Knicks · Front Office's next big Trade will involve what Position? (page 3)
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.
GustavBahler wrote: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.
In my scenario DDV still will play 25-30 mins, but the team will be deeper and more versatile. And he still may start. Time to stop bargain shopping. Pay what is needed to make the team balanced and versatile. Other teams may beat us to it
Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote: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.
In my scenario DDV still will play 25-30 mins, but the team will be deeper and more versatile. And he still may start. Time to stop bargain shopping. Pay what is needed to make the team balanced and versatile. Other teams may beat us to it
What bargain shopping? DDV is already on the roster. Im not convinced yet that it should be Murray. Especially if the Hawks are already looking to trade him. Didnt take long.
GustavBahler wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote: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.
In my scenario DDV still will play 25-30 mins, but the team will be deeper and more versatile. And he still may start. Time to stop bargain shopping. Pay what is needed to make the team balanced and versatile. Other teams may beat us to it
What bargain shopping? DDV is already on the roster. Im not convinced yet that it should be Murray. Especially if the Hawks are already looking to trade him. Didnt take long.
Well let's see what happens. I vote we build on the energy now.
Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote: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.
In my scenario DDV still will play 25-30 mins, but the team will be deeper and more versatile. And he still may start. Time to stop bargain shopping. Pay what is needed to make the team balanced and versatile. Other teams may beat us to it
What bargain shopping? DDV is already on the roster. Im not convinced yet that it should be Murray. Especially if the Hawks are already looking to trade him. Didnt take long.
Well let's see what happens. I vote we build on the energy now.
Murray might be the right move, but I'd like to know why they would be so willing to send him to NY, and after so little time. Even though JB is doing a better job of sharing the rock, after his ballstopping at the beginining of the season. Like Trae, he's more of a scoring PG.
Was playing next to a scoring PG affecting Murray's game? If it was, Murray might have the same chemistry issues in NY.
Why we shouldnt take the chemistry DDV and JB are showing for granted. We could still use a good backup center. See if Deuce is the answer at backup PG, or anyone else on the roster that Thibs wants to try out. Someone good to help take the load off of Brunson from time to time.
GustavBahler wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote: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.
In my scenario DDV still will play 25-30 mins, but the team will be deeper and more versatile. And he still may start. Time to stop bargain shopping. Pay what is needed to make the team balanced and versatile. Other teams may beat us to it
What bargain shopping? DDV is already on the roster. Im not convinced yet that it should be Murray. Especially if the Hawks are already looking to trade him. Didnt take long.
Well let's see what happens. I vote we build on the energy now.
Murray might be the right move, but I'd like to know why they would be so willing to send him to NY, and after so little time. Even though JB is doing a better job of sharing the rock, after his ballstopping at the beginining of the season. Like Trae, he's more of a scoring PG.
Was playing next to a scoring PG affecting Murray's game? If it was, Murray might have the same chemistry issues in NY.
Why we shouldnt take the chemistry DDV and JB are showing for granted. We could still use a good backup center. See if Deuce is the answer at backup PG, or anyone else on the roster that Thibs wants to try out. Someone good to help take the load off of Brunson from time to time.
Toronto wasn't supposed to trade with us also. Murray wants to come and his rep make it happen. It's happened with other players and teams.
We already have three capable SG on the roster (Hart, DDV and Grimes). I feel the Knicks are solid here for the year. Same with the PG spot. I’m ok with McBride coming in for 10-15 min a game. If, god forbid, Brunson goes down for any reason, DDV has experience playing the 1 as well.
I still don’t love having a 6’4’ player has a backup three and would like to see an upgrade here. Maybe a player who can play both the 3/4 spot. Don’t know who that is though. A backup center would be nice as well.
These two back up positions is well I would place my focus on.
Swishfm3 wrote:Trading for either Murray or Mitchell, and partnering them next to Brunson (and Randle) is a terrible idea. These players are all ball dominate and can’t seem to function at full capacity unless they have the ball in their hands…add that Thibs doesn’t seem to know how to run any offensive sets, and its a recipe for disaster.We already have three capable SG on the roster (Hart, DDV and Grimes). I feel the Knicks are solid here for the year. Same with the PG spot. I’m ok with McBride coming in for 10-15 min a game. If, god forbid, Brunson goes down for any reason, DDV has experience playing the 1 as well.
I still don’t love having a 6’4’ player has a backup three and would like to see an upgrade here. Maybe a player who can play both the 3/4 spot. Don’t know who that is though. A backup center would be nice as well.
These two back up positions is well I would place my focus on.
I thought Marbury and Crawford might form a good tandem. I get the feeling we might have the same result with Murray. It wasnt until Crawford became a 6th man, that he found his calling.
GustavBahler wrote:Swishfm3 wrote:Trading for either Murray or Mitchell, and partnering them next to Brunson (and Randle) is a terrible idea. These players are all ball dominate and can’t seem to function at full capacity unless they have the ball in their hands…add that Thibs doesn’t seem to know how to run any offensive sets, and its a recipe for disaster.We already have three capable SG on the roster (Hart, DDV and Grimes). I feel the Knicks are solid here for the year. Same with the PG spot. I’m ok with McBride coming in for 10-15 min a game. If, god forbid, Brunson goes down for any reason, DDV has experience playing the 1 as well.
I still don’t love having a 6’4’ player has a backup three and would like to see an upgrade here. Maybe a player who can play both the 3/4 spot. Don’t know who that is though. A backup center would be nice as well.
These two back up positions is well I would place my focus on.
I thought Marbury and Crawford might form a good tandem. I get the feeling we might have the same result with Murray. It wasnt until Crawford became a 6th man, that he found his calling.
Wow my brother, Crawford and Marbury, take
N it back. I can't say I recall that period. However, those were too pgs who liked to isolate. While Murray was all defense and Brunson played off ball primarily when he played with Luka. Brunson is a elite 3 pt shooter and Murray can free him up to play off ball. I don't see the parallel but maybe I don't recall them back in the day.
Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Swishfm3 wrote:Trading for either Murray or Mitchell, and partnering them next to Brunson (and Randle) is a terrible idea. These players are all ball dominate and can’t seem to function at full capacity unless they have the ball in their hands…add that Thibs doesn’t seem to know how to run any offensive sets, and its a recipe for disaster.We already have three capable SG on the roster (Hart, DDV and Grimes). I feel the Knicks are solid here for the year. Same with the PG spot. I’m ok with McBride coming in for 10-15 min a game. If, god forbid, Brunson goes down for any reason, DDV has experience playing the 1 as well.
I still don’t love having a 6’4’ player has a backup three and would like to see an upgrade here. Maybe a player who can play both the 3/4 spot. Don’t know who that is though. A backup center would be nice as well.
These two back up positions is well I would place my focus on.
I thought Marbury and Crawford might form a good tandem. I get the feeling we might have the same result with Murray. It wasnt until Crawford became a 6th man, that he found his calling.
Wow my brother, Crawford and Marbury, take
N it back. I can't say I recall that period. However, those were too pgs who liked to isolate. While Murray was all defense and Brunson played off ball primarily when he played with Luka. Brunson is a elite 3 pt shooter and Murray can free him up to play off ball. I don't see the parallel but maybe I don't recall them back in the day.
Murray might make more sense as a 6th man, to make up for the bench scoring we lost when IQ left. Would give Murray more freedom to create.
GustavBahler wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Swishfm3 wrote:Trading for either Murray or Mitchell, and partnering them next to Brunson (and Randle) is a terrible idea. These players are all ball dominate and can’t seem to function at full capacity unless they have the ball in their hands…add that Thibs doesn’t seem to know how to run any offensive sets, and its a recipe for disaster.We already have three capable SG on the roster (Hart, DDV and Grimes). I feel the Knicks are solid here for the year. Same with the PG spot. I’m ok with McBride coming in for 10-15 min a game. If, god forbid, Brunson goes down for any reason, DDV has experience playing the 1 as well.
I still don’t love having a 6’4’ player has a backup three and would like to see an upgrade here. Maybe a player who can play both the 3/4 spot. Don’t know who that is though. A backup center would be nice as well.
These two back up positions is well I would place my focus on.
I thought Marbury and Crawford might form a good tandem. I get the feeling we might have the same result with Murray. It wasnt until Crawford became a 6th man, that he found his calling.
Wow my brother, Crawford and Marbury, take
N it back. I can't say I recall that period. However, those were too pgs who liked to isolate. While Murray was all defense and Brunson played off ball primarily when he played with Luka. Brunson is a elite 3 pt shooter and Murray can free him up to play off ball. I don't see the parallel but maybe I don't recall them back in the day.Murray might make more sense as a 6th man, to make up for the bench scoring we lost when IQ left. Would give Murray more freedom to create.
True. But are you paying Murray that much to be a sixth man? Woulda just made more sense to keep IQ. I don't like the Murray fit because we already have a birds eye view of what that would look like in Atlanta. Why would I want Murray to be the lead ball handler when Brunson is way better at it?
BigDaddyG wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Swishfm3 wrote:Trading for either Murray or Mitchell, and partnering them next to Brunson (and Randle) is a terrible idea. These players are all ball dominate and can’t seem to function at full capacity unless they have the ball in their hands…add that Thibs doesn’t seem to know how to run any offensive sets, and its a recipe for disaster.We already have three capable SG on the roster (Hart, DDV and Grimes). I feel the Knicks are solid here for the year. Same with the PG spot. I’m ok with McBride coming in for 10-15 min a game. If, god forbid, Brunson goes down for any reason, DDV has experience playing the 1 as well.
I still don’t love having a 6’4’ player has a backup three and would like to see an upgrade here. Maybe a player who can play both the 3/4 spot. Don’t know who that is though. A backup center would be nice as well.
These two back up positions is well I would place my focus on.
I thought Marbury and Crawford might form a good tandem. I get the feeling we might have the same result with Murray. It wasnt until Crawford became a 6th man, that he found his calling.
Wow my brother, Crawford and Marbury, take
N it back. I can't say I recall that period. However, those were too pgs who liked to isolate. While Murray was all defense and Brunson played off ball primarily when he played with Luka. Brunson is a elite 3 pt shooter and Murray can free him up to play off ball. I don't see the parallel but maybe I don't recall them back in the day.Murray might make more sense as a 6th man, to make up for the bench scoring we lost when IQ left. Would give Murray more freedom to create.
True. But are you paying Murray that much to be a sixth man? Woulda just made more sense to keep IQ. I don't like the Murray fit because we already have a birds eye view of what that would look like in Atlanta. Why would I want Murray to be the lead ball handler when Brunson is way better at it?
Murray is under contract including his extension, for less or the same for what IQ is going to get, which will make Murray a good trade piece in the future as well. Key is you need multiple ball handlers for the playoffs and we saw Brunson being lethal off ball with Dallas as well, so he can do both. Stop thinking like the goal is to win regular season games with players who make less money on great contracts. That's important but we are getting that type of value from DDV on a mid level and with Brunson on his bargain contract now. Have to bring in the talent now before you lock up Brunson. Again, Murray might not be the guy, I'd prefer an other two way wing, like Bridges or insert your name here. But Murray is an improvement and he is young. Plan B could be short term like Brogdon but we will be right back at replacing him like next year
Alpha1971 wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Swishfm3 wrote:Trading for either Murray or Mitchell, and partnering them next to Brunson (and Randle) is a terrible idea. These players are all ball dominate and can’t seem to function at full capacity unless they have the ball in their hands…add that Thibs doesn’t seem to know how to run any offensive sets, and its a recipe for disaster.We already have three capable SG on the roster (Hart, DDV and Grimes). I feel the Knicks are solid here for the year. Same with the PG spot. I’m ok with McBride coming in for 10-15 min a game. If, god forbid, Brunson goes down for any reason, DDV has experience playing the 1 as well.
I still don’t love having a 6’4’ player has a backup three and would like to see an upgrade here. Maybe a player who can play both the 3/4 spot. Don’t know who that is though. A backup center would be nice as well.
These two back up positions is well I would place my focus on.
I thought Marbury and Crawford might form a good tandem. I get the feeling we might have the same result with Murray. It wasnt until Crawford became a 6th man, that he found his calling.
Wow my brother, Crawford and Marbury, take
N it back. I can't say I recall that period. However, those were too pgs who liked to isolate. While Murray was all defense and Brunson played off ball primarily when he played with Luka. Brunson is a elite 3 pt shooter and Murray can free him up to play off ball. I don't see the parallel but maybe I don't recall them back in the day.Murray might make more sense as a 6th man, to make up for the bench scoring we lost when IQ left. Would give Murray more freedom to create.
True. But are you paying Murray that much to be a sixth man? Woulda just made more sense to keep IQ. I don't like the Murray fit because we already have a birds eye view of what that would look like in Atlanta. Why would I want Murray to be the lead ball handler when Brunson is way better at it?
Murray is under contract including his extension, for less or the same for what IQ is going to get, which will make Murray a good trade piece in the future as well. Key is you need multiple ball handlers for the playoffs and we saw Brunson being lethal off ball with Dallas as well, so he can do both. Stop thinking like the goal is to win regular season games with players who make less money on great contracts. That's important but we are getting that type of value from DDV on a mid level and with Brunson on his bargain contract now. Have to bring in the talent now before you lock up Brunson. Again, Murray might not be the guy, I'd prefer an other two way wing, like Bridges or insert your name here. But Murray is an improvement and he is young. Plan B could be short term like Brogdon but we will be right back at replacing him like next year
And again, why would I want Murray on the ball when Brunson is way better? The goal is to get pieces that fit and to contend. I get that Murray is talented. But this move seems more like the Steve Francis/Marbury pairing than it does Frazier/Monroe.
BigDaddyG wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Swishfm3 wrote:Trading for either Murray or Mitchell, and partnering them next to Brunson (and Randle) is a terrible idea. These players are all ball dominate and can’t seem to function at full capacity unless they have the ball in their hands…add that Thibs doesn’t seem to know how to run any offensive sets, and its a recipe for disaster.We already have three capable SG on the roster (Hart, DDV and Grimes). I feel the Knicks are solid here for the year. Same with the PG spot. I’m ok with McBride coming in for 10-15 min a game. If, god forbid, Brunson goes down for any reason, DDV has experience playing the 1 as well.
I still don’t love having a 6’4’ player has a backup three and would like to see an upgrade here. Maybe a player who can play both the 3/4 spot. Don’t know who that is though. A backup center would be nice as well.
These two back up positions is well I would place my focus on.
I thought Marbury and Crawford might form a good tandem. I get the feeling we might have the same result with Murray. It wasnt until Crawford became a 6th man, that he found his calling.
Wow my brother, Crawford and Marbury, take
N it back. I can't say I recall that period. However, those were too pgs who liked to isolate. While Murray was all defense and Brunson played off ball primarily when he played with Luka. Brunson is a elite 3 pt shooter and Murray can free him up to play off ball. I don't see the parallel but maybe I don't recall them back in the day.Murray might make more sense as a 6th man, to make up for the bench scoring we lost when IQ left. Would give Murray more freedom to create.
True. But are you paying Murray that much to be a sixth man? Woulda just made more sense to keep IQ. I don't like the Murray fit because we already have a birds eye view of what that would look like in Atlanta. Why would I want Murray to be the lead ball handler when Brunson is way better at it?
Murray is under contract including his extension, for less or the same for what IQ is going to get, which will make Murray a good trade piece in the future as well. Key is you need multiple ball handlers for the playoffs and we saw Brunson being lethal off ball with Dallas as well, so he can do both. Stop thinking like the goal is to win regular season games with players who make less money on great contracts. That's important but we are getting that type of value from DDV on a mid level and with Brunson on his bargain contract now. Have to bring in the talent now before you lock up Brunson. Again, Murray might not be the guy, I'd prefer an other two way wing, like Bridges or insert your name here. But Murray is an improvement and he is young. Plan B could be short term like Brogdon but we will be right back at replacing him like next year
And again, why would I want Murray on the ball when Brunson is way better? The goal is to get pieces that fit and to contend. I get that Murray is talented. But this move seems more like the Steve Francis/Marbury pairing than it does Frazier/Monroe.
Francis was washed by that point. I see where you're going though. I'd rather pass on Murray, but even if its an overpay for a 6th man role. I prefer it to starting him. If those are the only two choices. My guess it would end up with Murray coming off the bench, after mixed results as a starter.
We had to give up IQ to get OG, getting Murray to play IQ's old role could give the Knicks a better rotation than before the OG trade.
DDV and JB have a good Ying/Yang thing going. DDV knows how to contribute within this offense. Murray off the bench could make us a contender. I dont believe Murray can as a starter.
I know..the price. But I'd be OK with it as a fan, if Murray was used in this offense in the most efficient way.
GustavBahler wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Swishfm3 wrote:Trading for either Murray or Mitchell, and partnering them next to Brunson (and Randle) is a terrible idea. These players are all ball dominate and can’t seem to function at full capacity unless they have the ball in their hands…add that Thibs doesn’t seem to know how to run any offensive sets, and its a recipe for disaster.We already have three capable SG on the roster (Hart, DDV and Grimes). I feel the Knicks are solid here for the year. Same with the PG spot. I’m ok with McBride coming in for 10-15 min a game. If, god forbid, Brunson goes down for any reason, DDV has experience playing the 1 as well.
I still don’t love having a 6’4’ player has a backup three and would like to see an upgrade here. Maybe a player who can play both the 3/4 spot. Don’t know who that is though. A backup center would be nice as well.
These two back up positions is well I would place my focus on.
I thought Marbury and Crawford might form a good tandem. I get the feeling we might have the same result with Murray. It wasnt until Crawford became a 6th man, that he found his calling.
Wow my brother, Crawford and Marbury, take
N it back. I can't say I recall that period. However, those were too pgs who liked to isolate. While Murray was all defense and Brunson played off ball primarily when he played with Luka. Brunson is a elite 3 pt shooter and Murray can free him up to play off ball. I don't see the parallel but maybe I don't recall them back in the day.Murray might make more sense as a 6th man, to make up for the bench scoring we lost when IQ left. Would give Murray more freedom to create.
True. But are you paying Murray that much to be a sixth man? Woulda just made more sense to keep IQ. I don't like the Murray fit because we already have a birds eye view of what that would look like in Atlanta. Why would I want Murray to be the lead ball handler when Brunson is way better at it?
Murray is under contract including his extension, for less or the same for what IQ is going to get, which will make Murray a good trade piece in the future as well. Key is you need multiple ball handlers for the playoffs and we saw Brunson being lethal off ball with Dallas as well, so he can do both. Stop thinking like the goal is to win regular season games with players who make less money on great contracts. That's important but we are getting that type of value from DDV on a mid level and with Brunson on his bargain contract now. Have to bring in the talent now before you lock up Brunson. Again, Murray might not be the guy, I'd prefer an other two way wing, like Bridges or insert your name here. But Murray is an improvement and he is young. Plan B could be short term like Brogdon but we will be right back at replacing him like next year
And again, why would I want Murray on the ball when Brunson is way better? The goal is to get pieces that fit and to contend. I get that Murray is talented. But this move seems more like the Steve Francis/Marbury pairing than it does Frazier/Monroe.Francis was washed by that point. I see where you're going though. I'd rather pass on Murray, but even if its an overpay for a 6th man role. I prefer it to starting him. If those are the only two choices. My guess it would end up with Murray coming off the bench, after mixed results as a starter.
We had to give up IQ to get OG, getting Murray to play IQ's old role could give the Knicks a better rotation than before the OG trade.
DDV and JB have a good Ying/Yang thing going. DDV knows how to contribute within this offense. Murray off the bench could make us a contender. I dont believe Murray can as a starter.
I know..the price. But I'd be OK with it as a fan, if Murray was used in this offense in the most efficient way.
This is why I like Brogdon. I feel getting a premier bench guy might be the better move to catapult us another level than getting a 3rd starter who is not a star. DDV looks like one of the best shooters in the league this year and brings great BBIQ and intangibles with OG to the starting unit.
right now, we only have JB in that role; can't count on Julius as a primary guy in playoffs
And for what it's worth, as far as I'm concerned that guy need not be a primary guy so much as someone with ice in his veins. I'd take a Mario Ellie. Hoping OG shows to be clutch
Chandler wrote:we need another guy who can hit big/clutch shotsright now, we only have JB in that role; can't count on Julius as a primary guy in playoffs
And for what it's worth, as far as I'm concerned that guy need not be a primary guy so much as someone with ice in his veins. I'd take a Mario Ellie. Hoping OG shows to be clutch
Here's the thing. Our core is in their prime. We have a good 5 years to run with this group. Now it's just about tweeking the roster and hopefully add one more elite piece. I like where we are at in our build. We have a solid foundation here and plenty of assets left to build with. I did't think I'd ever say that as a Knick fan. This is uncharted territory 
Garrett2010PSD wrote:Murray or Mitchell. Prefer Mitchell.
It’s looking like Mitchell. He’s from here and wants to come here
Julius will face new blitzes and other tactics. We need a guy who will punish opponent when too much attention is on JB or JR
think of Giannis and Milwaukee. We need guys who will hit their shots (including free throws)
Philc1 wrote:Garrett2010PSD wrote:Murray or Mitchell. Prefer Mitchell.It’s looking like Mitchell. He’s from here and wants to come here
It's looking like Mitchell ? Has something surfaced in the news ?