EwingsGlass wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

TheGame wrote:If a team is available offering a first round pick for Quickley, then I make that trade. We committed to Brunson longterm and Grimes is the future at SG, plus McBride needs a chance.

how exactly is Grimes the future at SG? if he is, our future there is very dim and unsure.

What exactly has he shown? In summer league, great play except for a couple big games when he was shut down.

And this year, hurt. What is he doing with a hurt foot? C'mon. And how many games did he play/miss last year?

I was hoping Mitch would produce this year - and he is already hurt - and admittedly, that was an injury which you can only blame his high flying ways for.

Injuries aside, Grimes will be a fantastic SG and POA defender. He stays in front of people and motors around on the perimeter like a beast. His shot looks pure and he can put it on the floor and get to rim. Tough in-traffic rebounder too.

You have to project out some instead of holding him to yesterday's injury status. And then be patient for a couple of years while he puts it together.

Or you could accept a trade scenario ala Steph Curry when he had bad ankle injuries for a few years.

He might well be. But there is 0 ways you can count on that today. It's malpractice to say we're committing long term to Grimes at the SG. I like him, he has shown flashes - but just as many flashes are green, some are red - like not being available and being shut down by an opposing team in summer league.

Knicks just refused to put him in a trade for Donovan Mitchell over the likes of RJ. They supposedly got feedback from Jerry West and he pretty much intimated the same - that they should be VERY high on him.

Take that as you will.

the things Grimes does right are SO hard to teach. I get Franco taking exception to the notion we are sitting on an all star here... but I think people are just saying he's a blue chip and worth seeing how this shakes out.

I’m not anti-Grimes in any sense but don’t really understand the untouchable tag. From tho biometric standpoint, he is average to below average on height and wingspan. Age wise, he came in as a 4 year senior and overcame some adversity in college. But showing out as one of the oldest players at the combine, you have to expect that the development projection isn’t as steep as some of the younger players. He is already who he is to a large degree, especially as a guard. His commitment to defense and solid shooting form can make him a mainstay in an NBA rotation, though I question again his athleticism. Many of his “moments” were more about pre-existing basketball maturity than progressive growth. Right now, I’m seeing a smaller Langston Galloway. I don’t think you nix a superstar trade over Grimes, but maybe you nix it generally over an institutional concept of keeping two way players that can shoot from 3 and not just giving them away.

You got to get a new prescription. Galloway was 6'2" with very limited talent. Grimes is the complete opposite. He has the potential to be a complete 2-way player as his floor, guarding 1-3 with great anticipation and ability to switch, get out to perimeter. His sweet shooting shot will eventually allow him to put ball on floor. Those types of players are invaluable.

And I think there may be a framing problem here too in regards to the trade. Give or take, Danny was asking for 3 players, picks. Of the players up for grabs, the Knicks wanted to hold back Grimes, especially if IQ and/or RJ was included. It's not like the proposed traded was Grimes, salary filler, picks for Donovan.

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

TheGame wrote:If a team is available offering a first round pick for Quickley, then I make that trade. We committed to Brunson longterm and Grimes is the future at SG, plus McBride needs a chance.

how exactly is Grimes the future at SG? if he is, our future there is very dim and unsure.

What exactly has he shown? In summer league, great play except for a couple big games when he was shut down.

And this year, hurt. What is he doing with a hurt foot? C'mon. And how many games did he play/miss last year?

I was hoping Mitch would produce this year - and he is already hurt - and admittedly, that was an injury which you can only blame his high flying ways for.

Injuries aside, Grimes will be a fantastic SG and POA defender. He stays in front of people and motors around on the perimeter like a beast. His shot looks pure and he can put it on the floor and get to rim. Tough in-traffic rebounder too.

You have to project out some instead of holding him to yesterday's injury status. And then be patient for a couple of years while he puts it together.

Or you could accept a trade scenario ala Steph Curry when he had bad ankle injuries for a few years.

He might well be. But there is 0 ways you can count on that today. It's malpractice to say we're committing long term to Grimes at the SG. I like him, he has shown flashes - but just as many flashes are green, some are red - like not being available and being shut down by an opposing team in summer league.

Knicks just refused to put him in a trade for Donovan Mitchell over the likes of RJ. They supposedly got feedback from Jerry West and he pretty much intimated the same - that they should be VERY high on him.

Take that as you will.

the things Grimes does right are SO hard to teach. I get Franco taking exception to the notion we are sitting on an all star here... but I think people are just saying he's a blue chip and worth seeing how this shakes out.

I’m not anti-Grimes in any sense but don’t really understand the untouchable tag. From tho biometric standpoint, he is average to below average on height and wingspan. Age wise, he came in as a 4 year senior and overcame some adversity in college. But showing out as one of the oldest players at the combine, you have to expect that the development projection isn’t as steep as some of the younger players. He is already who he is to a large degree, especially as a guard. His commitment to defense and solid shooting form can make him a mainstay in an NBA rotation, though I question again his athleticism. Many of his “moments” were more about pre-existing basketball maturity than progressive growth. Right now, I’m seeing a smaller Langston Galloway. I don’t think you nix a superstar trade over Grimes, but maybe you nix it generally over an institutional concept of keeping two way players that can shoot from 3 and not just giving them away.

You got to get a new prescription. Galloway was 6'2" with very limited talent. Grimes is the complete opposite. He has the potential to be a complete 2-way player as his floor, guarding 1-3 with great anticipation and ability to switch, get out to perimeter. His sweet shooting shot will eventually allow him to put ball on floor. Those types of players are invaluable.

And I think there may be a framing problem here too in regards to the trade. Give or take, Danny was asking for 3 players, picks. Of the players up for grabs, the Knicks wanted to hold back Grimes, especially if IQ and/or RJ was included. It's not like the proposed traded was Grimes, salary filler, picks for Donovan.

Not my eyes, its my memory - I switched names in my head. I meant Landry Fields. I know its not a direct 1 to 1 comparison

I agree on the second point - I don't actually know the trade proposals, but the commentary that Jerry West told the Knicks not to trade Grimes is really the impetus to my comment. I don't really see the upward projection the same way others due. I see an older rookie who showed maturity in his first year in the league, but I am not sure that it translates to developmental growth projections. I think he will be a player in the NBA for a long time. I'm not going much further than that.

BigDaddyG wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:Two Trades

1) IQ and Toppin for Shaeden Sharpe and Greg Brown
Portland is looking like they are gonna make a run this year. Read an article that suggested the Blazers should move Sharpe for help now. I always liked Greg Brown, but he is just their to balance salary. Portland gets that IQ/Toppin combo to anchor the second unit. Lillard mentioned IQ in his lyrics, so you know it’s gotta happen. I don’t really love giving up IQ or Toppin, but you gotta give to get. And I love Sharpe.

2) Blow it up. Randle, Fournier and Rose for Westbrook and a conditional 2029 pick. I’m just clearing salary. Waive Westbrook. Nobody needs his shenanigans.

McBride/Brunson
Sharpe/Grimes
Barrett/Brown
Reddish/Sims
Robinson/Hart

Yeah, this is probably tanking. Doubt it results in the number #1 pick, but assume we are adding three players in a good draft. I’d hand the keys to Sharpe and see where this goes. Yeah, I don’t see McBride really starting over Brunson, but it might result in better defense.

Oh yeah, and Kenny Atkinson is the coach in this scenario.

No way Portland does the first trade. Sharpe's upside is higher than IQ's and Obi's as a rookie. Sharpe is averaging 9 ppg and shooting 52% from the field in 20 mins a game. And he's shooting 44% from 3. I might literally laugh to death if some called me and offered IQ/Obi for Sharpe. Also, you run into some of the same issues we have with Randle. Where and when is Obi playing? He wouldn't steal many minutes from Grant.

I think its a question of Lillard's remaining timeline versus Portland's depth. A Trailblazer blog suggested they move Sharpe for depth.

Lillard/[Payton - Injured]
Simons/Sharpe
Hart/Little
Grant/Watford
[Nurkik - Injured]/Eubanks

They don't have a lot to trade and they don't have any depth. Wait a month and include Sims? The point I am making is that Sharpe is perhaps their only trade chip. They should either trade Sharpe and try to win now, or trade Lillard and try and build for later.

Lill/IQ
Simons
Hart
Grant/Toppin
Sims/Eubanks

I get what you're saying, even though I don't believe that they're pressured into any of the above scenarios. They can always just keep Sharpe and extend their competitive window. My point is Sharpe is is arguably already better contributor than both Obi and IQ. Doesn't matter if you in include Sims.

I think Sharpe is better than either of IQ or Toppin, but I don’t think he is better than both IQ and Toppin and not specifically today. I don’t see Portland as desperate, but I also think IQ and Toppin are good core pieces. I wish our front office would build around more. I don’t know how Portland adds depth without trade pieces and not a lot of moveable salary. Adding Sims just gives them depth at C which they are sorely lacking.

I don’t think it’s a terrible proposal.

Philc1 wrote:It’s wierd I got roasted for suggesting the same trade 9 months ago

Your idea wasnt properly seasoned.. lol

martin wrote:Good reason why Portland may hesitate to trade Sharpe

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NBADraftWass/status/1593615957871558656

Yeah, and I think we are just touching the surface of this kid. I would reset the roster and build around him. If I am Portland, I'd move Lillard to the highest bidder and build around him and Simons.

Knixkik wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:Good reason why Portland may hesitate to trade Sharpe

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NBADraftWass/status/1593615957871558656

Yeah, and I think we are just touching the surface of this kid. I would reset the roster and build around him. If I am Portland, I'd move Lillard to the highest bidder and build around him and Simons.

If Portland is good than no need to reset the roster. Sharpe can develop just fine alongside Lillard and Simmons I think.

Yeah. Them trading Sharpe is wishful thinking on my part. I do think they will have a depth issue. Very light roster. They have a lot of players with injury concerns and not a lot of depth behind those players.