franco12 wrote:I don't understand the rush to give Grimes big minutes. He was hurt a bunch last year and came up small in the biggest game in Summer League.

Love the guy, agree he has potential, but not sure you can thrust him into that role this year.

If he beats Fournier out during the season or out of training camp, I will be cheering him on.

21-22 season 3point shooting stats:
Grimes - 38%
Fournier - 38%

21-22 defense:
Grimes- yes
Fournier - no

Age:
Fournier -29 y/o , 12 seasons in the league
Grimes -22y/o, 1 season in the league

LA trades A.Davis and K.Nunn to GS, Westbrook to NY

GS trades Wiggins, Wiseman to LA, Kuminga to NY

NY trades Randle, Fournier and Rose to LA

LA rationale - A.Davis is injury prone and Wiggins had a great year last season. J.Wiseman gives them Center help. Randle another scorer, Fourner another shooter and D.Rose to help Lebron close out tight games.

GS rationale - they have been searching for a 4/5 that can improve their interior defense while still spreading the floor. They like Kuminga but have been uncertain about continuing to develop Wiseman as they are in "win now" mode. AD, Green, Klay, Steph and Poole?

NY rationale - we get out from under Randle's long-term contract (and drama) - waive Westbrook and free up cap space into 2023-24. Moving Fournier prevents potential Grimes/Fournier conflict and offers minutes to IQ as well. While sad to see D. Rose go - we send him to a potential playoff team that could really benefit from his veteran leadership and ability - give him a real opportunity to win something next season. We waive Westbrook and pick up another young/talented forward in Kuminga. Yes Thibs may resign - but we would be full on with the youth movement and be pretty stacked at all positions. Living in Bay area I have watched a lot of Kuminga and he athletically is like a young Len Bias. He is raw and needs to work on outside shooting but if he develops a bit - you're looking at an All-Star in 2 years. And we have money/flexibility entering 2023-24 so if some of our young players don't progress - we can make sound choices not out of necessity due to prior bad contracts.

Brunson (IQ, McBride)
Grimes (IQ, Keels)
RJ (Cam)
Obi (Kuminga, Hunt)
Mitch (Hart, Sims)

jskinny35 wrote:Hear talk about GS maybe interested in consolidating some of the young players to acquire a solid vet at the 4/5 spot. Lakers and AD seem to be the hypothetical target. Combining for a 3 team trade could help all parties? Some picks may have to be added but this works on trade checker. Hypothetical but who says no?

LA trades A.Davis and K.Nunn to GS, Westbrook to NY

GS trades Wiggins, Wiseman to LA, Kuminga to NY

NY trades Randle, Fournier and Rose to LA

LA rationale - A.Davis is injury prone and Wiggins had a great year last season. J.Wiseman gives them Center help. Randle another scorer, Fourner another shooter and D.Rose to help Lebron close out tight games.

GS rationale - they have been searching for a 4/5 that can improve their interior defense while still spreading the floor. They like Kuminga but have been uncertain about continuing to develop Wiseman as they are in "win now" mode. AD, Green, Klay, Steph and Poole?

NY rationale - we get out from under Randle's long-term contract (and drama) - waive Westbrook and free up cap space into 2023-24. Moving Fournier prevents potential Grimes/Fournier conflict and offers minutes to IQ as well. While sad to see D. Rose go - we send him to a potential playoff team that could really benefit from his veteran leadership and ability - give him a real opportunity to win something next season. We waive Westbrook and pick up another young/talented forward in Kuminga. Yes Thibs may resign - but we would be full on with the youth movement and be pretty stacked at all positions. Living in Bay area I have watched a lot of Kuminga and he athletically is like a young Len Bias. He is raw and needs to work on outside shooting but if he develops a bit - you're looking at an All-Star in 2 years. And we have money/flexibility entering 2023-24 so if some of our young players don't progress - we can make sound choices not out of necessity due to prior bad contracts.

Brunson (IQ, McBride)
Grimes (IQ, Keels)
RJ (Cam)
Obi (Kuminga, Hunt)
Mitch (Hart, Sims)

Thought provoking. The money works on this I assume?
Hard to see GSW trade both Kuminga and Wiggins to be honest.
AD at center? He has the size but Green can share defense duties I suppose.
Play Obi with Kuminga as understudy? That I like.

Wiseman
Randle
Wiggins
Lebron
PatBev/Drose

AD/Loony
Green/AD
Klay
Curry
Poole

4 HOF on the court. How is their depth beyond the 5

Mitch
Obi/Kuminga
Grimes/IQ
Brunson
RJ

Cam play some 2 as well. If Kuminga that good move RJ back to the 2.
If Grimes is that good you trade him. Same for RJ I suppose.

jaydh wrote:This would be an easy yes for me. Clear out the "vets", create minutes for the young players so that they can be properly evaluated, and improve our draft position in one of the deepest drafts in a long time. I think we should get a 1st out of it as well. But I'm not haggling until I get the optimal offer like DA.

The season before RJ was drafted, the Knicks got off to an awful start. It was soon clear that this squad (as constructed) wasnt going anywhere. So the FO cleared out the roster, went for the tank, and drafted RJ with the 3rd pick. I prefer this strategy to a "pre-emptive tank". Dont believe that will make the Knicks an attractive destination. Im guessing that Brunson signed in part because the Knicks havent tanked since then. They're trying to win.

God forbid, if one or more key players are out for an extended period due to injury. Or the Knicks get off to a really bad start, then maybe
a strategy of tanking while putting the youth movement front and center, might be the way to go. Tanking from the start so a team with
picks to spare can improve their position wont make us an attractive destination IMO.

jaydh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

jaydh wrote:This would be an easy yes for me. Clear out the "vets", create minutes for the young players so that they can be properly evaluated, and improve our draft position in one of the deepest drafts in a long time. I think we should get a 1st out of it as well. But I'm not haggling until I get the optimal offer like DA.

The season before RJ was drafted, the Knicks got off to an awful start. It was soon clear that this squad (as constructed) wasnt going anywhere. So the FO cleared out the roster, went for the tank, and drafted RJ with the 3rd pick. I prefer this strategy to a "pre-emptive tank". Dont believe that will make the Knicks an attractive destination. Im guessing that Brunson signed in part because the Knicks havent tanked since then. They're trying to win.

God forbid, if one or more key players are out for an extended period due to injury. Or the Knicks get off to a really bad start, then maybe
a strategy of tanking while putting the youth movement front and center, might be the way to go. Tanking from the start so a team with
picks to spare can improve their position wont make us an attractive destination IMO.

This team isn't even a lock for the play-in. It would be nice to know what we have in Reddish, Toppin, and IQ before their rookie contracts are up.

You got a very short window to see what reddish can do. One year under contract and Thibs already has him with permanent black marker on the roster as the 12th man

Knicks got better in the offseason— problem so did most of the rest of the East. Our schedule also looks tough early on

As I said upthread, dont believe a return to a tanking strategy (with all the picks we already have) will make NY an attractive destination. Feels more Xbox than anyrhing else. Hit reset and see what happens.

jaydh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

jaydh wrote:This would be an easy yes for me. Clear out the "vets", create minutes for the young players so that they can be properly evaluated, and improve our draft position in one of the deepest drafts in a long time. I think we should get a 1st out of it as well. But I'm not haggling until I get the optimal offer like DA.

The season before RJ was drafted, the Knicks got off to an awful start. It was soon clear that this squad (as constructed) wasnt going anywhere. So the FO cleared out the roster, went for the tank, and drafted RJ with the 3rd pick. I prefer this strategy to a "pre-emptive tank". Dont believe that will make the Knicks an attractive destination. Im guessing that Brunson signed in part because the Knicks havent tanked since then. They're trying to win.

God forbid, if one or more key players are out for an extended period due to injury. Or the Knicks get off to a really bad start, then maybe
a strategy of tanking while putting the youth movement front and center, might be the way to go. Tanking from the start so a team with
picks to spare can improve their position wont make us an attractive destination IMO.

This team isn't even a lock for the play-in. It would be nice to know what we have in Reddish, Toppin, and IQ before their rookie contracts are up.

fishmike wrote:this is mental masturbation.... you guys will literally cook up any scenario that ensures you dont have to endure watching the Knick win games with Randle having a bounce back season. It's gonna be a fun season and for all the right reasons

LOL, the tank is strong with fans! It always seems like a good idea but yoot will suck if we lose more than win.
Why?
We lose more than win. Blame is not tangible.

I am not a fan of the path to mediocrity the Knicks have chosen since 2 years ago, but we have some interesting and well-fitting pieces in place right now, so would prefer to see how it all plays out in the next year or two, rather than yearn for the return of Barnum & Bailey.

Same goes for bringing Melo back. Nothing but respect for him, but this would be history repeating as a farce.

fishmike wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

fishmike wrote:this is mental masturbation.... you guys will literally cook up any scenario that ensures you dont have to endure watching the Knick win games with Randle having a bounce back season. It's gonna be a fun season and for all the right reasons

This is exactly where I'm at. Randle was as good a PG as Eastern Conference Champion and DPOY Marcus Smart playing at the power forward position, last season! Burks was a hell of a sniper but not a real PG. The front office finally got an up and coming PG since the first time we paired Amare with Felton and some fans would happily see us tank out way to the number 8 pick. I just don't get it.

If we're wrong there will be plenty of outs later in the season, I just don't get the urgency to create turmoil on the brink of a new season.

because you dont hate Randle and neither do I. He's just another guy. But if you hate him it wrecks your emotional mojo going into this season so you gotta chop that guy

100% agree with you. Thibs, Leon and company have not come this far and done this much work to let Randle wreck the thing. He will be gone if he's the issue. I expect these guys to come in in great shape and I us to have one of the best defensive teams from the start.

I dont love Fournier but Grimes is not even close to being as good yet. Randle playing well is much more valuable to us than Randle being gone and Randle playing well is a reasonable goal.

ramtour420 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

fishmike wrote:this is mental masturbation.... you guys will literally cook up any scenario that ensures you dont have to endure watching the Knick win games with Randle having a bounce back season. It's gonna be a fun season and for all the right reasons

This is exactly where I'm at. Randle was as good a PG as Eastern Conference Champion and DPOY Marcus Smart playing at the power forward position, last season! Burks was a hell of a sniper but not a real PG. The front office finally got an up and coming PG since the first time we paired Amare with Felton and some fans would happily see us tank out way to the number 8 pick. I just don't get it.

If we're wrong there will be plenty of outs later in the season, I just don't get the urgency to create turmoil on the brink of a new season.

because you dont hate Randle and neither do I. He's just another guy. But if you hate him it wrecks your emotional mojo going into this season so you gotta chop that guy

100% agree with you. Thibs, Leon and company have not come this far and done this much work to let Randle wreck the thing. He will be gone if he's the issue. I expect these guys to come in in great shape and I us to have one of the best defensive teams from the start.

I dont love Fournier but Grimes is not even close to being as good yet. Randle playing well is much more valuable to us than Randle being gone and Randle playing well is a reasonable goal.

Could you please specify which criteria is this based on? Their 3 point % is identical at 38%. Grimes is better on D. Fournier might be a bit better as a playmaker, although Grimes showed major improvement in that department during summer league. What is it that makes them not close? The only thing I can come up with is experience. Their skills are close already and that's after Grimes played only 1 season

I dont love Fournier here but the guy is a hell of a good offensive player, and not just the international stuff. I DO love Grimes and his potential but he's literally years from being the complete player Fournier is (on that side of the ball). Grimes did a good job hitting his shots. How are we confusing that with Fournier's all around offensive game is odd

GustavBahler wrote:Did you get a chance to watch Grimes in SL? Looked amazing until the playoffs, when they started to play actual D. He didnt look ready against rooks, and second year players. Now some are suggesting Grimes should be made starter from day one.

If Grimes is as ready as some posters believe, he shouldnt have any trouble taking the job from Fournier during the season. And thats what he has to do, take it from him. To pararaphrase a saying in boxing. To be a starter, you have to beat the starter. My POV anyway.

I don't think anyone is suggesting Grimes goes into the starting lineup and starts throwing up the second most shots on the team. He's role would be drastically different than it was on the SL team. He would be a role player who provides defense and spot up shooting. Now I'm not suggesting the Knicks just give him a spot. But I think he's shown enough that I'm confident he can provide a 3&D fit next to Brunson.