Their per game numbers this year are almost identical.

Galloway
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gallola01.html

Beverley
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/beverpa01.html

I'm just saying....

what made me look at the stats is because a few people mentioned they would rather the Knicks just sign that dude. I can agree to an extent. Some joked the Knicks ate going to have to over pay and give him like 10 mil a year. That's annoying.

I get that beverly is a nuisance on the court and getting a reputation for being able to get under guys skin. That's cool.

We can see what were getting from Galloway. He's a good defender. He plays a gentleman game and had proven to be clutch and has been a glue guy from day one.

Why spend the money on Beverly? Realistically were going to have to spend 5-8 mil a year for defense. The guy is not going to pick up the offense right away. He doesn't strike me as that type of player. Is it worth the trouble?

If peeps think Beverley talent is good enough to bring here, I would rather just roll with Galloway. We could then focus our energy on fixing a more urgent weakness.

I would spend very little money on Beverly. His 2 point shooting is scary. Galloway's isn't better but we have him locked into a good contract.

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I would spend very little money on Beverly. His 2 point shooting is scary. Galloway's isn't better but we have him locked into a good contract.

Is that a blimp or trend. His prior two season his 2pt shooting was good. Langston 2pt shooting is awful but he gets a break for being a rookie.

Unknown if it's a blimp or a trend but Galloway is a much cheaper version. His prior 2 point shooting (.470) was adequate, but not good. He does have other strengths, though. It all depends on price with Beverly. What's the most you'd pay him? I doubt I'd go above 5 or 6 mil per. I'd rather just see what happens with Galloway. Of course, on a low contract (like 4 mil per) it would be nice to have him in addition to Galloway though. There isn't really any incentive for him to come here on a discount though.

i would NEVER measure Bevely by his offense. His best intangible is his aggressive defense. With that said, hes a streaky 3pt shooter and average passer. i would love him on my team as a back up role player

The real way to future success of this team is going to be it's ability to develop their own players as opposed to spending big on Free Agents. We do need to infuse the team with some Free Agents but to the extent that we can develop our own players much cheaper that will really help this team going forward. I think that the staff of the Knicks is very clear on the type of players they are looking for and Galloway was identified early and has been a growing success so far. I do see him as kind of a Patrick Beverly type so I am not so hot to go after Beverley at this time, tho he is a good player and I wouldn't have a problem with signing him. The thing is that we have to find as many cheap options as possible. That may mean finding guys who aren't getting so much attention.

EnySpree wrote:

callmened wrote:i would NEVER measure Bevely by his offense. His best intangible is his aggressive defense. With that said, hes a streaky 3pt shooter and average passer. i would love him on my team as a back up role player

That's the thing. Do you waste money on a guy just to come in and play defense when you have someone already on your roster for minimum salary that does the Same exact thing? I think you save money on one dimensional guys. You find them in the d league, or at the bottom of the waiver wire for minimum salary. You need to spend money on 2 way players.

I agree. This summer is going to be about adding more Top Tier talent to the roster. We are looking at a group full of role players and this summer we should be spending on talent that can carry the load as much as possible and save money on the role players who can be productive on reasonable contracts.

I personally hope that Beverley sticks with Houston for $5M+ because that would open the door for the Knicks to go after K.J. McDanials. Houston doesn't has his bird rights anyway but I don't want them to have any money to go after so the Knicks can hopefully get him at a low price.

mcdaniels would be tremendous... there's an opportunity to build a great young defensive team cheaply... have them develop in a year and use leftover cap room in 2016 for the missing pieces to contend...

mcdaniels fit that profile...

Thing about defense. You need to play it to win, but great offense beats great defense the majority of the time. Especially playing in the no hands era....

Don't get me wrong we need play defense to win. We just don't need to throw money at guys to do one thing. I'm positive Beverley will have a hard time getting this triangle offense. For what he does, we can just roll with larkin and Galloway.

Now on the flip side, you can still entertain Dragic. He's very good offensively and good enough on defense to blend in and keep things honest.

Galloway, at the very least, is going to be a solid rotational player in the 20-30 MPG range, depending on match-ups and his performance in a particular game.

I can't believe that his shooting won't improve, given his college track record, but then again, I doubt if he was using the same energy on D while in college that he is using on the floor with the Knicks. He's gone head to head with some of the better PGs and has held his own.

The Triangle, from what I can see, is also an offense that stresses movement by its guards, so I would think that any of our guards getting good minutes is going to have to be in superior shape. Galloway's shot has been flat in many games, and this might have something to do with his legs being shot.

The shot he hit off the Schved pass, where he was just catching and shooting, had a nice arch, and the bomb he hit against the Pistons had as much arch on it as I've ever seen on a shot. I think Galloway would be a more productive shooter if he had more catch and shoot plays set up for him, but I'm not sure he will get these kinds of looks in our offense.

His track record as a shooter and his coach-ability (not only did he have to become a PG, but one in the Triangle) makes me think he'll make adjustments to his shot in the offseason.

Ironically, the big shot against the Raptors WAS NOT taken in the normal flow of the Triangle offense, but simply an isolation drive and kickout, which allowed Schved to react and make the best play possible. We had time to run our standard Triangle, but Fisher called a timeout, and you have to think that the play we saw which finished with the Galloway 3 was one option on the play he called.

A lot of trust put in the decision making of Schved, by the way. Schved/Galloway might be a good pairing if Schved can get him more looks like the one he got on that play.

I've said this once before, and still believe it- we basically got a late 1st rounder by signing Galloway. Look at the playing time and stats for the rookies in the recent draft. We got lucky with this guy.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:this was interesting:
http://www.82games.com/1415/14NYK4.HTM
Galloway's +/- #s are fantastic. He's tracked as mostly playing off guard, and opposing offguards are shooting an incredibly low .388 EFG% (this factors for 3's and FTs)... so if you think that Galloway is having a positive impact and playing top flight defense the #s are backing that up.

The #s look good for a min contract rookie. You're right about his defense too.
That said, the +/- #s basically just indicate that the team is doing a lot better with him than with Calderon or anyone else at PG.

they have logged him mostly at SG, so a large sampling there is with him playing w/ Calderon which they had been alot. I was mostly interested in what the opposing player does, and that opposing FG% I posted is a very impressive # granted its a small sample size. The point is the #s reflect the eyeball test which is Galloway is playing excellent defense. He doesnt just *look* like he's playing it, the guys he's guarding are shooting very very poorly.