Zach Lowe’s opinion of Fournier

[Ed Monix]

Zach Lowe’s thoughts of Fournier and his deal, via ‘The Lowe Post’ podcast;

“I am just not an Evan Fournier guy.

I know what the numbers say, the numbers say he shoots it pretty well, he’s an okay passer.

He’s just one of those guys, when I watch him play for the Orlando Magic all these years, I just never feel he is impacting winning as much as the numbers say he should be…given his threat as a shooter.

Number one, I don’t think he’s a very good playmaker, I think he is a so so playmaker, he’s looking for his own shot before everything else. He takes a lot of midrange shots I don’t love.

Defensively he’s just blah and got destroyed in the playoffs by Brooklyn last season.

His playoff number, I’ve seen the Evan Fournier movie in the playoffs four times. I’ve seen Evan Fournier Pt 1, Evan Fournier Pt 2…all the way to Evan Fournier electric boogaloo Pt 4. He stinks in the playoffs every single time he gets into the playoffs he gets exposed and in over his head, in what ever role he’s in during the playoffs.

I don’t love this deal, but he is a good basketball player, I’ve said all that, but he is good, he’s decent, he brings things the Knicks need.”

[Kuberski33]

The Knicks will be one of those teams that does pretty well in the regular season and loses first round of the playoffs. They overpaid for a bunch of guys who aren't good enough to make a difference when it counts against the top teams.

Then there's the question of how long it takes for them to shut off Thibs.

[Who]

I see Fournier much the same way. I still would've kept him though because (1) he is better than what we have (2) his contract was moveable. Signing him did not take future opportunities in FA off the table. It would only do that if his contract was not tradeable.

By letting him leave, we just hurt our team for no good reason.

[Rikibellevie]

I agree in some part but I think the Knicks can be the right team. A good team with too young scorers like Barett and Quickley, a solid team chemistry and a d3fense minded coach and team. He will be option 1B after RandleI guess. To be fair against Nets he was not the only to suffer and was globally correct even inconstant in this PO. He made me eat my tongue lately. Because what he is doing with France shows he can be ice cold, he can lead a team to high level when the team play as a team. He probably can't lead a team to the title but hopefully can lead to Olympic gold medal.

Evan isn't the most talented guy, nor an athletic phenomen, but he is not only a good scorer. He is a very smart men who lead his career and his games as a great professional. He is also 100% with the french team, always ready to go, never putting the focus on him. I love the guy, it just wasn’t the fit for us, but I will regret him. I like Richardson but he is no way near Fournier.

[Roy H.]

He’s a very good player.  He’s a better player than who we replaced him with, and as Who says, the remaining two years on his contract would have been easily moveable.

He’s somewhere around the 35th best offensive player in the NBA.

[Vermont Green]

That the 4th year is a team option is great for the team, so really a 3 year deal, but that is still a lot of money.  I didn't see him much when we was in Orlando but he was not that great in Boston.  I know he had COVID and integrating into a new team but still, I was expecting more of him.

I don't think he is going to be all that much better than Richardson.  It is fair to debate what is better, Fournier and Moses Brown or Richardson and Kanter.  Fournier would be pure tax penalty, I am sure that was a consideration.  I am not that upset about this.  I like the versatility of Richardson.  I am probably more upset about losing Moses Brown than I am Richardson vs. Fournier.  We will have Bird rights to Richardson so we can still give him money next off season instead of Fournier if we want.  Or sign and trade him.  There is more flexibility, less commitment albeit less control.

[PhoSita]

I think we've seen a lot of guys who struggle in the playoffs ... until they don't.

I remember when the rap on Lowry is that he sucked in the playoffs.  Until he didn't.

Anyway, I think the Knicks have doubled down on a team that will have to fight hard to win a 1st round series. But that makes total sense. The Knicks have basically infinite money, and they haven't won a playoff series in over a decade. They should go all-in even if it just means maybe pushing to 50 wins and beating the Hawks, Bulls, or the ... *gulp* ... Celtics.

[colincb]

He’s a very good player.  He’s a better player than who we replaced him with, and as Who says, the remaining two years on his contract would have been easily moveable.

He’s somewhere around the 35th best offensive player in the NBA.

Over the last 5 years, of the top 250 players in terms of minutes played each season, EF averaged a 71 percentile offensive and a 28 percentile defensive ranking according to RAPTOR. Richardson averaged a 42 percentile offensive and a 69 percentile defensive ranking.

I don't think that justifies the difference in pay, even with a premium for offense vs. defense.

[ETNCeltics]

I see Fournier much the same way. I still would've kept him though because (1) he is better than what we have (2) his contract was moveable. Signing him did not take future opportunities in FA off the table. It would only do that if his contract was not tradeable.

By letting him leave, we just hurt our team for no good reason.

Some of you keep insisting his contract is "moveable", but that's easy to say without actually having to do it. $20m/yr is a big contract for a guy who most agree won't move the needle, it could be a ball and chain in the coming months if someone we really covet becomes available. What would ditching his contract cost us if the Wizards (or the club of some other trade target) didn't really want him? Yet another 1st rounder?

I recall last year there were people upset that we lost Hayward for nothing more than a tpe, and many were upset that we didn't make the rumored trade with Indy for Myles Turner. It was, again, rumored, that Ainge didn't do the deal because he checked around and there was no market for Turner, who, coincidentally, makes about the same Fournier does now. It seems Indy has been trying to trade Turner from the moment he signed his deal. Recent news suggests the only suitor for Turner right now is the Knicks, the same clown show that just gave Nerlens Noel $11 million/yr for 3 years. I'd argue that if Danny had made that deal, he'd have compounded the mistake he made when he gave Kemba a max deal, and we'd be doing things like giving up more mid-first round picks to undo it.

[knuckleballer]

We should have signed him.  He's a solid player which he's demonstrating in the Olympics right now.  If we have a chance to sign Beal next summer, we could have easily moved him and his contract.  It seems ownership didn't want to pay up which is disappointing.  We should have given the Jay's a better chance this season.  There's also a real chance we won't be able to add a better player next year.  He also could have been used in a trade mid season or later.  His salary could help facilitate that.  Not signing him is taking away options and hurting this season's team.

[tstorey_97]

I don't think mgt saw him as a piece on a title team.

Celtics defense last season was a bust along with everything else...none of that was Fournier's fault except, mgt wanted to get back on the defensive track and he wasn't going to be part of that.

Knicks are ok and will win games.

Is Randle going to just start cranking out 24 ppg 10 rebs and 6 assists every season?  I don't think so, but I really wish he was playing for our team.

[Roy H.]

I see Fournier much the same way. I still would've kept him though because (1) he is better than what we have (2) his contract was moveable. Signing him did not take future opportunities in FA off the table. It would only do that if his contract was not tradeable.

By letting him leave, we just hurt our team for no good reason.

Some of you keep insisting his contract is "moveable", but that's easy to say without actually having to do it. $20m/yr is a big contract for a guy who most agree won't move the needle, it could be a ball and chain in the coming months if someone we really covet becomes available. What would ditching his contract cost us if the Wizards (or the club of some other trade target) didn't really want him? Yet another 1st rounder?

I recall last year there were people upset that we lost Hayward for nothing more than a tpe, and many were upset that we didn't make the rumored trade with Indy for Myles Turner. It was, again, rumored, that Ainge didn't do the deal because he checked around and there was no market for Turner, who, coincidentally, makes about the same Fournier does now. It seems Indy has been trying to trade Turner from the moment he signed his deal. Recent news suggests the only suitor for Turner right now is the Knicks, the same clown show that just gave Nerlens Noel $11 million/yr for 3 years. I'd argue that if Danny had made that deal, he'd have compounded the mistake he made when he gave Kemba a max deal, and we'd be doing things like giving up mid-first round picks to undo it.

To get max cap room (still not enough to sign Beal outright), we'd have to trade our first rounder anyway.

But regardless, is a 2 year, $38 million contract going to be that hard to move?  That's less than Spencer Dinwiddie money for a guy who can actually score and shoot.

[ETNCeltics]

I see Fournier much the same way. I still would've kept him though because (1) he is better than what we have (2) his contract was moveable. Signing him did not take future opportunities in FA off the table. It would only do that if his contract was not tradeable.

By letting him leave, we just hurt our team for no good reason.

Some of you keep insisting his contract is "moveable", but that's easy to say without actually having to do it. $20m/yr is a big contract for a guy who most agree won't move the needle, it could be a ball and chain in the coming months if someone we really covet becomes available. What would ditching his contract cost us if the Wizards (or the club of some other trade target) didn't really want him? Yet another 1st rounder?

I recall last year there were people upset that we lost Hayward for nothing more than a tpe, and many were upset that we didn't make the rumored trade with Indy for Myles Turner. It was, again, rumored, that Ainge didn't do the deal because he checked around and there was no market for Turner, who, coincidentally, makes about the same Fournier does now. It seems Indy has been trying to trade Turner from the moment he signed his deal. Recent news suggests the only suitor for Turner right now is the Knicks, the same clown show that just gave Nerlens Noel $11 million/yr for 3 years. I'd argue that if Danny had made that deal, he'd have compounded the mistake he made when he gave Kemba a max deal, and we'd be doing things like giving up mid-first round picks to undo it.

To get max cap room (still not enough to sign Beal outright), we'd have to trade our first rounder anyway.

But regardless, is a 2 year, $38 million contract going to be that hard to move?  That's less than Spencer Dinwiddie money for a guy who can actually score and shoot.

The Wizards are a terrible organization, just like the Knicks. Maybe they would be ok with Fournier. If Nerlens Noel can get $11m/yr, anything is possible.

Dinwiddie's last season as a starter he averaged 21/7, he can obviously score.

We may not get max cap room. Or maybe we trade Horford for an expiring and his deal is out of the equation entirely. Or perhaps TL has a monster year and we have to give him a deal and that changes all the math. We could always trade that pick forward instead of just giving it away, as we have 2 years in a row now.

[Celtics4ever]

To get max cap room (still not enough to sign Beal outright), we'd have to trade our first rounder anyway.

Would that violate the Stepien Rule?

The Text:

“7.03. First Round Draft Choice. No Member may sell its rights to select a player in the first round of any NBA Draft for cash or its equivalent, or trade or exchange its right to select a player in the first round of any NBA Draft if the result of such trade or exchange may be to leave the Member without first-round picks in any two (2) consecutive future NBA Drafts.”

https://basketball.realgm.com/article/249279/CBA-Encyclopedia-Stepien-Rule

[BudweiserCeltic]

To get max cap room (still not enough to sign Beal outright), we'd have to trade our first rounder anyway.

Would that violate the Stepien Rule?

The Text:

“7.03. First Round Draft Choice. No Member may sell its rights to select a player in the first round of any NBA Draft for cash or its equivalent, or trade or exchange its right to select a player in the first round of any NBA Draft if the result of such trade or exchange may be to leave the Member without first-round picks in any two (2) consecutive future NBA Drafts.”

https://basketball.realgm.com/article/249279/CBA-Encyclopedia-Stepien-Rule

Keyword "future".