He's played 40 games (not 20) this year and has been pretty mediocre to not good for most of the season. That alone is 25% of the 160. By the way, the other 120 games he has played were not all "good." So there's more than enough of a sample to point to a relatively mixed bag and a guy playing exactly like you'd expect from the 25th pick in the draft. That might be exactly what he's worth on the open market based on his overall track record. That taken with recent poor play and proximity to his free agency could mean you ding his value further from that (i.e. he's worth less than a late first round pick). If the Knicks weight him the same as they did last offseason, there will could be a real mismatch with what they see in negotiations. And as a result, we get no deal because we don't like what we see in return - that is my worry, because he is the most valuable piece we have to offer besides expiring contracts and 1's. I want him to be valuable enough to offer along with Fournier to get Brogdon, but I worry they still might want 1-2 first rounders on top of that and we can't get a deal done. I wouldn't do it at that cost, but it in my view that's not a great result as I would have hoped Grimes had more value where the picks weren't necessary. Given that whomever the Knicks get likely gets playing time at the expense of Grimes and Grimes is 3 yrs into his rookie deal, I think economically, its best give up Grimes than a decent no.1 pick (or two) for future value purposes.
VDesai wrote:He's played 40 games (not 20) this year and has been pretty mediocre to not good for most of the season. That alone is 25% of the 160. By the way, the other 120 games he has played were not all "good." So there's more than enough of a sample to point to a relatively mixed bag and a guy playing exactly like you'd expect from the 25th pick in the draft. That might be exactly what he's worth on the open market based on his overall track record. That taken with recent poor play and proximity to his free agency could mean you ding his value further from that (i.e. he's worth less than a late first round pick). If the Knicks weight him the same as they did last offseason, there will could be a real mismatch with what they see in negotiations. And as a result, we get no deal because we don't like what we see in return - that is my worry, because he is the most valuable piece we have to offer besides expiring contracts and 1's. I want him to be valuable enough to offer along with Fournier to get Brogdon, but I worry they still might want 1-2 first rounders on top of that and we can't get a deal done. I wouldn't do it at that cost, but it in my view that's not a great result as I would have hoped Grimes had more value where the picks weren't necessary. Given that whomever the Knicks get likely gets playing time at the expense of Grimes and Grimes is 3 yrs into his rookie deal, I think economically, its best give up Grimes than a decent no.1 pick (or two) for future value purposes.
what was his value last year?
Nalod wrote:VDesai wrote:He's played 40 games (not 20) this year and has been pretty mediocre to not good for most of the season. That alone is 25% of the 160. By the way, the other 120 games he has played were not all "good." So there's more than enough of a sample to point to a relatively mixed bag and a guy playing exactly like you'd expect from the 25th pick in the draft. That might be exactly what he's worth on the open market based on his overall track record. That taken with recent poor play and proximity to his free agency could mean you ding his value further from that (i.e. he's worth less than a late first round pick). If the Knicks weight him the same as they did last offseason, there will could be a real mismatch with what they see in negotiations. And as a result, we get no deal because we don't like what we see in return - that is my worry, because he is the most valuable piece we have to offer besides expiring contracts and 1's. I want him to be valuable enough to offer along with Fournier to get Brogdon, but I worry they still might want 1-2 first rounders on top of that and we can't get a deal done. I wouldn't do it at that cost, but it in my view that's not a great result as I would have hoped Grimes had more value where the picks weren't necessary. Given that whomever the Knicks get likely gets playing time at the expense of Grimes and Grimes is 3 yrs into his rookie deal, I think economically, its best give up Grimes than a decent no.1 pick (or two) for future value purposes.
what was his value last year?
A not insignificant exclusion in a Donovan Trade. That's not not insignificant.
I didn't not try for all the types of double negatives.
the bid difference between DDV and Grimes right now is DDV is capable and willing shooter. He commands attention even though he's not the primary scorer because if he gets the ball and has a good opportunity he will shoot quickly (and fortunately for us hit at a good rate).
It not only commands more attention frm the D but helps with the flow. When we pass Grimes and he defers he's essentially chewing up clock and making the rest of the play harder. I know his heart is in the right place but Grimes has to shoot to benefit his teammates
Worst case for Grimes is he becomes a defensive specialist but then it's tough to have him on the floor with someone like Mitch too because we're essentially playing 3 on 5
Chandler wrote:the bid difference between DDV and Grimes right now is DDV is capable and willing shooter. He commands attention even though he's not the primary scorer because if he gets the ball and has a good opportunity he will shoot quickly (and fortunately for us hit at a good rate).It not only commands more attention frm the D but helps with the flow. When we pass Grimes and he defers he's essentially chewing up clock and making the rest of the play harder. I know his heart is in the right place but Grimes has to shoot to benefit his teammates
Worst case for Grimes is he becomes a defensive specialist but then it's tough to have him on the floor with someone like Mitch too because we're essentially playing 3 on 5
It’s really hard to compare Grimes to DDV. To me, DDV seems like a VERY high IQ player who has a quick twitch reaction which makes him a total menace. When he wants to impact the game, he does. I just read somewhere DDV credits Curry for his improved shooting. With Grimes, he needs to slow down. He tries to play faster than his brain is working. When he gets hot, makes his shots and plays well it’s when he settles down. Too bad it’s usually when we are up 15 and the game is not in doubt. DDV is going to be huge come the playoffs, Grimes ain’t there yet and is looking like he’s years away if at all. Just my dos centavos
Is Murry that much better than DDV?
And for the money/opportunity cost?
Not some plug and play scenario.
I dig the soft schedule and that seemingly OG makes everyone better. Im cool with the turnover and the team in sort of a reboot which creates turnovers in the new age of ball movement.
I trust this FO to attempt to do the right thing.
Nalod wrote:Is Murry that much better than DDV?
And for the money/opportunity cost?
Not some plug and play scenario. I dig the soft schedule and that seemingly OG makes everyone better. Im cool with the turnover and the team in sort of a reboot which creates turnovers in the new age of ball movement.
I trust this FO to attempt to do the right thing.
For me, that's not even the right question to ask.
What type of player is Murray and how does he fit and what does he bring to the table relative to what the Knicks need and what would his role be and can he do just that.
Is his trade worth relative enough to the answers to all of those questions.
Murray the player has nothing to do in comparison to what DDV does
Grimes and 2 FRP's for Olivia...
ToddTT wrote:Grimes and 2 FRP's for Olivia...
Not now Bot! Save it for the game thread!
BigDaddyG wrote:ToddTT wrote:Grimes and 2 FRP's for Olivia...
Not now Bot! Save it for the game thread!
Bot! Don't let BigDaddyG big daddy you! Stay strong and Chive on!
It's Monday. Close enough.
