GustavBahler wrote:

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).

The FO is not urgent to trade DM, The urgency is on Ainge at this point. He’s asking for 7 pick I heard which is crazy. Picks or youths not both.

I think NY has to at least present a valuable offer but they don’t have to cave into ainge demands.

blkexec wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

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).

The FO is not urgent to trade DM, The urgency is on Ainge at this point. He’s asking for 7 pick I heard which is crazy. Picks or youths not both.

I think NY has to at least present a valuable offer but they don’t have to cave into ainge demands.

As I wrote upthread, the FO has been patient. Im speaking of the urgency to make any more big changes to the starting lineup, before we see how Brunson affects chemistry. The roster might not need such an expensive fix. In the backcourt, anyway.

It does feel inevitable though, which isnt necessarily a good thing.

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

blkexec wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

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).

The FO is not urgent to trade DM, The urgency is on Ainge at this point. He’s asking for 7 pick I heard which is crazy. Picks or youths not both.

I think NY has to at least present a valuable offer but they don’t have to cave into ainge demands.

As I wrote upthread, the FO has been patient. Im speaking of the urgency to make any more big changes to the starting lineup, before we see how Brunson affects chemistry. The roster might not need such an expensive fix. In the backcourt, anyway.

It does feel inevitable though, which isnt necessarily a good thing.

7 picks is not that crazy and I would rather give them that and minimal player comp (say Obi/Reddish) than have them rob us of our young bench. We could give them 6 picks by including the Milw/Det/Wash picks we have + 3 of our own

7 picks to upgrade the backcourt would be seen as crazy. If we passed on Mitchell, and found out that Fournier is giving us close to the same production, at a fraction of the price.

Or we find out that Randle is having trouble going back to playing off the ball. Shot isnt falling.

And we find the biggest need for an upgrade is at the 4. By trading for Mitchell we close the door on perhaps saving millions in cap space. While giving up good young players and lots of picks.

I see more value in taking a wait and see approach after signing Brunson.

D.Rose leadership alongside Quickley's speed and court vision gave the Knicks a dynamic back court, Knicks opponents could never figure out D.Rose & Quickley even when they had inconsistent Burks in the lineup.
I wanted the Knicks to put D.Rose, Quickley, and Frank in a lineup to stop Trey Young in their series.

SG Grimes 2nd season need to be in a same player lineup throughout next season to learn to co-exist to get familiar with teammates.

GustavBahler wrote:

Kemet wrote:In the NEW NBA .. A wining back court starter/finisher would be Brunson & D.Rose leadership, or D.Mitchell & D.Rose leadership.
NO wining NBA head coach would ever put RJ Barrett's talents in the back court as a SG or PG!
Fournier couldn't hold down the SG position the few months he was a Celtics.

D.Rose leadership alongside Quickley's speed and court vision gave the Knicks a dynamic back court, that Knicks opponents could never figure out, even when they had inconsistent Burks in the lineup.

SG Grimes 2nd season need to be in the same player lineup throughout next season to co-exist.

"No Winning coach" would put RJ in the backcourt? Make an argument to back that up. D.Rose cant handle the minutes as a sub, and you want to make him a starter? No winning coach would do that.

Thibs and D.Rose are like family, and he still wouldnt make the mistake of making Rose a full time starter. Fournier was averaging 20ppg in Orlando. Put him next to a PG who isnt past his prime, some continuity, and let see what happens.

ramtour420 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Kemet wrote:In the NEW NBA .. A wining back court starter/finisher would be Brunson & D.Rose leadership, or D.Mitchell & D.Rose leadership.
NO wining NBA head coach would ever put RJ Barrett's talents in the back court as a SG or PG!
Fournier couldn't hold down the SG position the few months he was a Celtics.

D.Rose leadership alongside Quickley's speed and court vision gave the Knicks a dynamic back court, that Knicks opponents could never figure out, even when they had inconsistent Burks in the lineup.

SG Grimes 2nd season need to be in the same player lineup throughout next season to co-exist.

"No Winning coach" would put RJ in the backcourt? Make an argument to back that up. D.Rose cant handle the minutes as a sub, and you want to make him a starter? No winning coach would do that.

Thibs and D.Rose are like family, and he still wouldnt make the mistake of making Rose a full time starter. Fournier was averaging 20ppg in Orlando. Put him next to a PG who isnt past his prime, some continuity, and let see what happens.

Fournier is actually our best 3 point shooter. And he happens to be a SG. And guess what, he is starting for us next season, unless of course we trade for Spider 🕸️

Fournier's talent has no real position because he's a perimeter spot-shooter ....
Defensive minded he's SLOW !!!

Kemet wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Kemet wrote:In the NEW NBA .. A wining back court starter/finisher would be Brunson & D.Rose leadership, or D.Mitchell & D.Rose leadership.
NO wining NBA head coach would ever put RJ Barrett's talents in the back court as a SG or PG!
Fournier couldn't hold down the SG position the few months he was a Celtics.

D.Rose leadership alongside Quickley's speed and court vision gave the Knicks a dynamic back court, that Knicks opponents could never figure out, even when they had inconsistent Burks in the lineup.

SG Grimes 2nd season need to be in the same player lineup throughout next season to co-exist.

"No Winning coach" would put RJ in the backcourt? Make an argument to back that up. D.Rose cant handle the minutes as a sub, and you want to make him a starter? No winning coach would do that.

Thibs and D.Rose are like family, and he still wouldnt make the mistake of making Rose a full time starter. Fournier was averaging 20ppg in Orlando. Put him next to a PG who isnt past his prime, some continuity, and let see what happens.

I mention several times in so many Knicks Game-Threads in the first half of game, "RJ Barrett is not a starter!", and I been mentioning that since Barrett rookie season.

For those of us who havent memorized your posts, please remind us why RJ couldnt excel as an SG? Saw enough his rookie season to believe otherwise. Barrett also averaged 20 ppg as a starter

Kemet wrote:And GustavBahler .... head coach Thibs without D.Rose & Gibson's back court & front court team leadership are a LOSER head coach that should've stayed an assistant coach.
Dolan wants a star player for MSG .. no matter the cost !!!

Wouldnt go there. I have issues with Thibs as a coach. Namely grinding down his best players, but I dont doubt that he is qualified to be a head coach.

GustavBahler wrote:

Kemet wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Kemet wrote:In the NEW NBA .. A wining back court starter/finisher would be Brunson & D.Rose leadership, or D.Mitchell & D.Rose leadership.
NO wining NBA head coach would ever put RJ Barrett's talents in the back court as a SG or PG!
Fournier couldn't hold down the SG position the few months he was a Celtics.

D.Rose leadership alongside Quickley's speed and court vision gave the Knicks a dynamic back court, that Knicks opponents could never figure out, even when they had inconsistent Burks in the lineup.

SG Grimes 2nd season need to be in the same player lineup throughout next season to co-exist.

"No Winning coach" would put RJ in the backcourt? Make an argument to back that up. D.Rose cant handle the minutes as a sub, and you want to make him a starter? No winning coach would do that.

Thibs and D.Rose are like family, and he still wouldnt make the mistake of making Rose a full time starter. Fournier was averaging 20ppg in Orlando. Put him next to a PG who isnt past his prime, some continuity, and let see what happens.

I mention several times in so many Knicks Game-Threads in the first half of game, "RJ Barrett is not a starter!", and I been mentioning that since Barrett rookie season.

For those of us who havent memorized your posts, please remind us why RJ couldnt excel as an SG? Saw enough his rookie season to believe otherwise. Barrett also averaged 20 ppg as a starter

Say it right .. Barrett average above 35 min per game, shooting 40% from FG, 3 ast, 5 rbd in all 3 NBA seasons. Last season was the only season Barrett average 20 pts, by increasing his FGA to 16 or 20 shots a game. As much as Barrett holds the ball and drive to the basket he only went to the FT line once a game his first two seasons in the league, and las year twice a game.

Kemet wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Kemet wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Kemet wrote:In the NEW NBA .. A wining back court starter/finisher would be Brunson & D.Rose leadership, or D.Mitchell & D.Rose leadership.
NO wining NBA head coach would ever put RJ Barrett's talents in the back court as a SG or PG!
Fournier couldn't hold down the SG position the few months he was a Celtics.

D.Rose leadership alongside Quickley's speed and court vision gave the Knicks a dynamic back court, that Knicks opponents could never figure out, even when they had inconsistent Burks in the lineup.

SG Grimes 2nd season need to be in the same player lineup throughout next season to co-exist.

"No Winning coach" would put RJ in the backcourt? Make an argument to back that up. D.Rose cant handle the minutes as a sub, and you want to make him a starter? No winning coach would do that.

Thibs and D.Rose are like family, and he still wouldnt make the mistake of making Rose a full time starter. Fournier was averaging 20ppg in Orlando. Put him next to a PG who isnt past his prime, some continuity, and let see what happens.

I mention several times in so many Knicks Game-Threads in the first half of game, "RJ Barrett is not a starter!", and I been mentioning that since Barrett rookie season.

For those of us who havent memorized your posts, please remind us why RJ couldnt excel as an SG? Saw enough his rookie season to believe otherwise. Barrett also averaged 20 ppg as a starter

Say it right .. Barrett average above 35 min per game, shooting 40% from FG, 3 ast, 5 rbd in all 3 NBA seasons. Last season was the only season Barrett average 20 pts, by increasing his FGA to 16 or 20 shots a game. As much as Barrett holds the ball and drive to the basket he only went to the FT line once a game his first two seasons in the league, and las year twice a game.

Last year he attempted 5.8 FT per game (made 4.1) - that's actually one of his strengths (drawing fouls on drives). He needs to finish better and improve his shooting efficiency no question. He does guard the most difficult perimeter wing (since Bullock left). Let's see if he continues to improve this season. I don't think he's a great fit next to Brunson or Mitchell. I think he's a better fit next to an outside shooting PG (eg D'Angelo Russell, Trae Young, etc) but for our team he will probably lose some advantage and play the 3.

Kemet wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

Kemet wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Kemet wrote:In the NEW NBA .. A wining back court starter/finisher would be Brunson & D.Rose leadership, or D.Mitchell & D.Rose leadership.
NO wining NBA head coach would ever put RJ Barrett's talents in the back court as a SG or PG!
Fournier couldn't hold down the SG position the few months he was a Celtics.

D.Rose leadership alongside Quickley's speed and court vision gave the Knicks a dynamic back court, that Knicks opponents could never figure out, even when they had inconsistent Burks in the lineup.

SG Grimes 2nd season need to be in the same player lineup throughout next season to co-exist.

"No Winning coach" would put RJ in the backcourt? Make an argument to back that up. D.Rose cant handle the minutes as a sub, and you want to make him a starter? No winning coach would do that.

Thibs and D.Rose are like family, and he still wouldnt make the mistake of making Rose a full time starter. Fournier was averaging 20ppg in Orlando. Put him next to a PG who isnt past his prime, some continuity, and let see what happens.

I mention several times in so many Knicks Game-Threads in the first half of game, "RJ Barrett is not a starter!", and I been mentioning that since Barrett rookie season.

Barret is our second best defensive player on the team behind Mitchell Robinson. Let's keep that in mind.He defends the best player on the other team. In the current NBA that's pretty much all of them, save for some PG's like Trae and Ja. So anything that RJ gives us on O is just that sweet gravy juice. And you live with that. He is improving and that's the key part. RJ is our Juice.

As a defensive SG Barrett has let a lot of Knicks SG opponents score career & Season highs on the Knicks the past 3 seasons .. Beal, Lavine, D.Brown, Butler, Middleton Oubre, Herro, Connaughton, etc, etc

Barrett's more like 5th or 7th best defensive player on the Knicks roster (Barrett has always found ways to get lost on the defensive-end of the court, especially in the 4th quarter of games the past 3 seasons).
Barrett has not matched any of the rookie defensive talents, McBride, Grimes, and Sims.
Cam Reddish defense performance is twice as better than Barrett.

When Thibs were an assistant coach for Boston, a player name Deng made the Chi Bulls a playoff team again, after Jordan & Pippin.
If I'm right, Head coach Thibs went to the 2nd round once or twice in his career. That's not deep playoffs.
I like Thibs as an assistant coach being one on one with the players on defense. And Mike Woodson as the strategic offense head-coach of the game rotation.

What we watched last season from the Knicks were a .569 Knicks team turn into a .451 performing team. Why?
The Knicks FO are not on the Same Page with the Head coaching staff.