GustavBahler wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

TheMTL wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.

Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.

DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.

DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.

DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.

Good point about DDV's resume.

Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.

I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.

I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.

The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.

Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.

We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.

We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.

Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.

Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.

Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.

Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.

Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.

If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.

.

We need to avoid the hero ball ideal all together IMO. IQ worked because he was homegrown mid draft pick looking to earn his spot and role on the team. Thibs was in position to be flexible with him and use him accordingly. The assets and salary they would be giving for Murray. He will get 30+mins a game if he starts or comes off the bench. With a good possibility he is disgruntled coming off the bench.

DDV, Hart, Mcbride, OG, iHart can all produce. We need another ball mover/shooter preferably at forward. Cappable of helping further increase the ball movement and upping the role players overall production due to the flow of the offense.

And frontcourt depth.

Right now our backup PF/C is Precious who averages 2.9pts per game. Adding a solid big to the rotation that can produce more than 2.9pts per game alone greatly increases the benches overall production.

The combination of these 2 things would allow for the proper fit/balance, everyone knowing there roles, in position of strength/success etc.

I wouldnt equate instant offense off the bench with "hero ball" You need at least one starter who can score under pressure, with the shot clock running out. And you need one off the bench as well.

IQ played that role for us. Deuce has stepped up his game, but I dont believe he's going to be able to consistently make the tough shots, drives. IQ was also very efficient. not hero ball stuff.

I can agree instant offense will always be good piece to have.

Thing is we traded all we did for OG to be our #3 option. He is shooting 50/40/88% yet only getting 10.8 shots in 36 mins per game. 15pts at those %s already shows us that the ball isn't flowing at the level that it needs to if we are truly to be a contender. Hartenstein as a starter is getting 5 shot attempts within his 34mins(Is putting up 3 assist off a 9.5% usage though).

If we are to really get to championship contender level. The team should be flowing at a level where OG is getting 17-19ppg, iHart at 10ppg, Hart back to 10+ ppg. With actual production coming from a bench 3/4 and 4/5 that we currently don't have. Maybe one of them can net buckets that need to be had. Mcbride is still a wild card due to the small sample size. They should be hitting these numbers due to the elite ball movement from the squad overall.

Prime example. We blew out the 76ers with Randle shooting terrible due to elite ball movement netting 27 team assist and 7 players shooting in double figures. Defeated the Timberwolves with 5 players in double figures, 23 team assist and the both Harts combining for 15pts 20rebs 4ast.

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/nba_university/status/1748020098231660592

39% on pull up 3's... we have NO ONE on this roster outside of Brunson that can do that.

People comparing him to RJ's shooting inefficiencies are way off base. RJ doesn't even attempt pull up 3's.

Yes. Type of shots.

Really appreciate reading your posts.

We can bro hug it out later after the trade goes down.

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/nba_university/status/1748020098231660592

39% on pull up 3's... we have NO ONE on this roster outside of Brunson that can do that.

People comparing him to RJ's shooting inefficiencies are way off base. RJ doesn't even attempt pull up 3's.

Yes. Type of shots.

Really appreciate reading your posts.

We can bro hug it out later after the trade goes down.

Yeah, Dejounte should plug in well with Wemby.

Asking for a friend: how do you punch a bro through the interwebs?

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/nba_university/status/1748020098231660592

39% on pull up 3's... we have NO ONE on this roster outside of Brunson that can do that.

People comparing him to RJ's shooting inefficiencies are way off base. RJ doesn't even attempt pull up 3's.

Yes. Type of shots.

Really appreciate reading your posts.

We can bro hug it out later after the trade goes down.

Yeah, Dejounte should plug in well with Wemby.

Asking for a friend: how do you punch a bro through the interwebs?

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

TheMTL wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.

Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.

DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.

DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.

DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.

Good point about DDV's resume.

Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.

I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.

I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.

The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.

Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.

We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.

We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.

Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.

Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.

Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.

Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.

Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.

If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.

.

We need to avoid the hero ball ideal all together IMO. IQ worked because he was homegrown mid draft pick looking to earn his spot and role on the team. Thibs was in position to be flexible with him and use him accordingly. The assets and salary they would be giving for Murray. He will get 30+mins a game if he starts or comes off the bench. With a good possibility he is disgruntled coming off the bench.

DDV, Hart, Mcbride, OG, iHart can all produce. We need another ball mover/shooter preferably at forward. Cappable of helping further increase the ball movement and upping the role players overall production due to the flow of the offense.

And frontcourt depth.

Right now our backup PF/C is Precious who averages 2.9pts per game. Adding a solid big to the rotation that can produce more than 2.9pts per game alone greatly increases the benches overall production.

The combination of these 2 things would allow for the proper fit/balance, everyone knowing there roles, in position of strength/success etc.

I wouldnt equate instant offense off the bench with "hero ball" You need at least one starter who can score under pressure, with the shot clock running out. And you need one off the bench as well.

IQ played that role for us. Deuce has stepped up his game, but I dont believe he's going to be able to consistently make the tough shots, drives. IQ was also very efficient. not hero ball stuff.

I can agree instant offense will always be good piece to have.

Thing is we traded all we did for OG to be our #3 option. He is shooting 50/40/88% yet only getting 10.8 shots in 36 mins per game. 15pts at those %s already shows us that the ball isn't flowing at the level that it needs to if we are truly to be a contender. Hartenstein as a starter is getting 5 shot attempts within his 34mins(Is putting up 3 assist off a 9.5% usage though).

If we are to really get to championship contender level. The team should be flowing at a level where OG is getting 17-19ppg, iHart at 10ppg, Hart back to 10+ ppg. With actual production coming from a bench 3/4 and 4/5 that we currently don't have. Maybe one of them can net buckets that need to be had. Mcbride is still a wild card due to the small sample size. They should be hitting these numbers due to the elite ball movement from the squad overall.

Prime example. We blew out the 76ers with Randle shooting terrible due to elite ball movement netting 27 team assist and 7 players shooting in double figures. Defeated the Timberwolves with 5 players in double figures, 23 team assist and the both Harts combining for 15pts 20rebs 4ast.

OG averaged 17 points once in his career (20-21, 17.1 on 14 shots per game-also a career high). I know OG wanted more opportunities on offense but you are now banking on him to average career highs in Points and shot attempts. OG has never been a volumer shooter. His last 4 years his shot attempts declined and his shot attempts over the last 5 were 12, 14, 13, 12, 11).

OG is a great awesome player when he plays in his wheel house. Scoring and creating in't his wheelhouse. I watched him drive 3 times tonight (vs Washington) and he fumbled the ball twice. He is great on cuts and kick out 3's. Unless he can pull a Julius, at age 26/27 and greatly improve his handle, he is what he is and that is an All-NBA defensive player, a great corner 3 point shooter and a 4th option scorer.

newyorknewyork wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

TheMTL wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.

Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.

DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.

DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.

DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.

Good point about DDV's resume.

Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.

I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.

I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.

The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.

Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.

We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.

We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.

Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.

Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.

Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.

Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.

Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.

If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.

.

We need to avoid the hero ball ideal all together IMO. IQ worked because he was homegrown mid draft pick looking to earn his spot and role on the team. Thibs was in position to be flexible with him and use him accordingly. The assets and salary they would be giving for Murray. He will get 30+mins a game if he starts or comes off the bench. With a good possibility he is disgruntled coming off the bench.

DDV, Hart, Mcbride, OG, iHart can all produce. We need another ball mover/shooter preferably at forward. Cappable of helping further increase the ball movement and upping the role players overall production due to the flow of the offense.

And frontcourt depth.

Right now our backup PF/C is Precious who averages 2.9pts per game. Adding a solid big to the rotation that can produce more than 2.9pts per game alone greatly increases the benches overall production.

The combination of these 2 things would allow for the proper fit/balance, everyone knowing there roles, in position of strength/success etc.

I wouldnt equate instant offense off the bench with "hero ball" You need at least one starter who can score under pressure, with the shot clock running out. And you need one off the bench as well.

IQ played that role for us. Deuce has stepped up his game, but I dont believe he's going to be able to consistently make the tough shots, drives. IQ was also very efficient. not hero ball stuff.

I can agree instant offense will always be good piece to have.

Thing is we traded all we did for OG to be our #3 option. He is shooting 50/40/88% yet only getting 10.8 shots in 36 mins per game. 15pts at those %s already shows us that the ball isn't flowing at the level that it needs to if we are truly to be a contender. Hartenstein as a starter is getting 5 shot attempts within his 34mins(Is putting up 3 assist off a 9.5% usage though).

If we are to really get to championship contender level. The team should be flowing at a level where OG is getting 17-19ppg, iHart at 10ppg, Hart back to 10+ ppg. With actual production coming from a bench 3/4 and 4/5 that we currently don't have. Maybe one of them can net buckets that need to be had. Mcbride is still a wild card due to the small sample size. They should be hitting these numbers due to the elite ball movement from the squad overall.

Prime example. We blew out the 76ers with Randle shooting terrible due to elite ball movement netting 27 team assist and 7 players shooting in double figures. Defeated the Timberwolves with 5 players in double figures, 23 team assist and the both Harts combining for 15pts 20rebs 4ast.

OG averaged 17 points once in his career (20-21, 17.1 on 14 shots per game-also a career high). I know OG wanted more opportunities on offense but you are now banking on him to average career highs in Points and shot attempts. OG has never been a volumer shooter. His last 4 years his shot attempts declined and his shot attempts over the last 5 were 12, 14, 13, 12, 11).

OG is a great awesome player when he plays in his wheel house. Scoring and creating in't his wheelhouse. I watched him drive 3 times tonight (vs Washington) and he fumbled the ball twice. He is great on cuts and kick out 3's. Unless he can pull a Julius, at age 26/27 and greatly improve his handle, he is what he is and that is an All-NBA defensive player, a great corner 3 point shooter and a 4th option scorer.

Him getting to 17-19pts isn't about him being a shot creator. He clearly is not that. Its about the offense and ball being moved enough that he is able to get to 17-19pts. Its a good measuring stick for if the team is ready for prime time. He put up 17ppg twice in his career(16.8 the year prior). And this was while playing with 4 other players putting up 15-24pts all getting 12.6-17.8 shot attempts each. So in comparison it would be like if Knicks didn't trade RJ or IQ and OG was on the team still getting 17pts per game because the team shared the ball enough to do so.

Brunson & Randle are pure scorers first and second. They will run a heavy 2 man game & iso and put up 40+ shots and 50pts combined. The rest of the team (outside of fast breaks) mostly eat off that trickle down of that. We need a player in that 2nd unit preferably at forward that will generate more looks for OG, Hartenstein, Hart, Mcbride, DDV, Mitch*. Rather than looking for a 3rd Brunson/Randle type.

The combination of keeping the role players fed, engaged, in rhythm offensively with Brunson & Randle's 2 man/iso game would be tough to beat.

Agreed with a lot of what you said, but that is not what the Knicks offense the Knicks run. I am willing to bet (I'll have to research it later) those Toronto teams that had all those scorers those defenses weren't at the level of the Knicks. I know of only 1 team whose pace was crazy and whose defense was crazy and that is Golden State in their prime. And even they only had 2 real scorers and everyone else just got in where they fit in.

The Knicks run a system with 2 main scorers that a skilled 3rd scorer (Barrett) had major issues (whether his own or manufactured for him) finding a place he fit in. OG needs to be spoon fed points. His creation skills are currently low (that can change, but he is 26). Dante found a way to fit in where Grimes couldn't. OG is settling in as a 14/15 point per game guy with amazing defense. I'm not saying he can't improve but sometimes players skillsets are what they are.

martin wrote:Trying to sift through the Hawks chatter...

What would your reaction be to this trade framework, I think it's on the table:

Mitch, Fournier, Grimes, and picks for Dejounte, AJ Griffin, Capella. The picks are the hang up. How many and which ones. I think the Knicks OK with 1 FRP from 2024 and Atlanta obviously wants more picks and that's where they are.

Clint is kinda sorta trade dead weight for Atlanta and they would like to get out of his contract, Mitch would fulfill that for them and give them someone much younger on a descending deal for the owner who doesn't like to get into the luxury tax area. AJ is in some coach Quin doghouse. Grimes fits better next to Trae in the short term and costs a whole lot less (than Dejounte) next year (with Fournier’s expiring helping out too).

Knicks get a big in Capella who is healthy for the playoff run and next year too. He can play behind iHart and would be insurance if iHart leaves on a gonzo deal from a team with cap space. Knicks FO don't have to deal with Grimes' next contract negotiation and get a local guy in AJ they can wax on about with media and some fanfare but really that's just a distraction. They get a secondary ball handler and scorer in Dejounte.

Thoughts?

Mitch is hurt so often that its hard to argue against any good trade proposal. Im guessing that iHart is going to be the starter for the rest of the season, and offseason. Why rush Mitch back to the starting lineup, when iHart is playing like a starting center?

If Mitch was ok with a bench role going forward. We would have the center Combo we were hoping to see with Mitch and Noel. Its a different role for Mitch, but it cuts down on his minutes, and solidifies the center position going forward. iHart might be sold on the idea of taking less to keep the both of them in NY, with iHart starting. They both would be making a sacrifice to stay in NY and contending for a ring.

I still wouldnt mind a deal for Murray. I would offer Fournier, Grimes, Deuce, and a couple of first rounders.

martin wrote:Trying to sift through the Hawks chatter...

What would your reaction be to this trade framework, I think it's on the table:

Mitch, Fournier, Grimes, and picks for Dejounte, AJ Griffin, Capella. The picks are the hang up. How many and which ones. I think the Knicks OK with 1 FRP from 2024 and Atlanta obviously wants more picks and that's where they are.

Clint is kinda sorta trade dead weight for Atlanta and they would like to get out of his contract, Mitch would fulfill that for them and give them someone much younger on a descending deal for the owner who doesn't like to get into the luxury tax area. AJ is in some coach Quin doghouse. Grimes fits better next to Trae in the short term and costs a whole lot less (than Dejounte) next year (with Fournier’s expiring helping out too).

Knicks get a big in Capella who is healthy for the playoff run and next year too. He can play behind iHart and would be insurance if iHart leaves on a gonzo deal from a team with cap space. Knicks FO don't have to deal with Grimes' next contract negotiation and get a local guy in AJ they can wax on about with media and some fanfare but really that's just a distraction. They get a secondary ball handler and scorer in Dejounte.

Thoughts?

lots of potential moving pieces but the two sides are a match to make a deal.

I bought up AJ before as someone we could ask for, he's out of the rotation and if they get Grimes it makes sense to move him.

Wouldn't mind Capella, he's more durable and probably just as good as Mitch on the offensive boards. Mitch's injuries is a big reason I wanted KP... now imagine KP with OG on this team!

martin wrote:Trying to sift through the Hawks chatter...

What would your reaction be to this trade framework, I think it's on the table:

Mitch, Fournier, Grimes, and picks for Dejounte, AJ Griffin, Capella. The picks are the hang up. How many and which ones. I think the Knicks OK with 1 FRP from 2024 and Atlanta obviously wants more picks and that's where they are.

Clint is kinda sorta trade dead weight for Atlanta and they would like to get out of his contract, Mitch would fulfill that for them and give them someone much younger on a descending deal for the owner who doesn't like to get into the luxury tax area. AJ is in some coach Quin doghouse. Grimes fits better next to Trae in the short term and costs a whole lot less (than Dejounte) next year (with Fournier’s expiring helping out too).

Knicks get a big in Capella who is healthy for the playoff run and next year too. He can play behind iHart and would be insurance if iHart leaves on a gonzo deal from a team with cap space. Knicks FO don't have to deal with Grimes' next contract negotiation and get a local guy in AJ they can wax on about with media and some fanfare but really that's just a distraction. They get a secondary ball handler and scorer in Dejounte.

Thoughts?

Heard something similar, but didn't know Mitch and Capella were in the deal.

Knixkik wrote:Knicks are in a position of power in the Murray talks. They don’t have to trade for him. They can easily just move the same players without the same value of picks for Bruce Brown or Brogdon to come off the bench and be fine.

Is the Knicks Tax finis?