So in short we have one more year and really have to choose to keep both, or one vs. the other?
Do you want Brunson going into his last year without a path. Injury could decide that to either player. Absent of that, is IQ have a higher ceiling than JB? Can JB have a Kyle Lowrey type career and stay healthy into his 30s? (Kyle stayed a year to long, but it happens. Miami went to finals and Conf. Finals last year!).

I like the idea of my SG at 6-5 and Grimes has the near prototypical skill set for a modern 2. IQ and Brunson back court over a full season is debatable.

Teams might come calling for IQ and he should want that as it gives him leverage to get paid and start. I can’t see Trading Brunson after one year. Read a proposed blog that RJ and IQ could get it done for a Dame Lillard trade.
Nothing not to like about him except his age. Giving up a 22 and 23 year old and perhaps a pick or two is not a layup in my mind.
If Im going to move players like that I prefer to spend it on Luka using Randle as the core piece. defensively having quick next to Luka might be more appealing. I’d have to think one of Brunson and IQ have to be sent to dallas in suck a trade. Perhaps RJ and an extra pick are equal compensation? Am I undervaluing IHart as a trade chip? He is a free agent after next year. Dallas needs a big man.
Dallas wants to win but it also need to sell tickets. While they made Conf. Finals last year it was a bit fluky and obviolously JB was a big piece of that. Add the Kyrie assets and if he walks the cupboard is a bit thin going forward around Luka. Knicks can pay.

WHy all this? Knicks have a good problem and another full season before it need be addressed. Until then fans can chew on it and keep us happy. Like a dog with a bone.

Obviously the 5 is ours to keep. We control our destiny there. This is more substantial than the 4th two years ago in a short season. We are much deeper.
Curious if Clev starts to rest its players. Thibs has more chess pieces to play with even with Randle out. I assume that ankle will need time. It did not look good the way he reacted. The roll did not look bad but if he was pushing off it the ligaments could have torn worse than it appeared.
We get Cav’s tomorrow. Wonder if we see the Sims/Ihart combo again?

Nalod wrote:I preface that no conclusion can be made yet this topic:
Do we get to a point were we choose between Brunson or IQ?
I get that after a good game Briggs want to pay him 25-30mil…….
Thats debatable for many reasons. IQ is under contract thru next year then restricted.
Brunson has two more years then a player option on a declining contract. He he can stay on this level that will need to be upped.

So in short we have one more year and really have to choose to keep both, or one vs. the other?
Do you want Brunson going into his last year without a path. Injury could decide that to either player. Absent of that, is IQ have a higher ceiling than JB? Can JB have a Kyle Lowrey type career and stay healthy into his 30s? (Kyle stayed a year to long, but it happens. Miami went to finals and Conf. Finals last year!).

I like the idea of my SG at 6-5 and Grimes has the near prototypical skill set for a modern 2. IQ and Brunson back court over a full season is debatable.

Teams might come calling for IQ and he should want that as it gives him leverage to get paid and start. I can’t see Trading Brunson after one year. Read a proposed blog that RJ and IQ could get it done for a Dame Lillard trade.
Nothing not to like about him except his age. Giving up a 22 and 23 year old and perhaps a pick or two is not a layup in my mind.
If Im going to move players like that I prefer to spend it on Luka using Randle as the core piece. defensively having quick next to Luka might be more appealing. I’d have to think one of Brunson and IQ have to be sent to dallas in suck a trade. Perhaps RJ and an extra pick are equal compensation? Am I undervaluing IHart as a trade chip? He is a free agent after next year. Dallas needs a big man.
Dallas wants to win but it also need to sell tickets. While they made Conf. Finals last year it was a bit fluky and obviolously JB was a big piece of that. Add the Kyrie assets and if he walks the cupboard is a bit thin going forward around Luka. Knicks can pay.

WHy all this? Knicks have a good problem and another full season before it need be addressed. Until then fans can chew on it and keep us happy. Like a dog with a bone.

Obviously the 5 is ours to keep. We control our destiny there. This is more substantial than the 4th two years ago in a short season. We are much deeper.
Curious if Clev starts to rest its players. Thibs has more chess pieces to play with even with Randle out. I assume that ankle will need time. It did not look good the way he reacted. The roll did not look bad but if he was pushing off it the ligaments could have torn worse than it appeared.
We get Cav’s tomorrow. Wonder if we see the Sims/Ihart combo again?

I think that's the crux of it. IQ gonna have to decide what's more important to him. Salary, starting, team, winning. Knicks can offer 3 of those.

technomaster wrote:

martin wrote:<snip>

I think that's the crux of it. IQ gonna have to decide what's more important to him. Salary, starting, team, winning. Knicks can offer 3 of those.

The Knicks can offer all 4 of those. There’s no reason why either RJ or Grimes couldn’t move to the bench. That might create matchup challenges vs some teams from a size perspective, but on the flip side, we’d have a quicker backcourt than any team that send size against us.

The things we couldn’t necessarily offer:
* a team that includes his buddy Obi. I get the sense that the Knicks genuinely like Obi, but he’s the guy that would need to sacrifice his best possible self (salary, starting/playing time, maximizing his potential) in order to fit with us long term.
* being his best possible self - it’s a bit subjective, but it’s like cherrypicking who you want your teammates to be. Brunson and Quickley do damage on the same zones of the floor. If he goes to a team without a long term PG (let’s say Minnesota), he could have more room and opportunities to be awesome.

I mean, they CAN offer him a starting position. Does it really make sense though in maximizing the trio Brunson/IQ/Grimes?

martin wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Knicks can (and should) eventually start Quickley alongside Brunson. It’s not an either-or thing. He’s earning the opportunity to play that role and be treated as more of a star than a 6th man.

If IQ is getting the minutes and finishing games, why does starting matter? And why is IQ starting beneficial for team over other options?

It doesn’t matter to me, but I think it matters in general. He said himself he wants to be a starter, and star players are always starters. If he earns that with this level of play over a long period of time then the Knicks need to provide him the contract and starting role. Ginobili is really the only long term star who was never a full time starter.