Knixkik wrote:I know people are scared off by his age and injury history; rightfully so. But he will come at a lesser price for those reasons. I like him better than most non-Brunson options (and prefer just sticking with IQ over most non Brunson options as well). Reasons are he is a big guard who doesn’t positionally block anyone. If Quickley ends up being an elite PG than Brogdon can be the 2-guard. If he’s not, than Brogdon provides that security blanket at PG. If we draft a wing like Davis, Branham or Mathurin and that player pops, than Brogdon sticks at the 1 and that player has a clear path as a starting wing. Brogdon allows switching at every position, a staple of what works for the Celtics. Brogdon is essentially everything Thibs tried to force Burks into being. Most acknowledge Fournier isn’t a long term fixture here, so Brogdon can become a logical fit next to whatever guard or wing ends up showing the most promise, whether it’s IQ, Grimes, Reddish or a rookie. Just seems like a logical option with so many different directions this team can still go.

I don't agree with this underlying statement. Here are the wings on the Knicks: IQ, Rose, McBride, Grimes, RJ, Fournier, Burks. Those are the guys that play PG, SG and sometimes out of position at SF (IMO).

I don't think you can just say Brogdon won't positionally block anyone cause he would eat up 30 minutes a game for like 50 games a year. Over the course of the 3 years remaining, he'll block a lot of guys.

Also, there is good likelihood that Knicks draft another wing. That's one more guy.

What are you giving up for Brodgon that makes sense for a guy who is making $20+m for 3 years and is injured for 30 games a year?

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:I know people are scared off by his age and injury history; rightfully so. But he will come at a lesser price for those reasons. I like him better than most non-Brunson options (and prefer just sticking with IQ over most non Brunson options as well). Reasons are he is a big guard who doesn’t positionally block anyone. If Quickley ends up being an elite PG than Brogdon can be the 2-guard. If he’s not, than Brogdon provides that security blanket at PG. If we draft a wing like Davis, Branham or Mathurin and that player pops, than Brogdon sticks at the 1 and that player has a clear path as a starting wing. Brogdon allows switching at every position, a staple of what works for the Celtics. Brogdon is essentially everything Thibs tried to force Burks into being. Most acknowledge Fournier isn’t a long term fixture here, so Brogdon can become a logical fit next to whatever guard or wing ends up showing the most promise, whether it’s IQ, Grimes, Reddish or a rookie. Just seems like a logical option with so many different directions this team can still go.

I don't agree with this underlying statement. Here are the wings on the Knicks: IQ, Rose, McBride, Grimes, RJ, Fournier, Burks. Those are the guys that play PG, SG and sometimes out of position at SF (IMO).

I don't think you can just say Brogdon won't positionally block anyone cause he would eat up 30 minutes a game for like 50 games a year. Over the course of the 3 years remaining, he'll block a lot of guys.

Also, there is good likelihood that Knicks draft another wing. That's one more guy.

What are you giving up for Brodgon that makes sense for a guy who is making $20+m for 3 years and is injured for 30 games a year?

Position being the key word. I don’t disagree he won’t block young guys from playing. He will play his 30+ mins. What I am saying is he can play alongside any particular player who proves worthy of starters minutes, regardless of their position.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:Depends on the deal but I've always liked Brogdan. I think someone like him can help the young guys but he needs the ball in his hands - which I hate to beat a dead horse but Randle has to go. I wonder if Indiana would do a Brogdan for Randle swap. That makes sense for both teams.

Makes sense if the Knicks plan to stay in the lottery next season. The idea is to get Brogdon in addition to, not in exchange for, our top players.

Yes if you’re adding Brogdon, it’s because there’s a belief in Randle getting his game back and a group led by Randle, Barrett and Brogdon can get back to the playoffs. Otherwise we should go in a different direction.

Jimbo5 wrote:I like him as a player but if the knicks get him its like the Kemba signing of the offseason all over again. His availability is the issue he hasnt had a healthy season for some time. The knicks need stability at the point and if he is not available half of the year, that can potential affect how far the team can go.

Brogdon is like Kemba except younger, plays way more games and isn’t about to retire

Vmart wrote:I don’t think we should get a Brogdon. The Knicks have everything they need. We just need Quickly and McBride to get the necessary playing time.

Excuse me! Brogdon had a 25 win season! Injury is no excuse. Leave him in Indiana, unless the Pacers want to trade Brogdon for Kemba.

The Knicks should be trying to trade (Randle, Barrett, and Kemba) for Spurs PG Dejounte Murray to fore-fill 85% of the weak-weak offense we had without D.Rose this past season.
Having Dejounte Murray, D.Rose, Quickley, and McBride in our back-court rotation would make the Knicks a .500 team.
The Knicks DEFENSE need to find a complimentary-hustler like Bullocks at SF or PF with the 11th pick in the draft.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nba_newyork/status/1532973809350885381

Nalod wrote:I was not so pro Brogdon but if you consider 10 games over .500 and 4th seed primarily with ELF as our starter then perhaps its not such a bad idea. As usually, we forget the timeline and the ELF hate was when he fell off the cliff toward the end of the season.
LOL, forget all that, Brogdon is a fine player and the durability issue is the core of why he is expedible. They got HAliburton and moved on.

And they got TJ McConnell too. Indiana just wants to unload Brogdon contract IMO