Knicks · Proposed trade of Jarred Vanderbilt, Malik Beasley For Toppin and Fournier and a pick (page 2)

Knixkik wrote:

MS wrote:That trade is awful. Giving up two picks for those guys.

Buddy Hield for Reddish, Fournier, 1st
Caruso for Rose, Reddish, 1st and a low level second

Small upgrades only right now.

I think Caruso would help Obis game.

Honestly all we are missing is one more consistent scorer which hield would give the team.

I would absolutely do reddish and a first for Caruso. Rose and reddish is too much salary.

I dont get how anyone would give up a first for Caruso.

Think in terms of giving up Reddish and a future IQ/Grimes/Deuce under 4 years of contract control and maybe the trade becomes more highlighted.

He has 2 more years around $10M. Injured a lot. Barely scores 5ppg over the past 3-4 years.

What is this Caruso doing that Deuce isn't or can't do starting next year?

fishmike wrote:why would we send out the better talent AND draft comp?

Because Beasley's contract is a team option for next year. If Knicks also don't pick up D Rose's option they would have about 20 million in cap space before accounting for draft picks.

gradyandrew wrote:

fishmike wrote:why would we send out the better talent AND draft comp?

Because Beasley's contract is a team option for next year. If Knicks also don't pick up D Rose's option they would have about 20 million in cap space before accounting for draft picks.

But he’s a winning player. Deuce is a work in progress and is having a nice season. Reddish doesn’t impact games and we gave up a first for him.

Hield is the preferred grab as we need some balls come playoff time.

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

MS wrote:That trade is awful. Giving up two picks for those guys.

Buddy Hield for Reddish, Fournier, 1st
Caruso for Rose, Reddish, 1st and a low level second

Small upgrades only right now.

I think Caruso would help Obis game.

Honestly all we are missing is one more consistent scorer which hield would give the team.

I would absolutely do reddish and a first for Caruso. Rose and reddish is too much salary.

I dont get how anyone would give up a first for Caruso.

Think in terms of giving up Reddish and a future IQ/Grimes/Deuce under 4 years of contract control and maybe the trade becomes more highlighted.

He has 2 more years around $10M. Injured a lot. Barely scores 5ppg over the past 3-4 years.

What is this Caruso doing that Deuce isn't or can't do starting next year?

I see him as a player who fits perfectly and is the ultimate glue guy. Worth more than a protected pick to this team.

As far as what he does that Deuce doesn’t, he’s a proven outside shooter, can offer a little playmaking that deuce doesn’t, and is arguably the best defensive guard in the league. It’s just an upgrade in all facets. Statistically I get the hesitation but I still think he’s a significant upgrade.

Deuce could be an awesome player here long term. But his best case scenario is sort of what Caruso does now. But otherwise I’m fine sticking with Deuce if the shooting keeps improving.

MS wrote:He’s taller, is a play maker, ignites offense, the defensive number on Caruso are special. Obviously we need offense.

But he’s a winning player. Deuce is a work in progress and is having a nice season. Reddish doesn’t impact games and we gave up a first for him.

Hield is the preferred grab as we need some balls come playoff time.

All Caruso will do is take time away from IQ/Deuce but we want to give up a 1st for him to take away dev minutes from those 2? Cause that's what it would be.

This is a zero sum game and Caruso doesn't add much when you already have lower cost guys doing what amounts to the same thing. And those guys - Deuce and IQ - keep getting better and we don't want to block that cause you would be doing so.

Let's add a 29yo who is constantly injured and will block minutes from young players and has a not good contract while giving away a pick?

Who invited Steve Mills back?

martin wrote:

MS wrote:He’s taller, is a play maker, ignites offense, the defensive number on Caruso are special. Obviously we need offense.

But he’s a winning player. Deuce is a work in progress and is having a nice season. Reddish doesn’t impact games and we gave up a first for him.

Hield is the preferred grab as we need some balls come playoff time.

All Caruso will do is take time away from IQ/Deuce but we want to give up a 1st for him to take away dev minutes from those 2? Cause that's what it would be.

This is a zero sum game and Caruso doesn't add much when you already have lower cost guys doing what amounts to the same thing. And those guys - Deuce and IQ - keep getting better and we don't want to block that cause you would be doing so.

Let's add a 29yo who is constantly injured and will block minutes from young players and has a not good contract while giving away a pick?

Who invited Steve Mills back?

gradyandrew wrote:

fishmike wrote:why would we send out the better talent AND draft comp?

Because Beasley's contract is a team option for next year. If Knicks also don't pick up D Rose's option they would have about 20 million in cap space before accounting for draft picks.

Yeah, but this is shaping up to be the worst year to have cap space and Evan's deal will be done the year after anyway. But I will say, even if you think Obi is the better talent, Vanderbilt is the better fit. At this point, both project as reserve players and I would be open to a straight up deal.

MS wrote:is a play maker, ignites offense.

Wait.

Hold up.

How is he a "Playmaker" and "ignites offense" when he's 29 years old with a career average of only 6.1 Points per game, only 2.8 assists per game and grab an offensive rebound to save his life (0.5)?

Please.

So now we're considering 29 year olds with career averages of 6.1 Points/2.8 Assists as Playmakers who ignite offenses?

He's the complete opposite of an NBA Playmaker has never been able to ignite NBA offenses.

He's a former undrafted no namer who I'd never even trade away a 2nd round pick for.

Mitchell Robinsons numbers aren’t special but look at the impact.

Igniting offense through defense. Look at the defensive numbers on the kid. I understand the Deuce argument, but Caruso also guards multiple positions. We are thinking about 3 1st rounders and Obi for OG?

From an asset level perspective the give is not that great if it’s a conditional protected first.

MS wrote:He ranks seventh in the league in steals per game with 1.7, despite playing just 24 minutes per game. He is also first in FiveThirtyEight's defensive RAPTOR rating with a +5.3.

Mitchell Robinsons numbers aren’t special but look at the impact.

Igniting offense through defense. Look at the defensive numbers on the kid. I understand the Deuce argument, but Caruso also guards multiple positions. We are thinking about 3 1st rounders and Obi for OG?

From an asset level perspective the give is not that great if it’s a conditional protected first.

martin wrote:

MS wrote:He’s taller, is a play maker, ignites offense, the defensive number on Caruso are special. Obviously we need offense.

But he’s a winning player. Deuce is a work in progress and is having a nice season. Reddish doesn’t impact games and we gave up a first for him.

Hield is the preferred grab as we need some balls come playoff time.

All Caruso will do is take time away from IQ/Deuce but we want to give up a 1st for him to take away dev minutes from those 2? Cause that's what it would be.

This is a zero sum game and Caruso doesn't add much when you already have lower cost guys doing what amounts to the same thing. And those guys - Deuce and IQ - keep getting better and we don't want to block that cause you would be doing so.

Let's add a 29yo who is constantly injured and will block minutes from young players and has a not good contract while giving away a pick?

Who invited Steve Mills back?

I figured he would replace Deuce and help bring Barrett/ Grimes minutes down so they aren’t playing 40+ a night. That was my perspective. Maybe you’re right he’s not worth it. But I just really like him for this team. If u don’t get an upgrade somewhere than Barrett, grimes, Brunson are all playing 40+ minutes a game the rest of the way.

fishmike wrote:

MS wrote:He ranks seventh in the league in steals per game with 1.7, despite playing just 24 minutes per game. He is also first in FiveThirtyEight's defensive RAPTOR rating with a +5.3.

Mitchell Robinsons numbers aren’t special but look at the impact.

Igniting offense through defense. Look at the defensive numbers on the kid. I understand the Deuce argument, but Caruso also guards multiple positions. We are thinking about 3 1st rounders and Obi for OG?

From an asset level perspective the give is not that great if it’s a conditional protected first.

no. He's 100% a role player and you simply NEVER trade first rounder no matter the protection for role players unless that's the final piece. When we are having trouble winning a chip or keep losing in 6 games in the conference finals talk to me about tweaks.

Beasley is a nut job and i wouldn't risk team chemistry even if a team gave him to us for free

Probably being shortsighted but i see Vanderbilt and Caruso as obtainable literally every draft if you want them. Team has to decide whether they want to gamble on a guy who might be special (what most teams do) or pick a guy who is solid at a couple of important but unsexy things

if we want those guys, draft them

Knixkik wrote:Would you guys do Toppin and the 2024 Detroit 2nd for Vanderbilt ? I understand the hesitation on moving Toppin. Vanderbilt is younger, better player and better fit. And it doesn’t cost a 1st.

I'd say do it straight up (without knowing the salary match). I'd hesitate giving up a second given Vanderbilt's free agency status. But the vultures are circling, so it might take a second or a protected pick, preferably the Detroit one.

Chandler wrote:not excited about Vanderbilt Beasley or Caruso

Beasley is a nut job and i wouldn't risk team chemistry even if a team gave him to us for free

Probably being shortsighted but i see Vanderbilt and Caruso as obtainable literally every draft if you want them. Team has to decide whether they want to gamble on a guy who might be special (what most teams do) or pick a guy who is solid at a couple of important but unsexy things

if we want those guys, draft them

KnickDanger wrote:

Chandler wrote:not excited about Vanderbilt Beasley or Caruso

Beasley is a nut job and i wouldn't risk team chemistry even if a team gave him to us for free

Probably being shortsighted but i see Vanderbilt and Caruso as obtainable literally every draft if you want them. Team has to decide whether they want to gamble on a guy who might be special (what most teams do) or pick a guy who is solid at a couple of important but unsexy things

if we want those guys, draft them

If these guys were on the Knicks you know how they'd be seen.

i'm sure we would like vanderbilt and caruso. the issue is why give up the assets. Guys like that are in every draft, and will be on rookie deals

Chandler wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

Chandler wrote:not excited about Vanderbilt Beasley or Caruso

Beasley is a nut job and i wouldn't risk team chemistry even if a team gave him to us for free

Probably being shortsighted but i see Vanderbilt and Caruso as obtainable literally every draft if you want them. Team has to decide whether they want to gamble on a guy who might be special (what most teams do) or pick a guy who is solid at a couple of important but unsexy things

if we want those guys, draft them

If these guys were on the Knicks you know how they'd be seen.

i'm sure we would like vanderbilt and caruso. the issue is why give up the assets. Guys like that are in every draft, and will be on rookie deals

Im with you... no reason to give up picks for guys we can get with picks. We arent winning a title this year. The realistic goals should all be player development driven

Giving away Obi because the coach doesn’t know what to do which him will prove to be a huge mistake. He’s going to dine elsewhere.