Rookie wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:Rookie wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:DLeethal wrote:Rookie wrote:We need a starting SG. Wouldn’t be surprised if we made a smaller move on a b/u center
Based on Thibs comments I think Precious was coveted for that role.
7'2"wingspan
Dang. Also - quick first step, explosive athlete. We gonna like this guy.
Can he shoot ?
Looks like he’s more of a fast break energy guy. Not the guy you want firing away from 3
Yea and Thibs said he's a really good offensive rebounder, something he has really built our offense around the last couple years via Mitch.
I feel like Murray as our next big move caps us below championship level. I think Donovan and potentially Lavine give us a legit chance when Mitch is healthy. Don't think Murray does and I'm not sure where we get better from there.
That said, I would probably still make the move, because you can always include someone like Murray in a bigger trade.
Murray also catapults our defense to top level I think.
There is no perfect trade out there. Even if we got lucky and stole Spida, I'm not sure he fits with Brunson in the backcourt.
Murray isn't nearly as good as Spida but he might be a better fit next to Brunson. Better defensively and can also score 20. I don't like the contract but you can always flip it in a year or two. I'm not sure Fournier, Grimes and 3-5 picks are enough. I guess it depends what direction Landry Fields wants to go with. Cause making that trade kind of signals a rebuild and you still have that goof Trae Young, Capela and Bogdanovic making a lot of money.
We could probably get Brogdan for that package and he would help replace IQ's role off the bench but he wouldn't make us title contenders but would probably put us back in a playoff spot.
SergioNYK wrote:There is no perfect trade out there. Even if we got lucky and stole Spida, I'm not sure he fits with Brunson in the backcourt. Murray isn't nearly as good as Spida but he might be a better fit next to Brunson. Better defensively and can also score 20. I don't like the contract but you can always flip it in a year or two. I'm not sure Fournier, Grimes and 3-5 picks are enough. I guess it depends what direction Landry Fields wants to go with. Cause making that trade kind of signals a rebuild and you still have that goof Trae Young, Capela and Bogdanovic making a lot of money.
We could probably get Brogdan for that package and he would help replace IQ's role off the bench but he wouldn't make us title contenders but would probably put us back in a playoff spot.
No perfect trades is a fact. D Mitchell isn't a good fit for Brunson. We have options which is good. I saw another poster mention Grant from Portland for the 3 with OG at the 2. Reminded me of when Mills said a few weeks ago that the team should get bigger and play RJ at the 2. Maybe we get another long wing who can shoot and defend. What about DeAndre Hunter for a more economical trade, and we get Hunter for a first and Grimes/Fournier. Go Heart,Randall, Hunter/Grant,OG,Brunson. Bench DDV, Deuce, Simms, Precious, Taj, Hart. Still can trade for a center to play with Heart in tandem.
Honestly, maybe Grimes or DDV can fill the role. They just need consistent shots.
I just have a hard time giving a guy $40 fucking million dollars that can’t rebound, isn’t an elite scorer. We could have just found a way to get Dillion Brooks if we needed that.
SergioNYK wrote:There is no perfect trade out there. Even if we got lucky and stole Spida, I'm not sure he fits with Brunson in the backcourt. Murray isn't nearly as good as Spida but he might be a better fit next to Brunson. Better defensively and can also score 20. I don't like the contract but you can always flip it in a year or two. I'm not sure Fournier, Grimes and 3-5 picks are enough. I guess it depends what direction Landry Fields wants to go with. Cause making that trade kind of signals a rebuild and you still have that goof Trae Young, Capela and Bogdanovic making a lot of money.
We could probably get Brogdan for that package and he would help replace IQ's role off the bench but he wouldn't make us title contenders but would probably put us back in a playoff spot.
I feel much better about a Brunson/Mitchell backcourt with OG at the wing now. It can work now IMO.
Mitchell is probably more used to playing next to a 20+ppg PG than any elite scoring SG in the league. He's done it his whole career on 50-60 win teams.
Rookie wrote:We need a starting SG. Wouldn’t be surprised if we made a smaller move on a b/u center
SG is my guess.
Due to MR injury....John Collins?
I think we need to be careful about just going after another scorer. Only one ball to go around with Brunson and Randle as well. Getting OG fills in a huge need. He’s a two way player might not be the scorer Mitchell is but on the other hand Mitchell can’t defend. I think the rise of Brunson as a legit scorer helps too
DLeethal wrote:SergioNYK wrote:There is no perfect trade out there. Even if we got lucky and stole Spida, I'm not sure he fits with Brunson in the backcourt. Murray isn't nearly as good as Spida but he might be a better fit next to Brunson. Better defensively and can also score 20. I don't like the contract but you can always flip it in a year or two. I'm not sure Fournier, Grimes and 3-5 picks are enough. I guess it depends what direction Landry Fields wants to go with. Cause making that trade kind of signals a rebuild and you still have that goof Trae Young, Capela and Bogdanovic making a lot of money.
We could probably get Brogdan for that package and he would help replace IQ's role off the bench but he wouldn't make us title contenders but would probably put us back in a playoff spot.
I feel much better about a Brunson/Mitchell backcourt with OG at the wing now. It can work now IMO.
Mitchell is probably more used to playing next to a 20+ppg PG than any elite scoring SG in the league. He's done it his whole career on 50-60 win teams.
You need to understand the players that work in Thibs system though. Murray fits better and gives Thibs that size he clearly craves for. And he's a great defender. With Brunson/Mitchell/OG, i still think thats weak defensively because OG can't guard everyone at once
Murray also can play a true PG which allows Brunson some time offball.
Most importantly, he brings our defense to level that would be Top 2 in the league.
Murray-OG-Mitch. That's a defensive wet dream.
Last point, I really don't see enough shots for Mitchell/Brunson/Randle. Someone would have to sacrifice and I don't think any of those players are ready for that. In addition, OG wants more touches on offense which would be impossible.
DLeethal wrote:SergioNYK wrote:There is no perfect trade out there. Even if we got lucky and stole Spida, I'm not sure he fits with Brunson in the backcourt. Murray isn't nearly as good as Spida but he might be a better fit next to Brunson. Better defensively and can also score 20. I don't like the contract but you can always flip it in a year or two. I'm not sure Fournier, Grimes and 3-5 picks are enough. I guess it depends what direction Landry Fields wants to go with. Cause making that trade kind of signals a rebuild and you still have that goof Trae Young, Capela and Bogdanovic making a lot of money.
We could probably get Brogdan for that package and he would help replace IQ's role off the bench but he wouldn't make us title contenders but would probably put us back in a playoff spot.
I feel much better about a Brunson/Mitchell backcourt with OG at the wing now. It can work now IMO.
Mitchell is probably more used to playing next to a 20+ppg PG than any elite scoring SG in the league. He's done it his whole career on 50-60 win teams.
I agree. With OG and Mitch, the Knicks have arguably the two best defenders at their positions.Grimes and Hart are plus defenders. Knicks need to add some elite, clutch, superstar scoring. DM is that man. I like the fit.
I actually think that our starting lineup is set at this point. What we really need now is a instant offense off the bench scorer. Basically IQ replacement.
TheMTL wrote:DLeethal wrote:SergioNYK wrote:There is no perfect trade out there. Even if we got lucky and stole Spida, I'm not sure he fits with Brunson in the backcourt. Murray isn't nearly as good as Spida but he might be a better fit next to Brunson. Better defensively and can also score 20. I don't like the contract but you can always flip it in a year or two. I'm not sure Fournier, Grimes and 3-5 picks are enough. I guess it depends what direction Landry Fields wants to go with. Cause making that trade kind of signals a rebuild and you still have that goof Trae Young, Capela and Bogdanovic making a lot of money.
We could probably get Brogdan for that package and he would help replace IQ's role off the bench but he wouldn't make us title contenders but would probably put us back in a playoff spot.
I feel much better about a Brunson/Mitchell backcourt with OG at the wing now. It can work now IMO.
Mitchell is probably more used to playing next to a 20+ppg PG than any elite scoring SG in the league. He's done it his whole career on 50-60 win teams.
You need to understand the players that work in Thibs system though. Murray fits better and gives Thibs that size he clearly craves for. And he's a great defender. With Brunson/Mitchell/OG, i still think thats weak defensively because OG can't guard everyone at once
Murray also can play a true PG which allows Brunson some time offball.
Most importantly, he brings our defense to level that would be Top 2 in the league.
Murray-OG-Mitch. That's a defensive wet dream.
Last point, I really don't see enough shots for Mitchell/Brunson/Randle. Someone would have to sacrifice and I don't think any of those players are ready for that. In addition, OG wants more touches on offense which would be impossible.
Great observations and this is the meat of the matter. There is a lot of sentiment about acquiring DM based on the disappointment of the Cleveland transaction, DM's longing to play for NY, savior-in-waiting meme, and so on. Add to that Cleveland's limited trade market for DM after a disappointing tenure. So there's plenty of incentive to move him and get something/anything while they can.
However Murray, unlike DM, is being treated like a bad penny largely because he hasn't lifted the eternally disappointing Hawks team. And, as you point out, Murray unlike DM, is more of a glove fit for the Knicks because he has no offensive reputation to promote. OG wants to shoot more, Brunson and Randle have no plans to shoot less and all these hustle players need their strokes.
My guess is that if the Knicks get Murray in an entirely economical way, DM will be a permanent fixture in the rear-view mirror.
If the Knicks go get DM, they may need to play with two balls.
ramtour420 wrote:I actually think that our starting lineup is set at this point. What we really need now is a instant offense off the bench scorer. Basically IQ replacement.
If the front office agrees with you about the SL then we need a center and bench scorer.
Alpha1971 wrote:ramtour420 wrote:I actually think that our starting lineup is set at this point. What we really need now is a instant offense off the bench scorer. Basically IQ replacement.
If the front office agrees with you about the SL then we need a center and bench scorer.
I think DDV is our bench scorer. Grimes should be put back in the starting lineup since he is our second best guard defender(shout out to Deuce for getting a bag). I should also add that SG is probably the team's easiest path toward improvement as of now. Grimes needs to seize the opportunity.
I wouldnt mind if the FO waited on making another deal until the next trade deadline. Give DDV an extended look as the starting SG. Could save a lot of cap room, look to shore up another position. It might turn out to be a case of "if it aint broke dont fix it."
GustavBahler wrote:I wouldnt mind if the FO waited on making another deal until the next trade deadline. Give DDV an extended look as the starting SG. Could save a lot of cap room, look to shore up another position. It might turn out to be a case of "if it aint broke dont fix it."
Not saying we be rash but it's not time to be complacent. Strike now if the opportunity presents itself. Get Murray for his defense and he is shooting well from 3 this season. DDV can start but Murray as the third guard is better for the team. We can still acquire a PF/C for the stretch run.
Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:I wouldnt mind if the FO waited on making another deal until the next trade deadline. Give DDV an extended look as the starting SG. Could save a lot of cap room, look to shore up another position. It might turn out to be a case of "if it aint broke dont fix it."
Not saying we be rash but it's not time to be complacent. Strike now if the opportunity presents itself. Get Murray for his defense and he is shooting well from 3 this season. DDV can start but Murray as the third guard is better for the team. We can still acquire a PF/C for the stretch run.
Complacency vs. Jumping the gun. I'd like to see DDV get a chance to keep his job. Already has that B-ball ESP going with JB. See how OG changes things, then make a trade if neccessary. Trading with another division rival wont be cheap.
GustavBahler wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:I wouldnt mind if the FO waited on making another deal until the next trade deadline. Give DDV an extended look as the starting SG. Could save a lot of cap room, look to shore up another position. It might turn out to be a case of "if it aint broke dont fix it."
Not saying we be rash but it's not time to be complacent. Strike now if the opportunity presents itself. Get Murray for his defense and he is shooting well from 3 this season. DDV can start but Murray as the third guard is better for the team. We can still acquire a PF/C for the stretch run.
Complacency vs. Jumping the gun. I'd like to see DDV get a chance to keep his job. Already has that B-ball ESP going with JB. See how OG changes things, then make a trade if neccessary. Trading with another division rival wont be cheap.
Not making a trade just to see DDV can be a starter is not a valid basketball reason. Deepen the team talent pool.
Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:I wouldnt mind if the FO waited on making another deal until the next trade deadline. Give DDV an extended look as the starting SG. Could save a lot of cap room, look to shore up another position. It might turn out to be a case of "if it aint broke dont fix it."
Not saying we be rash but it's not time to be complacent. Strike now if the opportunity presents itself. Get Murray for his defense and he is shooting well from 3 this season. DDV can start but Murray as the third guard is better for the team. We can still acquire a PF/C for the stretch run.
Complacency vs. Jumping the gun. I'd like to see DDV get a chance to keep his job. Already has that B-ball ESP going with JB. See how OG changes things, then make a trade if neccessary. Trading with another division rival wont be cheap.
Not making a trade just to see DDV can be a starter is not a valid basketball reason
It's a valid reason if he's showing it already. He was a starter on the championship Bucks before he got hurt, so this isnt his first rodeo.
