Philc1 wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:I'm not even sure Brunson is a big upgrade over Burks. You are trading 3 point efficiency for 2 point efficiency.

It’s more than that. You’re getting a primary ball handler who can actually break down a defense off the dribble. Burks cannot do that

True. How do you get Brunson here? Knicks have to give up some assets to get him and matching salaries will be a pain in the ass for Dallas. Next season Donicic's extension kicks in and they are already close to 160 million. Adding Brunson or equivalent salaries will be all tax money. So for Dallas, they have a pretty strong incentive to just let Brunson go rather than pick up ****ty assets.

The best contract I see is Eric Bledsoe's 19 million contract guaranteed for 3 million until day 4 of free agency. How many draft picks will it take to make that happen? How is NY matching salaries with Bledsoe?

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:I'm not even sure Brunson is a big upgrade over Burks. You are trading 3 point efficiency for 2 point efficiency.

It’s more than that. You’re getting a primary ball handler who can actually break down a defense off the dribble. Burks cannot do that

True. How do you get Brunson here? Knicks have to give up some assets to get him and matching salaries will be a pain in the ass for Dallas. Next season Donicic's extension kicks in and they are already close to 160 million. Adding Brunson or equivalent salaries will be all tax money. So for Dallas, they have a pretty strong incentive to just let Brunson go rather than pick up ****ty assets.

The best contract I see is Eric Bledsoe's 19 million contract guaranteed for 3 million until day 4 of free agency. How many draft picks will it take to make that happen? How is NY matching salaries with Bledsoe?

Randle/Noel for Brunson/Dorian Finney-Smith

Dallas gets a second high level guy next to Doncic and backup C. Knicks get backup PF, PG.

Yes that can work. The Randle trade makes a ton of sense. Dallas typically values talent over anything and they can talk themselves into Randle being more “comfortable” at home and regain his allstar level play alongside Doncic. There’s a number of different trades that can work because Bullock, Powell and Kleber all can serve as fillers. The other option would be a deal around 2 of Burks, Reddish, noel and Kemba plus the Dallas 2023 first. That pick is more valuable to them than other teams for obvious reasons. It gives them their future flexibility back as it’s a protected pick that limits dealing future picks. Teams pushing for the next piece to a championship puzzle need that flexibility. The players wouldn’t be that important here, but Burks would help them. And I believe if Brunson wants to be a Knicks than they can use the threat of moving off these contracts as a means to force Dallas into a trade. It isn’t that hard for the Knicks to open 20M in cap space. Knicks could have moved Burks/Reddish/Noel in a large trade with Toronto and LA this deadline and chose not to. That would have created more than enough space. They can do something like that again this summer if they want.

Philc1 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

fishmike wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

fishmike wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

fishmike wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Knixkik wrote:2 things to take advantage of their connections, which is why they were brought in to begin with;

1 is Brunson. Uber efficient PG that is young enough to grow with the young guys. We don’t need to elaborate on this one because it’s been discussed plenty lately

2 is manipulate draft process to get Shaedon Sharpe. I don’t know much about him but his profile screams star potential. He’s a Kentucky recruit who might be repped by CAA for all we know, but could easily go dark and avoid working out for other teams to steer his way to the Knicks. Can move up using a future protected pick or the Dallas 2023 pick. This draft can yield us another player in the Quickley, Grimes, Toppin, Reddish range or we can take a stab at a real future star who can grow alongside Barrett. Coming out of the summer with a good PG and a developmental prospect who has real difference maker upside can turn the tides on the franchise in ways that this front office needs to accomplish.

you are worse than Briggs... at least he says the names of his crush in the title

Brunson... undersized guard with defensive liabilities who doesnt help you attack the basket. Works with the space created by one of the NBA's best players. There is no path at acquire beyond throwing draft assets or another player in a sigh and trade

Wecome to the offseason where Knixkik is going to start a new "this is a good direction" thread with #1 saying "get Brunson" despite no logical path to get him. Dallas would be willing... they play as well without him as they do with him.

Maybe Burks/Simms and a FRP for a sign and trade with Brunson. Yeah... that sounds very Isiah like. We can look forward to 3-4 years of Brunson for $20mm per and talk about how steady he is

Disagree. Dude is a craftsman in the paint and the number back it up. Dude shoots like 60% from there. He can also create under pressure.
https://www.nba.com/stats/player/1628973/shooting

Youtube Brunson. Awesome. Most of that video is him dribbling around until he gets his shot off.

You win. Knixkik also. Brunson is awesome. I love him too now. Forget the defensive issues with building around him for the next 4-5 years.

Lets just focus on reality

BigDaddyG... what path would you suggest to acquiring him and why does Dallas let him come?

I'm not sure and I agree, that there is a price that may be too high. If a sign and trade with Mitch is all it took, then I'd be down. I'm just pushing back against the idea that Brunson is a scrub who wouldn't help the team. He would be a huge upgrade.

never said he was a scrub. Never. I have said several times he's a very good BB player. Brunson would have been a HUGE help THIS year. The question is moving forward does he make sense and I have laid out reasons why he does NOT (starting with acquisition costs)

Here's some reasons from a Mav's fan:

Brunson has had a really good year and has been an important part of the teams success this year. His numbers goes down against Westen Conference playoff contenders and he still has been marginalized by lengthy defenders. While he's definitely worth a pay raise, I dont think he's worth $20M a year and think it would be a mistake to give him such a contract. How he plays in this years playoffs will be critical.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Mavericks/comments/tygs4p/the_athletic_the_pistons_have_real_interest_in/

Eh, that Reddit quote is like linking a quote from some one here that says Mitch is a $20M per year center on the open market. From a on the court perspective, I think he make sense due to his ability to break down the defense and score/ in the paint. He's also good at manipulating the pick and roll. He's be a welcome addition. But you're right, it depends on the cost and we won't really know that until the FA market opens.

read the whole thread.. its interesting. It certainly serves my argument which is that Brunson makes no sense because he's a high cost acquisition with low ceiling because of his physical limitations. Thats it.

Basically Mavs fans: "If he's shut down in the playoffs again there's no point in committing to him"
Knick fans: "playoffs???? we talking about playoffs???"

Lastly... your youtube video shows Brunson's best attribute is scoring. He's not an elite playmaker. This isnt a CP3 guy who makes everyone better. His #s are not better enough than Burks (as a starter) last year to warrent ANY of the kind of moves it would take to get him (trading for cap space, letting Mitch walk, using assets in a S&T)

Really lastly... the Knicks are not "one player or one position" away from anything. If we are being totally honest with this roster its in the early stages at best. We are seeing assets turned into guys like IQ/Grimes/Sims/McBride/Rokus... Keep Mitch, keep developing these guys, keep drafting well.

Random Knicks fan(whose names includes the numbers 1248): Mitch Robinson sucks, he runs slow, his hands sucks and he'll be lucky to get $9M a year on the open market.
Random Mavs fan: Check out this thread on ultimateknicks.com. I told you MitchRob is trash! He won't impact our team at all!
Sorry, I'm not giving any serious credence to a Reddit thread, unless I'm looking for a cool meme.
Jalen is clearly better than Burks and he's proven that he's exponentially better in the games he played without Luka. No, Brunson isn't prime Chris Paul, but there arent many that are. But he's a lot better than what we have and the guy can be a playmaker. There's no need to sell the guy short. He excels at areas the team is weak at. I get wanting to keep the young guys. But it's not realistic. You have to let a few go at some point. The best you can hope for is to get assets back for them.
https://stathead.com/tiny/vLI0u

how is Brunson clearly better than Burks? Looks at Burk's starting #s. He's been very good.

If Burks was actually good at pg the season wouldn’t be over already

TPercy wrote:One trade that could also help is a Randle + Assets for Brogdon. Brogdon is a good enough creator to replace Randle's volume. not the highest on it tho

That's fair. But I get uneasy thinking about a backcourt that relies on Rose and Brogdan. But it is a path toward a stealth tank and that's kinda cool.

I look no further than the Unheralded Fred Van Fleet is a fair comparison. HE came out of nowherem with skills
Had Khawhi on team with Lowry to help Raptors win ONLY 1st NBA Title, GOOD for NBA.

Of course this thread isnt about Van Fleet he aint going to be going no where.

However if Brunson is in this chat, I'd say if Brunson is NOT yet equal as what Fred Van Fleet game brings to competition
Then Knicks can do better.

IN short if you tell me Knicks was going after Fred Van Fleet it's be ALL hands up, VAN FLEET
is type of NBA player whom will make Knicks rise back in east better !

(Brunson vs Van Fleet) *stats city
https://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/jalen_brunson_vs_fred_vanvleet.htm

TheGame wrote:My view if we are going to sign a PG to be a starter, the pg should not have any significant holes to his game. Brunson COULD be a solid starter but that is still debatable at this point. He is only a so-so defender and he is undersized. While he seems to a competent pg, he has not really proven that he can run a team full time. Instead of paying Brunson $20 mil a year, I would just start Quickley, hope Rose can stay healthy, and see how McBride looks in year two.

fishmike wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

fishmike wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

fishmike wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

fishmike wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Knixkik wrote:2 things to take advantage of their connections, which is why they were brought in to begin with;

1 is Brunson. Uber efficient PG that is young enough to grow with the young guys. We don’t need to elaborate on this one because it’s been discussed plenty lately

2 is manipulate draft process to get Shaedon Sharpe. I don’t know much about him but his profile screams star potential. He’s a Kentucky recruit who might be repped by CAA for all we know, but could easily go dark and avoid working out for other teams to steer his way to the Knicks. Can move up using a future protected pick or the Dallas 2023 pick. This draft can yield us another player in the Quickley, Grimes, Toppin, Reddish range or we can take a stab at a real future star who can grow alongside Barrett. Coming out of the summer with a good PG and a developmental prospect who has real difference maker upside can turn the tides on the franchise in ways that this front office needs to accomplish.

you are worse than Briggs... at least he says the names of his crush in the title

Brunson... undersized guard with defensive liabilities who doesnt help you attack the basket. Works with the space created by one of the NBA's best players. There is no path at acquire beyond throwing draft assets or another player in a sigh and trade

Wecome to the offseason where Knixkik is going to start a new "this is a good direction" thread with #1 saying "get Brunson" despite no logical path to get him. Dallas would be willing... they play as well without him as they do with him.

Maybe Burks/Simms and a FRP for a sign and trade with Brunson. Yeah... that sounds very Isiah like. We can look forward to 3-4 years of Brunson for $20mm per and talk about how steady he is

Disagree. Dude is a craftsman in the paint and the number back it up. Dude shoots like 60% from there. He can also create under pressure.
https://www.nba.com/stats/player/1628973/shooting

Youtube Brunson. Awesome. Most of that video is him dribbling around until he gets his shot off.

You win. Knixkik also. Brunson is awesome. I love him too now. Forget the defensive issues with building around him for the next 4-5 years.

Lets just focus on reality

BigDaddyG... what path would you suggest to acquiring him and why does Dallas let him come?

I'm not sure and I agree, that there is a price that may be too high. If a sign and trade with Mitch is all it took, then I'd be down. I'm just pushing back against the idea that Brunson is a scrub who wouldn't help the team. He would be a huge upgrade.

never said he was a scrub. Never. I have said several times he's a very good BB player. Brunson would have been a HUGE help THIS year. The question is moving forward does he make sense and I have laid out reasons why he does NOT (starting with acquisition costs)

Here's some reasons from a Mav's fan:

Brunson has had a really good year and has been an important part of the teams success this year. His numbers goes down against Westen Conference playoff contenders and he still has been marginalized by lengthy defenders. While he's definitely worth a pay raise, I dont think he's worth $20M a year and think it would be a mistake to give him such a contract. How he plays in this years playoffs will be critical.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Mavericks/comments/tygs4p/the_athletic_the_pistons_have_real_interest_in/

Eh, that Reddit quote is like linking a quote from some one here that says Mitch is a $20M per year center on the open market. From a on the court perspective, I think he make sense due to his ability to break down the defense and score/ in the paint. He's also good at manipulating the pick and roll. He's be a welcome addition. But you're right, it depends on the cost and we won't really know that until the FA market opens.

read the whole thread.. its interesting. It certainly serves my argument which is that Brunson makes no sense because he's a high cost acquisition with low ceiling because of his physical limitations. Thats it.

Basically Mavs fans: "If he's shut down in the playoffs again there's no point in committing to him"
Knick fans: "playoffs???? we talking about playoffs???"

Lastly... your youtube video shows Brunson's best attribute is scoring. He's not an elite playmaker. This isnt a CP3 guy who makes everyone better. His #s are not better enough than Burks (as a starter) last year to warrent ANY of the kind of moves it would take to get him (trading for cap space, letting Mitch walk, using assets in a S&T)

Really lastly... the Knicks are not "one player or one position" away from anything. If we are being totally honest with this roster its in the early stages at best. We are seeing assets turned into guys like IQ/Grimes/Sims/McBride/Rokus... Keep Mitch, keep developing these guys, keep drafting well.

Random Knicks fan(whose names includes the numbers 1248): Mitch Robinson sucks, he runs slow, his hands sucks and he'll be lucky to get $9M a year on the open market.
Random Mavs fan: Check out this thread on ultimateknicks.com. I told you MitchRob is trash! He won't impact our team at all!
Sorry, I'm not giving any serious credence to a Reddit thread, unless I'm looking for a cool meme.
Jalen is clearly better than Burks and he's proven that he's exponentially better in the games he played without Luka. No, Brunson isn't prime Chris Paul, but there arent many that are. But he's a lot better than what we have and the guy can be a playmaker. There's no need to sell the guy short. He excels at areas the team is weak at. I get wanting to keep the young guys. But it's not realistic. You have to let a few go at some point. The best you can hope for is to get assets back for them.
https://stathead.com/tiny/vLI0u

how is Brunson clearly better than Burks? Looks at Burk's starting #s. He's been very good.

If Burks was actually good at pg the season wouldn’t be over already

right... cause that's all that went wrong

No but it’s the biggest thing that went wrong. I’m not even blaming Burks. It’s not his fault he was stuck playing pg

Philc1 wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

TPercy wrote:One trade that could also help is a Randle + Assets for Brogdon. Brogdon is a good enough creator to replace Randle's volume. not the highest on it tho

That's fair. But I get uneasy thinking about a backcourt that relies on Rose and Brogdan. But it is a path toward a stealth tank and that's kinda cool.

Neither Rose nor Brogdon can stay healthy

Here’s the thing. We could probably get Brogdon on the cheap. I doubt the pacers want Randle that’s not their style. More realistic scenario is Rose/Noel + future 2nd round pick similar to package we offer to Mavs for Dinwiddie

If we trade for Brogdon we still need to draft a pg at 10 and sign a veteran pg like Rubio. Brogdon is only good to play 50 games a season

That doesn't sound like a solution.

What's the logic of getting Brunson over starting IQ?

Philc1 wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:I'm not even sure Brunson is a big upgrade over Burks. You are trading 3 point efficiency for 2 point efficiency.

It’s more than that. You’re getting a primary ball handler who can actually break down a defense off the dribble. Burks cannot do that

Also, we dont have cap space. So there's that.