This was a young PG, good 3 pt shooter, signed at a very reasonable deal - less than 12mm per. The cost to do the sign and trade was a lottery protected first- could we have gotten it done by sending Charlotte back their protected pick? I love Derrick Rose, but I would've given this deal to Graham and then maybe chosen Rose over Burks or vice versa. I thought Graham was gonna sign for at least 15mm (4yrs/60mm) or something like it).
VDesai wrote:This was a young PG, good 3 pt shooter, signed at a very reasonable deal - less than 12mm per. The cost to do the sign and trade was a lottery protected first- could we have gotten it done by sending Charlotte back their protected pick? I love Derrick Rose, but I would've given this deal to Graham and then maybe chosen Rose over Burks or vice versa. I thought Graham was gonna sign for at least 15mm (4yrs/60mm) or something like it).
Agreed on this. NOP got a good deal here. Hope Graham can capitalize on it. Gives Kira Lewis some time to develop as well.
Was he a Thibs guy?
Like it or not, Thibs has to give his approval, as evidenced by our signings.
I would have picked giving him money over Fournier.- Heck, we could have gotten him and kept Bullock!
franco12 wrote:I would have picked giving him money over Fournier.- Heck, we could have gotten him and kept Bullock!
We could have gone with him and Fournier conceivably - he only made 12mm per- we could've let Burks or Rose walk and basically netted out the same.
Is he a winning player, because last I check he put up decent #s up on a bad team he never made better.
VDesai wrote:franco12 wrote:I would have picked giving him money over Fournier.- Heck, we could have gotten him and kept Bullock!
We could have gone with him and Fournier conceivably - he only made 12mm per- we could've let Burks or Rose walk and basically netted out the same.
We could have just moved Knox and a pick in sign-and-trade to Charlotte and had plenty of money. This would have been a solid pickup. I like Fournier over Graham as a difference maker overall, but Graham was definitely a missed opportunity at PG.
knicks1248 wrote:Is he a winning player, because last I check he put up decent #s up on a bad team he never made better.
You could have said the same for Randle before this season- so I think that yard stick, if you are trying to have a black/white approach instead of grayscale, isn't valid.
The guy has been in the league 3 years. No one's a winning player till they are on a winning situation. Graham at least was a contributor on an improving team. He is a good 3pt% shooter and can distribute the ball. While small he gives a good effort on D. To me he was a good PG to facilitate the offense through Randle. However he doesn't finish at the rim and is mainly a shooter on O- and his lack of size may not be what Thibs wants.
This take is off base. Fournier is the better of the two players and paying 5 million more in cap space is better than giving up one of the first round picks for Graham.
VDesai wrote:The guy has been in the league 3 years. No one's a winning player till they are on a winning situation. Graham at least was a contributor on an improving team. He is a good 3pt% shooter and can distribute the ball. While small he gives a good effort on D. To me he was a good PG to facilitate the offense through Randle. However he doesn't finish at the rim and is mainly a shooter on O- and his lack of size may not be what Thibs wants.
did you just flip on your own post?
y2zipper wrote:This take is off base. Fournier is the better of the two players and paying 5 million more in cap space is better than giving up one of the first round picks for Graham.
Graham is 4 years, $47
Fournier is 4 years, $78.
That is almost a difference of $8m per year, not insignificant.
And while Fournier may be a better player, we needed a PG and Graham is a whole lot younger with upside potential. Fournier is 28 and we have to hope he can maintain and not decline over the four years.
Bring on the regret threads!
franco12 wrote:VDesai wrote:The guy has been in the league 3 years. No one's a winning player till they are on a winning situation. Graham at least was a contributor on an improving team. He is a good 3pt% shooter and can distribute the ball. While small he gives a good effort on D. To me he was a good PG to facilitate the offense through Randle. However he doesn't finish at the rim and is mainly a shooter on O- and his lack of size may not be what Thibs wants.
did you just flip on your own post?
No he would have been my personal choice, but responding to some other peoples questions/posts and trying to think about why we didn't make the move. At the cost it would have made a lot of sense IMO, and I liked the fit with Randle, but just trying to consider why our staff may not have felt the same.
Graham was the guy I was clamoring for (as per my previous thread). Dude has ice water in his veins and makes shots. Maybe we are making a run at Lillard but Graham was my guy.
VDesai wrote:franco12 wrote:VDesai wrote:The guy has been in the league 3 years. No one's a winning player till they are on a winning situation. Graham at least was a contributor on an improving team. He is a good 3pt% shooter and can distribute the ball. While small he gives a good effort on D. To me he was a good PG to facilitate the offense through Randle. However he doesn't finish at the rim and is mainly a shooter on O- and his lack of size may not be what Thibs wants.
did you just flip on your own post?
No he would have been my personal choice, but responding to some other peoples questions/posts and trying to think about why we didn't make the move. At the cost it would have made a lot of sense IMO, and I liked the fit with Randle, but just trying to consider why our staff may not have felt the same.
Alright! I do agree with everything you said, in terms of both wanting him, and what our FO might have been thinking.
I think I wanted Sexton more than anyone for PG. Graham was my 2nd choice. Lonzo was my 3rd. If we get neither then I just think our front office sees something from the PG's already on the team
