If we need a shooting guard why would we resign Landry?
Initially, most thought there was no way the Knicks would match the offer.
Fields' scoring, rebounding and shooting percentage all decreased in his second year, when he averaged 8.8 points, 4.2 rebounds and 2.6 assists in a starting role.
Couple that with the emergence of Iman Shumpert, and Fields seemed easily expendable this offseason. Even with Shumpert out until at least December, most observers thought the Knicks could find a cheap replacement at shooting guard this summer.
But some have started to come around to the idea of matching Fields. The rationale behind bringing Fields back is simple: he may be the Knicks' best option at starting shooting guard.
Mike Woodson could insert J.R. Smith into the starting lineup, but that robs the Knicks' second unit of a significant scorer. Also, Smith was wildly inconsistent last year, a weakness that could be magnified if he played starters' minutes.
Another factor in Fields' favor? Knicks owner James Dolan doesn't seem to be deterred by the luxury tax. Fields' contract would increase the Knicks' already sizable tax bill. But with New York in win-now mode, that doesn't seem to be a concern.
Of course, there are other options at shooting guard on the free agent market.
Problem is, the Knicks are limited in what they can offer. They have the veteran's minimum contract available, and can use Dan Gadzuric's expiring contract in a sign-and-trade.
Would that be enough to land someone like Ronnie Brewer?
Colleague Jared Zwerling cites a source close to Brewer who says that the Knicks have shown interest in the shooting guard. Other free agent options for the Knicks include Courtney Lee, Randy Foye, Shannon Brown and Michael Redd.
Question: If you're Grunwald, would you rather have one of these guys over Fields? Or would you bite the bullet and match Toronto's offer because Fields is your best option?
Would you bring back Landry Fields? - Knicks Blog - ESPN New York
