Knicks · Maybe shop around our Mitchell offer to another team.. (page 2)

I think the worst thing to do is to make a reactionary move to making a move just because we didn’t get Mitchell. As this point it’s best just to keep our assets until the right fit comes along whether that’s a trade or just drafting

MaddogSharp wrote:I think the worst thing to do is to make a reactionary move to making a move just because we didn’t get Mitchell. As this point it’s best just to keep our assets until the right fit comes along whether that’s a trade or just drafting

I agree, think we're in luck as this front office seems to take a long time when making decisions- seems to be a lot of internal too-ing and fro-ing behind the scenes in every move.

smackeddog wrote:

MaddogSharp wrote:I think the worst thing to do is to make a reactionary move to making a move just because we didn’t get Mitchell. As this point it’s best just to keep our assets until the right fit comes along whether that’s a trade or just drafting

I agree, think we're in luck as this front office seems to take a long time when making decisions- seems to be a lot of internal too-ing and fro-ing behind the scenes in every move.

I also don’t think the fan base is mature enough to let them make a trade this summer that isn’t for a star and not hold that fact against the player they acquire. Basically time needs to pass or whoever they get will be compared to Mitchell and if they aren’t as good they will be blamed for that by the fans.

I don’t see any trades happening at least about 20 games have passed. Plus that trade will be an adjustment to the current roster.

Nalod wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:Regarding our Mitchell offer, one trade that would make sense for both teams would be Anthony Davis. We would have to wait until Mitchell Robinson is available to be traded on January 15, but a deal with Robinson, Reddish, and Fournier plus draft picks could work. That LA team isn't going anywhere and Davis is the only shovel they have to get out of the hole. The Knicks could fill out their rotation and give them a future that's not as bleak. Davis would give the Knicks the MVP caliber player they are lacking with enough depth around him (Hart and Sims) to keep the team rolling when he misses time. LBJ can still compete for championships, just?not with the Lakers as presently constructed.

Remains to be seen. Westbrick could be moved for Utahs tired role players but thats just what Lakers need. Leborn is still Lebron and Im not quite sure they ready to hang It up.

The oft injured AD is not quite what I had in mind here.

Lakers draft assets are better than I thought. I guess it would come down to the protection the Lakers could add to the picks. It's just likely as is that 2027, 29 will be lottery picks for the Lakers. They don't have an Anthony Edwards or Evan Mobley on the horizon.

gradyandrew wrote:

Nalod wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:Regarding our Mitchell offer, one trade that would make sense for both teams would be Anthony Davis. We would have to wait until Mitchell Robinson is available to be traded on January 15, but a deal with Robinson, Reddish, and Fournier plus draft picks could work. That LA team isn't going anywhere and Davis is the only shovel they have to get out of the hole. The Knicks could fill out their rotation and give them a future that's not as bleak. Davis would give the Knicks the MVP caliber player they are lacking with enough depth around him (Hart and Sims) to keep the team rolling when he misses time. LBJ can still compete for championships, just?not with the Lakers as presently constructed.

Remains to be seen. Westbrick could be moved for Utahs tired role players but thats just what Lakers need. Leborn is still Lebron and Im not quite sure they ready to hang It up.

The oft injured AD is not quite what I had in mind here.

Lakers draft assets are better than I thought. I guess it would come down to the protection the Lakers could add to the picks. It's just likely as is that 2027, 29 will be lottery picks for the Lakers. They don't have an Anthony Edwards or Evan Mobley on the horizon.

I'd hate to see Ainge land another 2 unprotected firsts from the Lakers, so anything that blocks that would be an added bonus! Sadly, I think they already have something worked out with the Jazz and are just waiting for the 6th September (or is it the 9th?), when the jazz players from the Twolves deal can be combined, and had that worked out since the Pat Bev trade, otherwise I don't see why the lakers have waited so long.

smackeddog wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

Nalod wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:Regarding our Mitchell offer, one trade that would make sense for both teams would be Anthony Davis. We would have to wait until Mitchell Robinson is available to be traded on January 15, but a deal with Robinson, Reddish, and Fournier plus draft picks could work. That LA team isn't going anywhere and Davis is the only shovel they have to get out of the hole. The Knicks could fill out their rotation and give them a future that's not as bleak. Davis would give the Knicks the MVP caliber player they are lacking with enough depth around him (Hart and Sims) to keep the team rolling when he misses time. LBJ can still compete for championships, just?not with the Lakers as presently constructed.

Remains to be seen. Westbrick could be moved for Utahs tired role players but thats just what Lakers need. Leborn is still Lebron and Im not quite sure they ready to hang It up.

The oft injured AD is not quite what I had in mind here.

Lakers draft assets are better than I thought. I guess it would come down to the protection the Lakers could add to the picks. It's just likely as is that 2027, 29 will be lottery picks for the Lakers. They don't have an Anthony Edwards or Evan Mobley on the horizon.

I'd hate to see Ainge land another 2 unprotected firsts from the Lakers, so anything that blocks that would be an added bonus! Sadly, I think they already have something worked out with the Jazz and are just waiting for the 6th September (or is it the 9th?), when the jazz players from the Twolves deal can be combined, and had that worked out since the Pat Bev trade, otherwise I don't see why the lakers have waited so long.

Logical and it makes Lakers deeper. They could make picks protected top 5? Lets see how it all looks.
Perhaps Buss family sees the new tv contracts and yet another surge in value a good time to sell the team. Its their major asset and they are not wealthy beyond the team. Im sure Daddy would be upset but the valuation is sick and at some point makes sense to cash it in. They will need a new arena and Clippers will eventually buck their historical trend and succeed. Might always be "laker town" but Clippers have an enthusiastic. owner with deep ass pockets. Dr Buss had that kind of enthusiasm. He lucked out big time in his first years as owner. Straight up success. If they don't win that first year he might have lost the team in foreclosure.

That said, perhaps no so awful to lose those picks and do a "Sean Marks Net Style" rebuild with few picks.

SGA or Anunoby are the 2 obvious players. But Toronto will want more win-now pieces so we may not be a good trade partner. SGA makes a lot of sense on paper. Not as good as Mitchell but better defensively and a better fit, but the cost will be the same as with Mitchell. Unfortunately the cost Dejounte Murray was to Atlanta feels like the price the Knicks front office wants to pay for a star. Maybe missed the boat there since they weren’t interested in paying the premium for a player of Mitchell’s caliber. So it’s either hope the price for SGA isn’t outrageous (Knicks just made a trade with OKC so maybe they are a better negotiating fit than utah) or wait things out until next year and see what shakes out elsewhere.

SGA, we concerned he regressed to 30% 3pt last year? shot about 35% fist two seasons, surged to 41%, then dropped.
Missed chunks of last two years.
Has 5 years left on deal that pays 179mil.
At that price, he gonna lead us to contention? He is skinny, but 6-6. His wingspan? 6-11, an inch less than DM.
No Allstar or all NBA crew. Plays on shit team so might bloated stat.

What is his price vs. DM who had playoff cred?

Im not being difficult but we tilt to him who has done little in a shit town on as shit team that is perpetually rebuilding because he is 4 inches taller?

what would OKC want with Randle whose salary has to go? Third team thing. OK,
We have to send more money out too.

Im just saying this shit is not easy. And SGA is not without questions some of you need to be asking.
And for goodness sake we need to freaking draft the SGA's and DM's instead of passing over them and then trading for them!!!!!
(Hindsight rant by Nalod).

Knixkik wrote:SGA or Anunoby are the 2 obvious players. But Toronto will want more win-now pieces so we may not be a good trade partner. SGA makes a lot of sense on paper. Not as good as Mitchell but better defensively and a better fit, but the cost will be the same as with Mitchell. Unfortunately the cost Dejounte Murray was to Atlanta feels like the price the Knicks front office wants to pay for a star. Maybe missed the boat there since they weren’t interested in paying the premium for a player of Mitchell’s caliber. So it’s either hope the price for SGA isn’t outrageous (Knicks just made a trade with OKC so maybe they are a better negotiating fit than utah) or wait things out until next year and see what shakes out elsewhere.

I don’t get why some think SGA is a target. Especially with someone like Grimes who fits perfectly at SG.

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:SGA or Anunoby are the 2 obvious players. But Toronto will want more win-now pieces so we may not be a good trade partner. SGA makes a lot of sense on paper. Not as good as Mitchell but better defensively and a better fit, but the cost will be the same as with Mitchell. Unfortunately the cost Dejounte Murray was to Atlanta feels like the price the Knicks front office wants to pay for a star. Maybe missed the boat there since they weren’t interested in paying the premium for a player of Mitchell’s caliber. So it’s either hope the price for SGA isn’t outrageous (Knicks just made a trade with OKC so maybe they are a better negotiating fit than utah) or wait things out until next year and see what shakes out elsewhere.

I don’t get why some think SGA is a target. Especially with someone like Grimes who fits perfectly at SG.

If grimes breaks out than SGA won’t be a target. Hopefully his perfect fit translates to wins. I just view SGA as a natural fit being a big guard from Kentucky who is strong defensively and on a rebuilding team. My hope is we start strong and there’s no need for a new target. Eventually we replace Randle with a star and that’s it.

Offer a couple picks plus Obi to Portland for Lillard next February

Knixkik wrote:

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:SGA or Anunoby are the 2 obvious players. But Toronto will want more win-now pieces so we may not be a good trade partner. SGA makes a lot of sense on paper. Not as good as Mitchell but better defensively and a better fit, but the cost will be the same as with Mitchell. Unfortunately the cost Dejounte Murray was to Atlanta feels like the price the Knicks front office wants to pay for a star. Maybe missed the boat there since they weren’t interested in paying the premium for a player of Mitchell’s caliber. So it’s either hope the price for SGA isn’t outrageous (Knicks just made a trade with OKC so maybe they are a better negotiating fit than utah) or wait things out until next year and see what shakes out elsewhere.

I don’t get why some think SGA is a target. Especially with someone like Grimes who fits perfectly at SG.

If grimes breaks out than SGA won’t be a target. Hopefully his perfect fit translates to wins. I just view SGA as a natural fit being a big guard from Kentucky who is was strong defensively and on a rebuilding team. My hope is we start strong and there’s no need for a new target. Eventually we replace Randle with a star and that’s it.

By all accounts, it appears that SGAs defense has fallen off a cliff the last couple of years. It's also still not clear if his offensive surge is the product of being on a bad team. Those are cons. Still would take a shot if he becomes available. A player like that provides a lot of flexibility in the backcourt and I love his aggressiveness creating in the paint.

Philc1 wrote:Offer a couple picks plus Obi to Portland for Lillard next February

Um. no. Did you see his contract number? Let Portland choke on that one.

Panos wrote:

Philc1 wrote:Offer a couple picks plus Obi to Portland for Lillard next February

Um. no. Did you see his contract number? Let Portland choke on that one.

PhilC don't do "numbers".

If we are trying to consolidate the roster and are ok with winning if the trades make us more competitive at the expense of a better draft pick, if it helps us lose contracts earlier then trade Randle and Cam for Gordan Heyward and Fournier for Harrison Barnes. Bench unit becomes Heart, Heyward, Barnes, IQ, Rose. We lose Barnes for next season as he is an expiring and then have Gordon for only one more season. Then come draft time we can target best available wings with our draft picks. That new team will likely see Heyward and Rose miss lots of games giving IQ OBi, IQ, Grimes, Deuce and Hunt more time to play. Plus improve our odds in the lottery.

Since there was no Mitchell trade we should just run the team we have till the new year w/ Grimes starting over Fournier.

PG: Brunson, Rose, McBride
SG: Grimes, Quickly
SF: Barrett,Fournier, Reddish
PF: Randle, Toppin
C: Robinson, Hartenstein, Sims

TLover wrote:Since there was no Mitchell trade we should just run the team we have till the new year w/ Grimes starting over Fournier.

PG: Brunson, Rose, McBride
SG: Grimes, Quickly
SF: Barrett,Fournier, Reddish
PF: Randle, Toppin
C: Robinson, Hartenstein, Sims

If they are seriously considering a trade for Fournier they should keep him as a starter unless they feel he is costing the team games or lowering his own value.

wargames wrote:

TLover wrote:Since there was no Mitchell trade we should just run the team we have till the new year w/ Grimes starting over Fournier.

PG: Brunson, Rose, McBride
SG: Grimes, Quickly
SF: Barrett,Fournier, Reddish
PF: Randle, Toppin
C: Robinson, Hartenstein, Sims

If they are seriously considering a trade for Fournier they should keep him as a starter unless they feel he is costing the team games or lowering his own value.

I'm keeping an open mind. Whoever shows out in camp and pre-season should start, politics aside. Hopefully it's Grimes over Fournier. If not, hopefully Grimes grows into it over the course of the season.

wargames wrote:

TLover wrote:Since there was no Mitchell trade we should just run the team we have till the new year w/ Grimes starting over Fournier.

PG: Brunson, Rose, McBride
SG: Grimes, Quickly
SF: Barrett,Fournier, Reddish
PF: Randle, Toppin
C: Robinson, Hartenstein, Sims

If they are seriously considering a trade for Fournier they should keep him as a starter unless they feel he is costing the team games or lowering his own value.

Interesting point on starting vs benching Fournier. I think it hurts his value to bring him off the bench, but the reason is to prevent Fournier from blocking Grimes.

I can clearly see Fournier and Randle starting next season under Thibs. But giving both a quicker pull for Grimes and Obi. Thibs can still increase Grimes minutes without giving him a starter role.

If Fournier and Randle ball out, maybe thats when you trade them. I don't know anymore. Whats logical to us vs what Thibs will do and the strategy of the FO, are the unanswered questions. Personally I rather go full blown youth, but if the vets are playing out of their minds, maybe that changes things come mid season.

blkexec wrote:

wargames wrote:

TLover wrote:Since there was no Mitchell trade we should just run the team we have till the new year w/ Grimes starting over Fournier.

PG: Brunson, Rose, McBride
SG: Grimes, Quickly
SF: Barrett,Fournier, Reddish
PF: Randle, Toppin
C: Robinson, Hartenstein, Sims

If they are seriously considering a trade for Fournier they should keep him as a starter unless they feel he is costing the team games or lowering his own value.

Interesting point on starting vs benching Fournier. I think it hurts his value to bring him off the bench, but the reason is to prevent Fournier from blocking Grimes.

I can clearly see Fournier and Randle starting next season under Thibs. But giving both a quicker pull for Grimes and Obi. Thibs can still increase Grimes minutes without giving him a starter role.

If Fournier and Randle ball out, maybe thats when you trade them. I don't know anymore. Whats logical to us vs what Thibs will do and the strategy of the FO, are the unanswered questions. Personally I rather go full blown youth, but if the vets are playing out of their minds, maybe that changes things come mid season.

I feel the opposite of the above, re Fournier's value dropping if he comes off the bench.

Fournier is not a solid starter on a playoff team or have the potential to get to that place; he could certainly start and do very well on a team that can compensate for his defensive deficiencies - say someone like Duncan Robinson on Miami previous to this past year - but realistically most teams would not want to start someone like him. But put Fournier in the right role on a high level team - i.e. off the bench ala Tyler Herro on that same Miami team or Jordan Clark, Luke Kennard, Bogdan Bogdanović, etc. - then he flourishes.

Right role, maximize value.

Every other team in the NBA already KNOWS Fournier is not a starter, so why try to hide it (by starting him) cause you aren't; this ain't a secret. Put him in the right role.

Even though Fournier broke Starks three point record, it was a so-so season, based on his production with the Magic. As I pointed out earlier, not bouncing from team to team, coach to coach, might do wonders for his game. If an all star requests a trade that might help move up a round or two in the playoffs. Fournier playing well might make a deal more doable.

Agree with those who would like to see if Fournier can increase his trade value, in case a better option, might be available. Dont see the harm of waiting until the first trade deadline. It usually takes a month or two for vets to get their game going.
See what happens. Might have to give up fewer pick(s) in compensation.