.  Good bigs are hard to come by so teams that didn't have good bigs tried to get around this with small ball line ups.  Tall ball is and always was better than small ball (assuming the Tall ones are actually good).

As to Randle, I think he would be a nice addition to Tatum and Brown.  I would prefer him to most of suggestions for PGs that have been thrown around.  Randle is not the perfect PF but plenty good enough.  You would essentially replace Horford with Randle.  That is a major upgrade at the position that needs an upgrade the most.  I just don't see a deal.  Giving up Smart or RWill would be fair (and it might take both) but filling one hole would just create another hole.
I view this statement, in turn, as a result of the classic big men generally not possessing a 3-point shot combined with the illusion that Analytics (take as many 3's as possible) is all that matters.  Now big men frequently have a 3-point shot (Porzingis, Turner, etc) or they develop it in response to this trend (Horford, Randle).

I agree with this to a point, the 3-pt shot and the analytics that go along with this have an impact but Giannis (for example) is career 28% 3p% shooter.  Tim Duncan 18%.  Kevin Garnett 27%.  A big who can shoot the 3 is great but a big can be great without it.