GustavBahler wrote:Might work. My solution would be to trade Rose for more of a Charlie Ward type backup PG. If Thibs wont try developing Grimes into that role.

Thought Rose could be a big boost in a playoff run, but his strength is as a shoot first PG. Brunson played his most well rounded game since the start of the season. But right now he's primarily a shoot first PG. We need more of a playmaker to balance out the rotation IMO.

Rose's value at this stage of the season Im guessing is good. He is healthy, playing like he's turning back the clock. Wouldnt mind seeing the FO make a move before the trade deadline.

A playmaking PG off the bench (better than we have now) would give us a good idea of which players fit best on the roster. Who should be moved for another scorer.

Deuce McBride are the Knicks Charlie Ward. The Knicks need a head coach like Mark Jackson !!!

Free D.Rose coaching leadership to guide a bench lineup for 18 min per game.
The Boston Celtics Defensive-Player Marcus Smart coaching leadership took Celtics to the FINALS.
Any Game coach Tom Thibs play a 9 man rotation means the Knicks are TANKING that game !!!
Why? The Knicks does not have a star-player on their roster, the Knicks have a complete roster to run 10 or 11 man rotation each game for 50-50 chance for the win (Brunson creativeness and D.Rose creativeness) !!!

fishmike wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:I think you said it in your first sentence. It’s a superstar and they are hard to get.

its this... we have a bunch of good players and we will win some games, especially against the **** teams but what we need is an impact player still. A true first option. Hayward could be a guy like that for cheap, but anyone else is gonna be pricy (like Donovan would have been). Maybe RJ and picks for Booker works at some point. Who knows, the NBA changes fast. We are in pretty good position imo.

crazy how fast PHX turn it around this season!
perhaps when they get close to contract ending a player like booker can pull a "Melo" and dictate where they want to be.
Haywood got two more years (This and next) for about 30mil each. EF at 19mm, so another 11 has to go out. im not aware we have room or trade exemption. Randle works but 15% kicker is paid by us and its a big number.
EF and Drose more than works but Drose has to be down with Charlotte and mentor Melo Ball. Im spitballing.
What we don't know is Grimes groomed enough for the 2 yet? I know we'd like to think so,

fishmike wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:I think you said it in your first sentence. It’s a superstar and they are hard to get.

its this... we have a bunch of good players and we will win some games, especially against the **** teams but what we need is an impact player still. A true first option. Hayward could be a guy like that for cheap, but anyone else is gonna be pricy (like Donovan would have been). Maybe RJ and picks for Booker works at some point. Who knows, the NBA changes fast. We are in pretty good position imo.

We have seen this story play out many times. Don't think its about ONE superstar. I have been the broken record for years. We need guys at high who are high level shooters. The players we have are good. Problem is that they do not fit the present NBA. As Boston showed us last night, you need everyone to be able to shoot the three. You need several guys that can knock it down at a high click. RJ's best game is driving to the basket. Struggles from three. Randle's best role is bully ball down low. Struggles from three. Brunson's best game is crafty 10 footers. MR best game is alley oops. EF was that but he is now on the bench and can't play defense. Cam replacing him takes care of the defense but adds bad bball IQ on offense and a inconsistent three. Right now the only players I feel that may eventually fit the role of solid three point shooters are Grimes, EF and IQ. Problem with that is that none of those are considered our primary scorers. We nee to get players that are not only at a higher level but that fit in the way teams are succeeding in todays NBA. DM was one. Should have given up anyone that did not fit the three point criteria. But that is water under the bridge. Key is to make adjustments to what seems to work.

Is it too much to ask RJ to shoot 34% from 3? Is it too much to ask IQ to play the way he did to end the season.

And then can we ask Thibs to play Obi 28 minutes a night?

BigDaddyG wrote:Heard this idea mentioned on the Bill Simmons podcast. How many first-rounders would you be comfortable giving up if the Lakers made AD available? Assuming they say no to Randle due to salary, who else would you give up? Fournier and, maybe, Rose or Hart would go.

Is his contract expiring? Only reason to trade for a player who cant stay on the court.

BigDaddyG wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Heard this idea mentioned on the Bill Simmons podcast. How many first-rounders would you be comfortable giving up if the Lakers made AD available? Assuming they say no to Randle due to salary, who else would you give up? Fournier and, maybe, Rose or Hart would go.

Is his contract expiring? Only reason to trade for a player who cant stay on the court.

Has a few more years left. It's a gamble, but he undoubtedly raises the ceiling and floor of the franchise. But that's where the question of picks comes in. Would you go up to five picks if there were two of our own and three of the protected ones? Or do you think AD can't reclaim the superstar status he had a few years ago?

If we're giving away draft picks for a Laker, would rather it be LeBron, or a Westbrook salary dump.

Of course AD is a great player, but with Davis's many injuries, I get the feeling we'd look back at the Amar'e years as the good old days.