Knicks · How about a Gordon Hayward trade? (page 2)

fishmike wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:You forgot to add that he doesn't like D. So, 32 y/o, no d playing, always injured. Exactly what we need

Not sure where you get the no defense part. He plays decent defense. Charlotte is at their best defensively with him on the floor. He’s not great but at least league average.

Fournier is also about league average at D. And shoots just as well from the outside if not better. Maybe we should just trade for Fournier to improve our bench? He is more durable too.

Most would disagree with you about Fournier being league average on D. Fournier and Hayward are worlds apart defensively.

I was being more sarcastic than serious. If Hayward is really that much better perhaps we should trade for him. Trade Fournier for him.

You are not wrong ... saying Hayward is a solid defender is like saying Chris Paul is. Yeah, when they were like 27. Those days are over. I suggested Hayward earlier this year but he's just not healthy. You are a getting a broken player and for the fit you might as well play Fournier.

I don’t have the numbers off hand but Charlotte is much better defensively with Hayward on the court this year. Small sample size, bad team, whatever. It’s something that will never be said about Fournier. He’s not what he once was but he can play on this team and there not be a falloff defensively when he’s on the floor.

If he was a free agent, and was willing to come off the bench. For a lot less than he's making now, sure. Too expensive for anything else, at this stage in his career IMO. For the Knicks anyway.

GustavBahler wrote:If he was a free agent, and was willing to come off the bench. For a lot less than he's making now, sure. Too expensive for anything else, at this stage in his career IMO. For the Knicks anyway.

What’s the money really matter ? It’s for 1 full remaining year and the Knicks have no way of being an under the cap team this year (unless they completely change course) so the money is irrelevant. It’s not our pockets. It is just replacing the Fournier and Rose salaries really.

Knixkik wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:If he was a free agent, and was willing to come off the bench. For a lot less than he's making now, sure. Too expensive for anything else, at this stage in his career IMO. For the Knicks anyway.

What’s the money really matter ? It’s for 1 full remaining year and the Knicks have no way of being an under the cap team this year (unless they completely change course) so the money is irrelevant. It’s not our pockets. It is just replacing the Fournier and Rose salaries really.

It's similar to the Cam trade. Thibs is happy with his rotation so it doesn't make sense to trade for guys that won't play.