One option which doesnt get mentioned much is putting RJ back at the 2, and looking for help at the 3. If there are some good trade options at the 3, but not the 2.

RJ does a very good job of playing "bully ball" against smaller 2s. Can post them up as well. Averaged 20 ppg against bigger defenders.

If Fournier isnt the answer, RJ gives the FO the flexibilty (now that we have a legit starting PG) of not getting locked in on an expensive fix at SG. Also gives us the size that Boston put to good use in the playoffs

The FO has several options on the roster, if the asking price for Mitchell is too much.

GustavBahler wrote:We havent seen Brunson and Fournier on the same squad. Lets say Brunson and Fournier dont click. The FO would probably be looking for help through a trade.

One option which doesnt get mentioned much is putting RJ back at the 2, and looking for help at the 3. If there are some good trade options at the 3, but not the 2.

RJ does a very good job of playing "bully ball" against smaller 2s. Can post them up as well. Averaged 20 ppg against bigger defenders.

If Fournier isnt the answer, RJ gives the FO the flexibilty (now that we have a legit starting PG) of not getting locked in on an expensive fix at SG. Also gives us the size that Boston put to good use in the playoffs

The FO has several options on the roster, if the asking price for Mitchell is too much.

However, as is stands and as you wisely suggest, the Knicks should wait until someone a forward or bigger guard with appropriate size/length becomes available.

In the meantime, starting Grimes with Brunson seems like a better play to me.

In fact to further mitigate the size/length issue, I would hope that Cam Reddish get a legitimate chance to unseat Grimes in the starting lineup. If Thibs is right and Reddish is not the answer, the Knicks simply default back to Grimes.

I just don’t believe Brunson solves this team.

Im closer to pulling the plug and tanking than letting this nonsense pan out.

blkexec wrote:I’m not sure what a 2 is in todays positionless nba. But what we need is what Donovan brings and what RJ is working on and what Randle used to do. Be a dependable bucket getter in crunch time, regardless of position.

But what we don’t need is to overpay for d Mitch. I don’t think d Mitch brings us a championship but he does bring credibility to this team. And he will make NY an attractive destination for FAs. He’s a building block that’s key to adding solid players and vet chasing a ring and increasing their career status as a player who made NYC relevant again.

Dmitch is not a position of need but a 4th quarter closer and a zone buster.

Also Dmitch is taller than 6’1. And Brunson snd Dmitch plays bigger than their size. EF for example plays smaller and slower for his size.

Spida, for all his flaws, is a legit offensive engine. He's a guy who can consistently score at all three levels while maintaining solid efficiency. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers at the rim are better than Randle and RJ's. Those contested midrange jumpers will look a lot better with Spida or JB taking them than Randle. My only concern, aside from giving away too many draft picks, is that having a short backcourt is kind of limiting, especially on the defensive end. It kind of limits the pieces you can bring in and kind of sets the tone for the offensive system the team can play to be successful. Plus, spending nearly $60M on a backcourt, kind of limits the players you'll be able to sign. I'm sure RJ could slide down to the 2, but who would you slot at the three? And would it even matter if RJ is still tasked with guarding the opposing team's biggest wing threat?

GustavBahler wrote:We havent seen Brunson and Fournier on the same squad. Lets say Brunson and Fournier dont click. The FO would probably be looking for help through a trade.

One option which doesnt get mentioned much is putting RJ back at the 2, and looking for help at the 3. If there are some good trade options at the 3, but not the 2.

RJ does a very good job of playing "bully ball" against smaller 2s. Can post them up as well. Averaged 20 ppg against bigger defenders.

If Fournier isnt the answer, RJ gives the FO the flexibilty (now that we have a legit starting PG) of not getting locked in on an expensive fix at SG. Also gives us the size that Boston put to good use in the playoffs

The FO has several options on the roster, if the asking price for Mitchell is too much.

BigDaddyG wrote:

blkexec wrote:I’m not sure what a 2 is in todays positionless nba. But what we need is what Donovan brings and what RJ is working on and what Randle used to do. Be a dependable bucket getter in crunch time, regardless of position.

But what we don’t need is to overpay for d Mitch. I don’t think d Mitch brings us a championship but he does bring credibility to this team. And he will make NY an attractive destination for FAs. He’s a building block that’s key to adding solid players and vet chasing a ring and increasing their career status as a player who made NYC relevant again.

Dmitch is not a position of need but a 4th quarter closer and a zone buster.

Also Dmitch is taller than 6’1. And Brunson snd Dmitch plays bigger than their size. EF for example plays smaller and slower for his size.

Spida, for all his flaws, is a legit offensive engine. He's a guy who can consistently score at all three levels while maintaining solid efficiency. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers at the rim are better than Randle and RJ's. Those contested midrange jumpers will look a lot better with Spida or JB taking them than Randle. My only concern, aside from giving away too many draft picks, is that having a short backcourt is kind of limiting, especially on the defensive end. It kind of limits the pieces you can bring in and kind of sets the tone for the offensive system the team can play to be successful. Plus, spending nearly $60M on a backcourt, kind of limits the players you'll be able to sign. I'm sure RJ could slide down to the 2, but who would you slot at the three? And would it even matter if RJ is still tasked with guarding the opposing team's biggest wing threat?

Thats an opportunity that might present itself this season. A 2 way SF, who is also capable of guarding the biggest wing threat. If Fournier is playing well, there doesnt seem to be a need to make any changes to the starting lineup, great.

If Fournier doesnt look like a good fit with the new lineup. The FO can focus exclusively on finding a replacement for Fournier. Promote someone off the bench like Grimes, or Quickley. If they arent ready there is always a trade.

Searching only for the solution at the 2 limits the number of potential candidates for a trade, because they're only looking for 2 guards. Players not big enough to play the 3. Better odds of building a contender if the FO has a larger pool of talent to choose from. Thats the flexibility RJ gives the FO.

Thats why we should be looking for the best SF we can find as well.

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

blkexec wrote:I’m not sure what a 2 is in todays positionless nba. But what we need is what Donovan brings and what RJ is working on and what Randle used to do. Be a dependable bucket getter in crunch time, regardless of position.

But what we don’t need is to overpay for d Mitch. I don’t think d Mitch brings us a championship but he does bring credibility to this team. And he will make NY an attractive destination for FAs. He’s a building block that’s key to adding solid players and vet chasing a ring and increasing their career status as a player who made NYC relevant again.

Dmitch is not a position of need but a 4th quarter closer and a zone buster.

Also Dmitch is taller than 6’1. And Brunson snd Dmitch plays bigger than their size. EF for example plays smaller and slower for his size.

Spida, for all his flaws, is a legit offensive engine. He's a guy who can consistently score at all three levels while maintaining solid efficiency. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers at the rim are better than Randle and RJ's. Those contested midrange jumpers will look a lot better with Spida or JB taking them than Randle. My only concern, aside from giving away too many draft picks, is that having a short backcourt is kind of limiting, especially on the defensive end. It kind of limits the pieces you can bring in and kind of sets the tone for the offensive system the team can play to be successful. Plus, spending nearly $60M on a backcourt, kind of limits the players you'll be able to sign. I'm sure RJ could slide down to the 2, but who would you slot at the three? And would it even matter if RJ is still tasked with guarding the opposing team's biggest wing threat?

Thats an opportunity that might present itself this season. A 2 way SF, who is also capable of guarding the biggest wing threat. If Fournier is playing well, there doesnt seem to be a need to make any changes to the starting lineup, great.

If Fournier doesnt look like a good fit with the new lineup. The FO can focus exclusively on finding a replacement for Fournier. Promote someone off the bench like Grimes, or Quickley. If they arent ready there is always a trade.

Searching only for the solution at the 2 limits the number of potential candidates for a trade, because they're only looking for 2 guards. Players not big enough to play the 3. Better odds of building a contender if the FO has a larger pool of talent to choose from. Thats the flexibility RJ gives the FO.

Thats why we should be looking for the best SF we can find as well.

It's like Wargames said, I don't think they're just focusing on a 2 per se. They want a guy a that the offense can run through on the perimeter. They were chasing Gordan Hayward just two years ago (thankfully that fell flat). I think they just see a star that's available and want to pounce. I don't think it's the right time .to be honest and would prefer if they waited for a better fit. But who else is out there? Masai is going to also violate the Knicks in an OG package, and I don't think OG is that good. Shai? Presto will probably be less fun to deal with than Ainge. It's easy for me to say wait, but I can't think of any appetizing options.

Not so sure they considered moving RJ back to the 2, if a SF out there looked like a great fit. After all the misfires, I'm a bit weary of hearing "Coming home" on the PA system again. There is an air of inevitability that usually doesnt end well. Not predicting anything.

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

blkexec wrote:I’m not sure what a 2 is in todays positionless nba. But what we need is what Donovan brings and what RJ is working on and what Randle used to do. Be a dependable bucket getter in crunch time, regardless of position.

But what we don’t need is to overpay for d Mitch. I don’t think d Mitch brings us a championship but he does bring credibility to this team. And he will make NY an attractive destination for FAs. He’s a building block that’s key to adding solid players and vet chasing a ring and increasing their career status as a player who made NYC relevant again.

Dmitch is not a position of need but a 4th quarter closer and a zone buster.

Also Dmitch is taller than 6’1. And Brunson snd Dmitch plays bigger than their size. EF for example plays smaller and slower for his size.

Spida, for all his flaws, is a legit offensive engine. He's a guy who can consistently score at all three levels while maintaining solid efficiency. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers at the rim are better than Randle and RJ's. Those contested midrange jumpers will look a lot better with Spida or JB taking them than Randle. My only concern, aside from giving away too many draft picks, is that having a short backcourt is kind of limiting, especially on the defensive end. It kind of limits the pieces you can bring in and kind of sets the tone for the offensive system the team can play to be successful. Plus, spending nearly $60M on a backcourt, kind of limits the players you'll be able to sign. I'm sure RJ could slide down to the 2, but who would you slot at the three? And would it even matter if RJ is still tasked with guarding the opposing team's biggest wing threat?

Thats an opportunity that might present itself this season. A 2 way SF, who is also capable of guarding the biggest wing threat. If Fournier is playing well, there doesnt seem to be a need to make any changes to the starting lineup, great.

If Fournier doesnt look like a good fit with the new lineup. The FO can focus exclusively on finding a replacement for Fournier. Promote someone off the bench like Grimes, or Quickley. If they arent ready there is always a trade.

Searching only for the solution at the 2 limits the number of potential candidates for a trade, because they're only looking for 2 guards. Players not big enough to play the 3. Better odds of building a contender if the FO has a larger pool of talent to choose from. Thats the flexibility RJ gives the FO.

Thats why we should be looking for the best SF we can find as well.

It's like Wargames said, I don't think they're just focusing on a 2 per se. They want a guy a that the offense can run through on the perimeter. They were chasing Gordan Hayward just two years ago (thankfully that fell flat). I think they just see a star that's available and want to pounce. I don't think it's the right time .to be honest and would prefer if they waited for a better fit. But who else is out there? Masai is going to also violate the Knicks in an OG package, and I don't think OG is that good. Shai? Presto will probably be less fun to deal with than Ainge. It's easy for me to say wait, but I can't think of any appetizing options.

Not so sure they considered moving RJ back to the 2, if a SF out there looked like a great fit. After all the misfires, I'm a bit weary of hearing "Coming home" on the PA system again. There is an air of inevitability that usually doesnt end well. Not predicting anything.

Jalen Brunson is coming home Writing him off already? Jokes aside, I wouldn't expect much this season if a trade goes through. But I'm willing to give Leon the benefit of the doubt, until it all goes to hell.

Point taken. Brunson is an FA. Its a good deal, no matter where he's from. Dont want to see the Knicks pay too much for a NY product. When there are other alternatives. The NY angle, CAA family, puts more pressure on the FO to close the deal. They've been patient Hope they stay patient.

Vmart wrote:I don’t believe we need help at the SG position. Moving RJB to SG and starting Obi at the SF position make a lot of sense to me. I feel Obi is athletic enough to be a sf. You have Cam who can play sf as well. RJB, Grimes and Fournier occasionally Quickly. The best core would be.
Obi
Randle
Mitch
RJB
Brunson

This team creates a lot of mismatches and defensively having Obi on the floor makes the team long and athletic. Honesty a lot more fun to watch.

GustavBahler wrote:We havent seen Brunson and Fournier on the same squad. Lets say Brunson and Fournier dont click. The FO would probably be looking for help through a trade.

One option which doesnt get mentioned much is putting RJ back at the 2, and looking for help at the 3. If there are some good trade options at the 3, but not the 2.

RJ does a very good job of playing "bully ball" against smaller 2s. Can post them up as well. Averaged 20 ppg against bigger defenders.

If Fournier isnt the answer, RJ gives the FO the flexibilty (now that we have a legit starting PG) of not getting locked in on an expensive fix at SG. Also gives us the size that Boston put to good use in the playoffs

The FO has several options on the roster, if the asking price for Mitchell is too much.

I am sure you are not saying EF and Grimes would be better than DM.
What would you think is too much?
Feel if we trade Obi, Rose, McBride, EF and Roka plus picks, I would be real happy.
Gotta say, may even be okay with RJ in there. Only because it seems as though Grimes can do
so much and the fact RJ will be due for big money soon.

As for SF, who is realistically out there at the level of DM?

HofstraBBall wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:We havent seen Brunson and Fournier on the same squad. Lets say Brunson and Fournier dont click. The FO would probably be looking for help through a trade.

One option which doesnt get mentioned much is putting RJ back at the 2, and looking for help at the 3. If there are some good trade options at the 3, but not the 2.

RJ does a very good job of playing "bully ball" against smaller 2s. Can post them up as well. Averaged 20 ppg against bigger defenders.

If Fournier isnt the answer, RJ gives the FO the flexibilty (now that we have a legit starting PG) of not getting locked in on an expensive fix at SG. Also gives us the size that Boston put to good use in the playoffs

The FO has several options on the roster, if the asking price for Mitchell is too much.

I am sure you are not saying EF and Grimes would be better than DM.
What would you think is too much?
Feel if we trade Obi, Rose, McBride, EF and Roka plus picks, I would be real happy.
Gotta say, may even be okay with RJ in there. Only because it seems as though Grimes can do
so much and the fact RJ will be due for big money soon.

As for SF, who is realistically out there at the level of DM?

Not statistically better, but maybe a better fit. In Grimes's case, better defense. I get the offensive firepower Mitchell brings, but those few extra PPG come at a big price, and a huge cap hit. We would also be giving up talent and picks as well.

I dont see the urgency to trade for Mitchell, after signing Brunson. Id like to see how Brunson affects chemistry first. See if the cap space can be better used in another way(s).