GustavBahler wrote:Most posters liked the player, not the deal. RJ and IQ was a high price, we gave up a lot of production. But as I pointed out early on, it doesnt matter if the cost for OG was 2 good, young, players, and no picks. And the deal for another star is mostly about 1st rounders and some cap relief. Its the end result that matters, what the roster looks like after its been largely assembled, not how we got there.
I'd rather read a hot take from MS (or anyone else) than nothing but a lot of boring ass groupthink.
I think the key point is just to ignore what other people say and stay firmly committed to your views. Since before the season started I have been saying that the key for this team to improve is to get rid of RJ. In the post just previous I restated the point, yet you still consider RJ as part of the "high price" rather than realizing that including RJ vs EF's salary is likely the reason we had to give up a third mid level draft pick we don't have a roster spot for in a weak draft.
Not sure about "groupthink" comment. This site exists because it's a lot of independent thinkers taking time to develop arguments about the team they love rather than a single journalist and a bunch of comments.
Honestly, I am very happy to be wrong here. OG has been better than advertised, he's selfless, one of the smarter guys we've had an compliments guys like Hart, DDV much better than anyone we could have imagined, not to mention it keeps the ball in Brunsons hands (it's clear he is that guy)
RJ I had no problem moving, it had to happen if you're going to keep Randle, I thought IQ had another level to go and scorers aren't easy to find.
It's been beautiful to watch the ball moving, the cutting, the extra passes. Sometimes you just have too many guys to juggle and 2 for 1s open things up. I just hope they don't move Grimes, because he has another level to go.
OG is bigger and more impactful than I imagined. The issue isn't the player, it's what we gave up and whether we can replace it. Otherwise our ceiling is largely the same.
EwingsGlass wrote:
@Martin. I don’t make this request often. My last one was for the D’antoni Pringles guy. But given how OG has performed this last month and my absolute adoration for OG - stemming from an embarrassing affectation going on 2 years. Followed by my standing against the overwhelming crowd here that hated this trade. I would be grateful. No, indebted, if you could create an emoticon in honor of OG Anunoby that captures the above image. I respect the work you put into this site and don’t mean to ask for more. But… the crow. It is time to mark its place in immortality.
Will do it. Need a bit of time (I am overwhelmed on the personal side these days), and if I forgot, just nudge me a bit.
blkexec wrote:blkexec wrote:nycericanguy wrote:put it like this, trading for KP would have made us better than this while still keeping RJ & IQ.
If Leon had this decision again , knowing what he knows now, he pulls that KP trade.
Keep in mind Leon was a rookie GM learning on the job. I think Isiah Thomas was the last GM I remember coming on a job and making a huge controversial trade for Marbury. Leon is more conservative and calculated. He waits for the right time and I’m sure he sees some past mistakes.
With that said I think this is a nice deal. Knicks did not want either player. IQ too expensive and no starting role. RJ played his way off the team. OG is 30mil and RJ/IQ is well north of that. And these are two guards out the rotation. Plus too many damn left handed slashers on one team.
IQ hurts but there’s a lot of opportunities now to improve short term and still set up for a superstar trade.
Just looking at my earlier posts and glad I didn’t fall for MS trap on talking down about this trade. I thought it was good from the start. We got rid of two ball dominate players for one unselfish defender who can guard 5 positions.
MS………we all make mistakes. Fans don’t know everything. Look at me I said trade Randle instead of RJ and that was a mistake. Even though I may dislike his defense, Randle is an all star caliber player period. Glad the FO didn’t listen to me.
OG is playing himself into a valuable contract. Hope we can keep him and still add a superstar. Question………do we need a superstar? If we get burks for the bench and Mitch comes back, OG signs a new contract, why can’t we win a chip with this roster fully healthy plus burks / brogdon off the bench.
DDV is playing his role to perfection. Why do we need to move him to the bench? He’s not hurting us on defense and especially not on offense. Would D.Mitch make us better at this point? I have my doubts about that. DDV is a better defender. Both can score from all over.
To answer the bold I think he would help us greatly. D Mitch is the reason why the Cavs have improved even with the injuies they have. He took over the PG role and has thrived. All it would take is for us to stagger his minutes with Brunson and our 2nd unit shot makin/creation problem is over. His defense is also not as bad as advertised. How many years has he been on a top defensive team withe the Jazz and Cavs?
MS wrote:Honestly, I am very happy to be wrong here. OG has been better than advertised, he's selfless, one of the smarter guys we've had an compliments guys like Hart, DDV much better than anyone we could have imagined, not to mention it keeps the ball in Brunsons hands (it's clear he is that guy)RJ I had no problem moving, it had to happen if you're going to keep Randle, I thought IQ had another level to go and scorers aren't easy to find.
It's been beautiful to watch the ball moving, the cutting, the extra passes. Sometimes you just have too many guys to juggle and 2 for 1s open things up. I just hope they don't move Grimes, because he has another level to go.
All aboard the OG Bandwagon!!! The first class reservation section is open for your pleasure.
Any chance you can create a "Grimes has been so bad on Knicks bench" jinx thread?
They been chasing OG for like 2 years. The price was long established. Knicks had to pull the trigger on the deal or allow another team to get him.
Knicks signed DDV for just cap space with the idea that they would probably move IQ. Which effectively reduced the impact of losing IQ. Simultaneously OG is a far greater impact than RJ. The combination of DDV & OG with a sprinkle of Precious tilted the results.
DDV as a starter. 27gms, 24mins, 13.8pts, 3.5rebs, 2.6ast, 49/43/74% 668TS% 130Ortg 113Drtg
newyorknewyork wrote:They been chasing OG for like 2 years. The price was long established. Knicks had to pull the trigger on the deal or allow another team to get him. Knicks signed DDV for just cap space with the idea that they would probably move IQ. Which effectively reduced the impact of losing IQ. Simultaneously OG is a far greater impact than RJ. The combination of DDV & OG with a sprinkle of Precious tilted the results.
DDV as a starter. 27gms, 24mins, 13.8pts, 3.5rebs, 2.6ast, 49/43/74% 668TS% 130Ortg 113Drtg
DDV is such a good shooter while being low usage, zero sticky and a very very good cutter and passer too.
Exactly what Grimes, uh, should be. With a teensy less on ball defense.
GustavBahler wrote:Most posters liked the player, not the deal. RJ and IQ was a high price, we gave up a lot of production. But as I pointed out early on, it doesnt matter if the cost for OG was 2 good, young, players, and no picks. And the deal for another star is mostly about 1st rounders and some cap relief. Its the end result that matters, what the roster looks like after its been largely assembled, not how we got there.
I'd rather read a hot take from MS (or anyone else) than nothing but a lot of boring ass groupthink.
When a poster who is generally posts pessimistic/negative stuff .... proceeds to post pessimistic/negative stuff about a trade, is it really a hot take?
Also - just curious why you post here if you think this place is just a lot of boring ass groupthink?
nycericanguy wrote:OG is bigger and more impactful than I imagined. The issue isn't the player, it's what we gave up and whether we can replace it. Otherwise our ceiling is largely the same.
We struggled against all the top teams this year before the trade. We couldn't hang with any of them. We have beaten the crap out of all the top 3 teams in each conference we have played so far after the trade. Not a huge sample size, but it's hard to say our ceiling hasn't been raised. Our floor and our ceiling has been raised.
I think you are ignoring too much how this team was trending before the trade and focusing too much on how they played in the second half of last year instead. Different year, we weren't the same team.
Also, there is zero point of judging this team as if it's the finished product. We have a gazillion picks we will need to move. So even if the move was made to solidify a super important role next to Brunson and Randle, and in your mind was a lateral move (it's not), it allows us to build a much stronger team with another tweak or two. You have to build your team brick by brick and never in one swoop. If this was one step sideways it allows us to take two steps forward with another move.
This team would school the team that was giving up 130 a night though, there is no doubt about it.
DLeethal wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is bigger and more impactful than I imagined. The issue isn't the player, it's what we gave up and whether we can replace it. Otherwise our ceiling is largely the same.
We struggled against all the top teams this year before the trade. We couldn't hang with any of them. We have beaten the crap out of all the top 3 teams in each conference we have played so far after the trade. Not a huge sample size, but it's hard to say our ceiling hasn't been raised. Our floor and our ceiling has been raised.
I think you are ignoring too much how this team was trending before the trade and focusing too much on how they played in the second half of last year instead. Different year, we weren't the same team.
Also, there is zero point of judging this team as if it's the finished product. We have a gazillion picks we will need to move. So even if the move was made to solidify a super important role next to Brunson and Randle, and in your mind was a lateral move (it's not), it allows us to build a much stronger team with another tweak or two. You have to build your team brick by brick and never in one swoop. If this was one step sideways it allows us to take two steps forward with another move.
This team would school the team that was giving up 130 a night though, there is no doubt about it.
i get it but its a long season full of ebbs and flows and we were playing a brutal schedule. I doubt we would have been a bad defensive team all year.
I mean i've gone back and forth on the trade, OG has been better than expected so far defensively. and we probably signed DDV with the intention of moving IQ. so it's offset somewhat.
just waiting for that next move.
martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:They been chasing OG for like 2 years. The price was long established. Knicks had to pull the trigger on the deal or allow another team to get him. Knicks signed DDV for just cap space with the idea that they would probably move IQ. Which effectively reduced the impact of losing IQ. Simultaneously OG is a far greater impact than RJ. The combination of DDV & OG with a sprinkle of Precious tilted the results.
DDV as a starter. 27gms, 24mins, 13.8pts, 3.5rebs, 2.6ast, 49/43/74% 668TS% 130Ortg 113Drtg
DDV is such a good shooter while being low usage, zero sticky and a very very good cutter and passer too.
Exactly what Grimes, uh, should be. With a teensy less on ball defense.
The way they are looking to feature OG with that 2nd unit lineup. The more Hayward makes so much sense here.
And the more thought I've put into it the more I see Brogdon as the target we should obtain through trade. 31 Assist % with a 23% Usage 15pts in 28mins sounds about right in line for our needs.
This would still allow the Knicks to maintain the draft capital in this coming draft to be able to maneuver to attempt to land our own DM, DJM.(TYLER SMITH)
newyorknewyork wrote:martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:They been chasing OG for like 2 years. The price was long established. Knicks had to pull the trigger on the deal or allow another team to get him. Knicks signed DDV for just cap space with the idea that they would probably move IQ. Which effectively reduced the impact of losing IQ. Simultaneously OG is a far greater impact than RJ. The combination of DDV & OG with a sprinkle of Precious tilted the results.
DDV as a starter. 27gms, 24mins, 13.8pts, 3.5rebs, 2.6ast, 49/43/74% 668TS% 130Ortg 113Drtg
DDV is such a good shooter while being low usage, zero sticky and a very very good cutter and passer too.
Exactly what Grimes, uh, should be. With a teensy less on ball defense.
The way they are looking to feature OG with that 2nd unit lineup. The more Hayward makes so much sense here.
And the more thought I've put into it the more I see Brogdon as the target we should obtain through trade. 31 Assist % with a 23% Usage 15pts in 28mins sounds about right in line for our needs.
This would still allow the Knicks to maintain the draft capital in this coming draft to be able to maneuver to attempt to land our own DM, DJM.(TYLER SMITH)
Knicks are in a very good spot to make a ton of creative moves and still have a ton of other moves they can follow with.
Isn't this fantastic?
martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:martin wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:They been chasing OG for like 2 years. The price was long established. Knicks had to pull the trigger on the deal or allow another team to get him. Knicks signed DDV for just cap space with the idea that they would probably move IQ. Which effectively reduced the impact of losing IQ. Simultaneously OG is a far greater impact than RJ. The combination of DDV & OG with a sprinkle of Precious tilted the results.
DDV as a starter. 27gms, 24mins, 13.8pts, 3.5rebs, 2.6ast, 49/43/74% 668TS% 130Ortg 113Drtg
DDV is such a good shooter while being low usage, zero sticky and a very very good cutter and passer too.
Exactly what Grimes, uh, should be. With a teensy less on ball defense.
The way they are looking to feature OG with that 2nd unit lineup. The more Hayward makes so much sense here.
And the more thought I've put into it the more I see Brogdon as the target we should obtain through trade. 31 Assist % with a 23% Usage 15pts in 28mins sounds about right in line for our needs.
This would still allow the Knicks to maintain the draft capital in this coming draft to be able to maneuver to attempt to land our own DM, DJM.(TYLER SMITH)
Knicks are in a very good spot to make a ton of creative moves and still have a ton of other moves they can follow with.
Isn't this fantastic?
20+ years in the making my man!
Eager to see how Leon moves from a team building aspect. The DDV and then OG follow up has given me a lot of faith where I was questioning him previously.
foosballnick wrote:
GustavBahler wrote:Most posters liked the player, not the deal. RJ and IQ was a high price, we gave up a lot of production. But as I pointed out early on, it doesnt matter if the cost for OG was 2 good, young, players, and no picks. And the deal for another star is mostly about 1st rounders and some cap relief. Its the end result that matters, what the roster looks like after its been largely assembled, not how we got there.
I'd rather read a hot take from MS (or anyone else) than nothing but a lot of boring ass groupthink.
When a poster who is generally posts pessimistic/negative stuff .... proceeds to post pessimistic/negative stuff about a trade, is it really a hot take?
Also - just curious why you post here if you think this place is just a lot of boring ass groupthink?
Sometimes there is too much groupthink. Not always. Also curious as to why you dont talk hoops? This meta stuff is the only time I hear from you. That is boring as hell.
martin wrote:MS wrote:Honestly, I am very happy to be wrong here. OG has been better than advertised, he's selfless, one of the smarter guys we've had an compliments guys like Hart, DDV much better than anyone we could have imagined, not to mention it keeps the ball in Brunsons hands (it's clear he is that guy)RJ I had no problem moving, it had to happen if you're going to keep Randle, I thought IQ had another level to go and scorers aren't easy to find.
It's been beautiful to watch the ball moving, the cutting, the extra passes. Sometimes you just have too many guys to juggle and 2 for 1s open things up. I just hope they don't move Grimes, because he has another level to go.
All aboard the OG Bandwagon!!! The first class reservation section is open for your pleasure.
Any chance you can create a "Grimes has been so bad on Knicks bench" jinx thread?
I will be the first to serve MS some beers and chicken wings. Welcome aboard and enjoy the show.
“Groupthink” here - that’s funny
KnickDanger wrote:“Groupthink” here - that’s funny
Says the poster who cant handle even the slightest criticism of Randle. Thats been the bulk of your time here, calling out other posters with your Randle freakouts.
nycericanguy wrote:DLeethal wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is bigger and more impactful than I imagined. The issue isn't the player, it's what we gave up and whether we can replace it. Otherwise our ceiling is largely the same.
We struggled against all the top teams this year before the trade. We couldn't hang with any of them. We have beaten the crap out of all the top 3 teams in each conference we have played so far after the trade. Not a huge sample size, but it's hard to say our ceiling hasn't been raised. Our floor and our ceiling has been raised.
I think you are ignoring too much how this team was trending before the trade and focusing too much on how they played in the second half of last year instead. Different year, we weren't the same team.
Also, there is zero point of judging this team as if it's the finished product. We have a gazillion picks we will need to move. So even if the move was made to solidify a super important role next to Brunson and Randle, and in your mind was a lateral move (it's not), it allows us to build a much stronger team with another tweak or two. You have to build your team brick by brick and never in one swoop. If this was one step sideways it allows us to take two steps forward with another move.
This team would school the team that was giving up 130 a night though, there is no doubt about it.
i get it but its a long season full of ebbs and flows and we were playing a brutal schedule. I doubt we would have been a bad defensive team all year.
I mean i've gone back and forth on the trade, OG has been better than expected so far defensively. and we probably signed DDV with the intention of moving IQ. so it's offset somewhat.
just waiting for that next move.
Why would that team not have been bad all year? There was barely any defense in that rotation and Mitch was no longer there to clean it up. We ranked 19th the year before, we were trending to being a bottom 5 or bottom 3 defense before the trade. That stretch was not just a bad stretch by a decent defensive team. It was a historically bad stretch by a bad defensive team.
DLeethal wrote:nycericanguy wrote:DLeethal wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is bigger and more impactful than I imagined. The issue isn't the player, it's what we gave up and whether we can replace it. Otherwise our ceiling is largely the same.
We struggled against all the top teams this year before the trade. We couldn't hang with any of them. We have beaten the crap out of all the top 3 teams in each conference we have played so far after the trade. Not a huge sample size, but it's hard to say our ceiling hasn't been raised. Our floor and our ceiling has been raised.
I think you are ignoring too much how this team was trending before the trade and focusing too much on how they played in the second half of last year instead. Different year, we weren't the same team.
Also, there is zero point of judging this team as if it's the finished product. We have a gazillion picks we will need to move. So even if the move was made to solidify a super important role next to Brunson and Randle, and in your mind was a lateral move (it's not), it allows us to build a much stronger team with another tweak or two. You have to build your team brick by brick and never in one swoop. If this was one step sideways it allows us to take two steps forward with another move.
This team would school the team that was giving up 130 a night though, there is no doubt about it.
i get it but its a long season full of ebbs and flows and we were playing a brutal schedule. I doubt we would have been a bad defensive team all year.
I mean i've gone back and forth on the trade, OG has been better than expected so far defensively. and we probably signed DDV with the intention of moving IQ. so it's offset somewhat.
just waiting for that next move.
Why would that team not have been bad all year? There was barely any defense in that rotation and Mitch was no longer there to clean it up. We ranked 19th the year before, we were trending to being a bottom 5 or bottom 3 defense before the trade. That stretch was not just a bad stretch by a decent defensive team. It was a historically bad stretch by a bad defensive team.
because we have/had good defensive players and a good defensive coach.
we were top 10 in OFF/DEF most of last season and early on this season we well. The defense has definitely been inconsistent the past two years and had bad stretches but it wasn't for lack of personale.
but no question OG has transformed us there, he's been huge here. He wasn't having the same defensive impact in TOR this season.
I'm not against the trade or OG, we just need to fill some holes, if we trade for DJM everything makes a ton more sense and we can truly be a darkhorse IMO
