joec32033 wrote:How Good is OG? He is basically what everyone wants Grimes to become. He is a developed (25 year old) Grimes (22).
With 6 more inches of wingspan and the ability to slot Barrett back to SG where he has a comparative advantage.
martin wrote:Nalod wrote:BRIGGS wrote:hes so good Toronto wants to trade him 
Great post!!!!!
The issue I see it is that he has less of a role and yet will command a rather sizable price that Raptors might feel is best put to use elsewhere.
We will have this come up with IQ at some point. He might be “indispensable” today, he could be “expendable” should knicks make a trade. Very likely he could be part of the trade.
I like him with RJ,, Randle and JB. Grimes off the bench still can play a big part of this team. If he can take minutes from RJ, and replace him that makes RJ a great trade chip. I prefer both excel and make it hard. Means team succeeds and trade values up!
Briggs has a point. Issue is they are stacked with yoot and need to make a deal.
It's also what happens when you lose the locker room AND are losing and have guys who all want the ball more.
They have no less than 4-5 guys who are gunning for their next contract over the next 2 years - Trent, FVV this coming summer and Siakam, OG next (not to mention Achiuwa, Flynn too) and you have Barnes who was the next big thing who wasn't traded for Durant needing and wanting the ball too.
That whole starting lineup wants the ball MORE to show for their next contract. It's a recipe for disaster and they are managing their way thru it.
Barnett is taking his job because he is the better passer. Forces them to move Barnett to PF and Siakam to C to get them minutes.
EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:How Good is OG? He is basically what everyone wants Grimes to become. He is a developed (25 year old) Grimes (22).
With 6 more inches of wingspan and the ability to slot Barrett back to SG where he has a comparative advantage.
Depending where you look Grimes is 6-4 or 6-5 at 210 with a 6-7.75 wingspan at 22.
Depending on where you look OG is 6-8 at 232 with a 7-2 wingspan.
Would you prefer I said a bigger version of what you want Grimes to be? My statement still hold true regardless of size.
Putting Barrett back at SG exposes his lack of speed and handle and lack of a post game.. I liked Barrett as a 2 also, but it will hinder him
joec32033 wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:How Good is OG? He is basically what everyone wants Grimes to become. He is a developed (25 year old) Grimes (22).
With 6 more inches of wingspan and the ability to slot Barrett back to SG where he has a comparative advantage.
Depending where you look Grimes is 6-4 or 6-5 at 210 with a 6-7.75 wingspan at 22.
Depending on where you look OG is 6-8 at 232 with a 7-2 wingspan.
Would you prefer I said a bigger version of what you want Grimes to be? My statement still hold true regardless of size.
Putting Barrett back at SG exposes his lack of speed and handle and lack of a post game.. I liked Barrett as a 2 also, but it will hinder him
We aren't really arguing over what we want Grimes to be, but that 6 inches is valuable. I highly value length in my analysis.
Re Barrett. He gives up a little size at SF and a little speed at SG. Nothing drastic. He has solid fundamentals and footwork that makes up a bit for pure athleticism. So, he can get to paint regardless who is guarding but not to the hoop before the help shows up. I do think he has a post up game and he uses it when smaller guards are switched on him. This would actually enable that aspect of his game more.
joec32033 wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:How Good is OG? He is basically what everyone wants Grimes to become. He is a developed (25 year old) Grimes (22).
With 6 more inches of wingspan and the ability to slot Barrett back to SG where he has a comparative advantage.
Depending where you look Grimes is 6-4 or 6-5 at 210 with a 6-7.75 wingspan at 22.
Depending on where you look OG is 6-8 at 232 with a 7-2 wingspan.
Would you prefer I said a bigger version of what you want Grimes to be? My statement still hold true regardless of size.
Putting Barrett back at SG exposes his lack of speed and handle and lack of a post game.. I liked Barrett as a 2 also, but it will hinder him
It boggles me that more people wouldn't envision RJ off the bench. IMHO it's perfect for him. He is already the guy running with the bench unit, he should be the main focus and he is still struggling with it or at least not super exceeding with that crew although injury and etc etc.
I don't get why the Knicks wouldn't love that scenario - RJ is the type of ego that could probably handle it IMO
I've seen lots complain about the usage of Randle, RJ, Brunson and I kinda agree with it. Move RJ to come off bench and that alleviates some of that.
And when you have Mitch, Randle, OG, Grimes, Brunson and let Randle/Brunson cook for the first quarter, you get lots of defense to slow down other team with MORE spacing cause OG is a much better distance shooter than RJ and it opens up the middle more for Randle/Brunson.
martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:How Good is OG? He is basically what everyone wants Grimes to become. He is a developed (25 year old) Grimes (22).
With 6 more inches of wingspan and the ability to slot Barrett back to SG where he has a comparative advantage.
Depending where you look Grimes is 6-4 or 6-5 at 210 with a 6-7.75 wingspan at 22.
Depending on where you look OG is 6-8 at 232 with a 7-2 wingspan.
Would you prefer I said a bigger version of what you want Grimes to be? My statement still hold true regardless of size.
Putting Barrett back at SG exposes his lack of speed and handle and lack of a post game.. I liked Barrett as a 2 also, but it will hinder him
It boggles me that more people wouldn't envision RJ off the bench. IMHO it's perfect for him. He is already the guy running with the bench unit, he should be the main focus and he is still struggling with is or at least not super exceeding with that crew although injury and etc etc.
I don't get why the Knicks wouldn't love that scenario - RJ is the type of ego that could probably handle it IMO
I've seen lots complain about the usage of Randle, RJ, Brunson and I kinda agree with it. Move RJ to come off bench and that alleviates some of that.
And when you have Mitch, Randle, OG, Grimes, Brunson and let Randle/Brunson cook for the first quarter, you get lots of defense to slow down other team with MORE spacing cause OG is a much better distance shooter than RJ and it's open up the middle more for Randle/Brunson.
My issue with OG is that you lose a bit from a ball handling, creation standpoint with him in the starting lineup. He's a role player. I'd probably do the trade if it's reasonable, but realistically he's the piece you add if you're close. Also, his future salary could be a problem. Is $30M per really that unrealistic? I think you're looking at least $25M.
I would think we would be moving RJ in a deal for OG.
Barrett is very MEH to me — gets his points but impacts the game little in other areas and his D is mediocre at best.
Not a big OG fan but I do think he’s a better fit with Brunson/Randle and would up our D considerably.
If we were able to run out OG, Grimes, Mitch - that’s 3 legit defenders in starting.ending unit.
joec32033 wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:How Good is OG? He is basically what everyone wants Grimes to become. He is a developed (25 year old) Grimes (22).
With 6 more inches of wingspan and the ability to slot Barrett back to SG where he has a comparative advantage.
Depending where you look Grimes is 6-4 or 6-5 at 210 with a 6-7.75 wingspan at 22.
Depending on where you look OG is 6-8 at 232 with a 7-2 wingspan.
Would you prefer I said a bigger version of what you want Grimes to be? My statement still hold true regardless of size.
Putting Barrett back at SG exposes his lack of speed and handle and lack of a post game.. I liked Barrett as a 2 also, but it will hinder him
totally disagree.. his best season was playing SG with Reggie at the 3. His size helps him much more than his lack of speed hurts him. At SG he's a load and very hard to deal with and gets to the rim constantly. At SF he's just very average
BigDaddyG wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:How Good is OG? He is basically what everyone wants Grimes to become. He is a developed (25 year old) Grimes (22).
With 6 more inches of wingspan and the ability to slot Barrett back to SG where he has a comparative advantage.
Depending where you look Grimes is 6-4 or 6-5 at 210 with a 6-7.75 wingspan at 22.
Depending on where you look OG is 6-8 at 232 with a 7-2 wingspan.
Would you prefer I said a bigger version of what you want Grimes to be? My statement still hold true regardless of size.
Putting Barrett back at SG exposes his lack of speed and handle and lack of a post game.. I liked Barrett as a 2 also, but it will hinder him
It boggles me that more people wouldn't envision RJ off the bench. IMHO it's perfect for him. He is already the guy running with the bench unit, he should be the main focus and he is still struggling with is or at least not super exceeding with that crew although injury and etc etc.
I don't get why the Knicks wouldn't love that scenario - RJ is the type of ego that could probably handle it IMO
I've seen lots complain about the usage of Randle, RJ, Brunson and I kinda agree with it. Move RJ to come off bench and that alleviates some of that.
And when you have Mitch, Randle, OG, Grimes, Brunson and let Randle/Brunson cook for the first quarter, you get lots of defense to slow down other team with MORE spacing cause OG is a much better distance shooter than RJ and it's open up the middle more for Randle/Brunson.
My issue with OG is that you lose a bit from a ball handling, creation standpoint with him in the starting lineup. He's a role player. I'd probably do the trade if it's reasonable, but realistically he's the piece you add if you're close. Also, his future salary could be a problem. Is $30M per really that unrealistic? I think you're looking at least $25M.
Ball handling and creation is a strong point for RJ? For me it's his weakness, he sucks at both. IMHO team is not looking for either from OG.
I really don't know OG the player well but he is an elite defender who can also hit the 3pt shot. High level role player.
I feel like Wiggins in GS is better than OG in a lot of respects. He extended starting at $25M recently but maybe that is also to stay within that organization, so hometown discount perhaps. I thought that was a pretty good deal considering the upcoming salary cap numbers in a few years. Don't know if that represents the market or what OG would want.
For me, playing Obi and Randle together would never really work. Maybe it's good in stretches but only from an offensive standpoint.
A lineup of Randle, OG, RJ, Grimes and IQ/Brunson? That works better IMHO. You can go small and still have defenders all around.
This is a snapshot of what we would all see with Obi and Randle playing together:
So we don't really know how good OG really is, and the question about RJ at 22 is what he is, or will be?
Because FO knows about OG, and there is a projection about RJ.
All comments are pretty accurate about him except one thing. Inconsistency. He sucks at that. He can score, he can pass, he can create, he can rebound, he has defended the better players often, and he has been clutch.
Can he tie it all together more consistently at age 22? Time has the answer.
Im not trading RJ for OG. I might be wrong, and it would not be the first time. Im doing the fan perspective exercising patience.
martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:How Good is OG? He is basically what everyone wants Grimes to become. He is a developed (25 year old) Grimes (22).
With 6 more inches of wingspan and the ability to slot Barrett back to SG where he has a comparative advantage.
Depending where you look Grimes is 6-4 or 6-5 at 210 with a 6-7.75 wingspan at 22.
Depending on where you look OG is 6-8 at 232 with a 7-2 wingspan.
Would you prefer I said a bigger version of what you want Grimes to be? My statement still hold true regardless of size.
Putting Barrett back at SG exposes his lack of speed and handle and lack of a post game.. I liked Barrett as a 2 also, but it will hinder him
It boggles me that more people wouldn't envision RJ off the bench. IMHO it's perfect for him. He is already the guy running with the bench unit, he should be the main focus and he is still struggling with it or at least not super exceeding with that crew although injury and etc etc.
I don't get why the Knicks wouldn't love that scenario - RJ is the type of ego that could probably handle it IMO
I've seen lots complain about the usage of Randle, RJ, Brunson and I kinda agree with it. Move RJ to come off bench and that alleviates some of that.
And when you have Mitch, Randle, OG, Grimes, Brunson and let Randle/Brunson cook for the first quarter, you get lots of defense to slow down other team with MORE spacing cause OG is a much better distance shooter than RJ and it opens up the middle more for Randle/Brunson.
You know I like Barrett alot. I really think putting him on the bench is an issue. I would prefer to play him at the 2 and do what Thibs does by overlapping him into the second unit if they get OG. I really think you need to ride out his early years. The guy is still only 22. He doesn't even start to enter his prime for another 3 years. I think OG is a nice piece but I think he is what people are hoping Grimes develops into. And Grimes is another one that is only 22.
I think you upgrade the bench (I think it is more cost effective, you can probably get 2 maybe 3 pieces instead of one) let your youth learn and keep your assets.
fishmike wrote:joec32033 wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:How Good is OG? He is basically what everyone wants Grimes to become. He is a developed (25 year old) Grimes (22).
With 6 more inches of wingspan and the ability to slot Barrett back to SG where he has a comparative advantage.
Depending where you look Grimes is 6-4 or 6-5 at 210 with a 6-7.75 wingspan at 22.
Depending on where you look OG is 6-8 at 232 with a 7-2 wingspan.
Would you prefer I said a bigger version of what you want Grimes to be? My statement still hold true regardless of size.
Putting Barrett back at SG exposes his lack of speed and handle and lack of a post game.. I liked Barrett as a 2 also, but it will hinder him
totally disagree.. his best season was playing SG with Reggie at the 3. His size helps him much more than his lack of speed hurts him. At SG he's a load and very hard to deal with and gets to the rim constantly. At SF he's just very average
May be true...I usedntoblove him at the 2, but I think his game style is veering more toward a 3, imo. But I also can't say you are wrong...
martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:How Good is OG? He is basically what everyone wants Grimes to become. He is a developed (25 year old) Grimes (22).
With 6 more inches of wingspan and the ability to slot Barrett back to SG where he has a comparative advantage.
Depending where you look Grimes is 6-4 or 6-5 at 210 with a 6-7.75 wingspan at 22.
Depending on where you look OG is 6-8 at 232 with a 7-2 wingspan.
Would you prefer I said a bigger version of what you want Grimes to be? My statement still hold true regardless of size.
Putting Barrett back at SG exposes his lack of speed and handle and lack of a post game.. I liked Barrett as a 2 also, but it will hinder him
It boggles me that more people wouldn't envision RJ off the bench. IMHO it's perfect for him. He is already the guy running with the bench unit, he should be the main focus and he is still struggling with it or at least not super exceeding with that crew although injury and etc etc.
I don't get why the Knicks wouldn't love that scenario - RJ is the type of ego that could probably handle it IMO
I've seen lots complain about the usage of Randle, RJ, Brunson and I kinda agree with it. Move RJ to come off bench and that alleviates some of that.
And when you have Mitch, Randle, OG, Grimes, Brunson and let Randle/Brunson cook for the first quarter, you get lots of defense to slow down other team with MORE spacing cause OG is a much better distance shooter than RJ and it opens up the middle more for Randle/Brunson.
You know I like Barrett alot. I really think putting him on the bench is an issue. I would prefer to play him at the 2 and do what Thibs does by overlapping him into the second unit if they get OG. I really think you need to ride out his early years. The guy is still only 22. He doesn't even start to enter his prime for another 3 years. I think OG is a nice piece but I think he is what people are hoping Grimes develops into. And Grimes is another one that is only 22.
I think you upgrade the bench (I think it is more cost effective, you can probably get 2 maybe 3 pieces instead of one) let your youth learn and keep your assets.
What's the issue?
I think part of it is a mental thing. I also think putting him on the bench hurts his value and will impede his development. I don't think OG is that much better as an overall player, he is older, and he gets hurt alot.
martin wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:How Good is OG? He is basically what everyone wants Grimes to become. He is a developed (25 year old) Grimes (22).
With 6 more inches of wingspan and the ability to slot Barrett back to SG where he has a comparative advantage.
Depending where you look Grimes is 6-4 or 6-5 at 210 with a 6-7.75 wingspan at 22.
Depending on where you look OG is 6-8 at 232 with a 7-2 wingspan.
Would you prefer I said a bigger version of what you want Grimes to be? My statement still hold true regardless of size.
Putting Barrett back at SG exposes his lack of speed and handle and lack of a post game.. I liked Barrett as a 2 also, but it will hinder him
It boggles me that more people wouldn't envision RJ off the bench. IMHO it's perfect for him. He is already the guy running with the bench unit, he should be the main focus and he is still struggling with is or at least not super exceeding with that crew although injury and etc etc.
I don't get why the Knicks wouldn't love that scenario - RJ is the type of ego that could probably handle it IMO
I've seen lots complain about the usage of Randle, RJ, Brunson and I kinda agree with it. Move RJ to come off bench and that alleviates some of that.
And when you have Mitch, Randle, OG, Grimes, Brunson and let Randle/Brunson cook for the first quarter, you get lots of defense to slow down other team with MORE spacing cause OG is a much better distance shooter than RJ and it's open up the middle more for Randle/Brunson.
My issue with OG is that you lose a bit from a ball handling, creation standpoint with him in the starting lineup. He's a role player. I'd probably do the trade if it's reasonable, but realistically he's the piece you add if you're close. Also, his future salary could be a problem. Is $30M per really that unrealistic? I think you're looking at least $25M.
Ball handling and creation is a strong point for RJ? For me it's his weakness, he sucks at both. IMHO team is not looking for either from OG.
I really don't know OG the player well but he is an elite defender who can also hit the 3pt shot. High level role player.
I feel like Wiggins in GS is better than OG in a lot of respects. He extended starting at $25M recently but maybe that is also to stay within that organization, so hometown discount perhaps. I thought that was a pretty good deal considering the upcoming salary cap numbers in a few years. Don't know if that represents the market or what OG would want.
I see it as developing part of RJs. He has nos issue going down hill and getting into the paint. The creation part is... Let's say spotty. But I do see small improvements. Things get adventurous when OG takes more than three dribbles.
What I'm trying to say is I don't want to see more point Randle in the lineup! Do with that what you will.
IQ seems to be developing off the bench quite nicely. RJ can't do the same?
martin wrote:IQ seems to be developing off the bench quite nicely. RJ can't do the same?
I wouldn't have a problem with it personally, but the optics are a little different when you make $26M a year. RJ is making small improvements and is creeping toward league average metrics for a wing. Let's hope he keeps improving to the point where it stops becoming an issue, one way or the other.
BigDaddyG wrote:martin wrote:IQ seems to be developing off the bench quite nicely. RJ can't do the same?
I wouldn't have a problem with it personally, but the optics are a little different when you make $26M a year. RJ is making small improvements and is creeping toward league average metrics for a wing. Let's hope he keeps improving to the point where it stops becoming an issue, one way or the other.
My personal opinion about RJ aside, I think it would actually HELP his development. He would literally be the focus of a unit without Randle mucking things up.
I actually think RJ is the one guy who would be an ideal candidate in terms of optics. He wouldn't like it of course but he is a good soldier type. And he has his contract, so he can't really do much about it.
It gets him more with IQ, Deuce, RJ, ?, Hart. Lots more space to work with.
