Knixkik wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

Knixkik wrote:If Atlanta continues to struggle and shifts to some cost saving measures, how many picks do we need to attach to Grimes and Fournier to get Hunter? Just seems like adding a bigger version of grimes to this rotation gives us some more flexibility.

Grimes alone I think can get you Hunter. Maybe the DET 2nd as well?

But Hunter isn't going to command multiple 1sts and a young player IMO.

Grimes isn’t as proven as Hunter. Hunter has more size and versatility. I just want to be careful not overrating any of our young players. I would offer the lower of the 2 firsts this year and the 2025 Milwaukee pick since they owe theirs to the Spurs.

of course not, but he's younger, much cheaper, and under control.

Grimes and two firsts for Hunter is a grotesque overpay, that's like the equivalent of 3 firsts. I doubt ATL would get much more than one 1st.

But if you are talking about moving IQ (Fournier, picks) in a deal for DJM, and using Dejounte as a 6th man whose ball handling is much better than IQ’s… then I’m interested.

And then Brunson would be the C&S SG while on court with Murray.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/jcmacrinba/status/1738974972641419759

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:I think this sounds right, the C&S part.

But if you are talking about moving IQ (Fournier, picks) in a deal for DJM, and using Dejounte as a 6th man whose ball handling is much better than IQ’s… then I’m interested.

And then Brunson would be the C&S SG while on court with Murray.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/jcmacrinba/status/1738974972641419759

Ha, the joke is on Klutch. They'd help make a trade happen if they really wanted to hurt the Knicks. 😈 Seriously, I don't see how the same issues that Murray faced in Atlanta would magically disappear in NY. Murray is an on-ball guard and he's going to have trouble messing his game with Brunson. Yeah, Brunson proved he could play off Luka, but why would we want him to take a backseat to Murray?

To me, Murray is what you hope IQ turns into, and he has already proven he can do those things that you would expect IQ to do.

Murray will start to make $25M for 3 years guaranteed next year. On a good deal, IQ starts at $18m and he is prob asking for north of $20M.

If you are talking about having a particular skill set on your team in 1 player, if you don’t like what Murray is - and can see that is is similar to what IQ brings to the table - I don’t know why you wouldn’t want Murray if you are OK with someone like IQ on team.

Murray is a known quantity at a higher level of skill than IQ, and their next contract would be in a similar level without waiting on IQ to up his game.

The next step would be what picks are you including to make the deal IF those 2 are involved.

But yeah, if you are not comfortable with Murray starting next to Brunson, maybe that trade doesn’t make sense. It should follow that IQ doesn’t necessarily make sense starting either.

I’d want Murray as a 6th man long term.

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

martin wrote:I think this sounds right, the C&S part.

But if you are talking about moving IQ (Fournier, picks) in a deal for DJM, and using Dejounte as a 6th man whose ball handling is much better than IQ’s… then I’m interested.

And then Brunson would be the C&S SG while on court with Murray.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/jcmacrinba/status/1738974972641419759

Ha, the joke is on Klutch. They'd help make a trade happen if they really wanted to hurt the Knicks. 😈 Seriously, I don't see how the same issues that Murray faced in Atlanta would magically disappear in NY. Murray is an on-ball guard and he's going to have trouble messing his game with Brunson. Yeah, Brunson proved he could play off Luka, but why would we want him to take a backseat to Murray?

To me, Murray is what you hope IQ turns into, and he has already proven he can do those things that you would expect IQ to do.

Murray will start to make $25M for 3 years guaranteed next year. On a good deal, IQ starts at $18m and he is prob asking for north of $20M.

If you are talking about having a particular skill set on your team in 1 player, if you don’t like what Murray is - and can see that is is similar to what IQ brings to the table - I don’t know why you wouldn’t want Murray if you are OK with someone like IQ on team.

Murray is a known quantity at a higher level of skill than IQ, and their next contract would be in a similar level without waiting on IQ to up his game.

The next step would be what picks are you including to make the deal IF those 2 are involved.

But yeah, if you are not comfortable with Murray starting next to Brunson, maybe that trade doesn’t make sense. It should follow that IQ doesn’t necessarily make sense starting either.

I’d want Murray as a 6th man long term.

Disagree here. They are different players who possess some overlap in their skillsets. I won't argue that Murray isn't the better player. But I do argue against him being a better fit. Murray's inability to play off ball makes it a hard sell. We've seen Atlanta try it by staggering minutes and rotations and it still doesn't fit. We need to pair JB with someone who can move off ball and spot up consistently.

Why you gotta call out RJ like that man?!

nycericanguy wrote:yea they are different players, I think IQ is more efficient and a better defender.

DJ is RJ's level of scoring and efficiency but more dynamic.

Not sure he's the guy we need.

Outside of Brunson, Knicks really don’t have another guard or wing with good breakdown and pass or setup ability.

Even Brunson is lacking in the setup ability as your main on ball guy, you need at least 1 more guy like that on roster. IQ, for all do does well in, is not that guy IMO

Against like 80+% of league, you can get away with Randle, RJ, IQ as you secondary ball handlers who are good for some assists. But against teams that can pressure or blanket Brunson and definitely during playoffs and against elite defenses, you need another prominent ball handler.

I’d definitely go after Murray as a piece, regardless of seamless fit with Brunson.

And not for nothing, but Brunson’s elite strength is his scoring and shooting, so why not let him be that off ball guy?

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:yea they are different players, I think IQ is more efficient and a better defender.

DJ is RJ's level of scoring and efficiency but more dynamic.

Not sure he's the guy we need.

Outside of Brunson, Knicks really don’t have another guard or wing with good breakdown and pass or setup ability.

Even Brunson is lacking in the setup ability as your main on ball guy, you need at least 1 more guy like that on roster. IQ, for all do does well in, is not that guy IMO

Against like 80+% of league, you can get away with Randle, RJ, IQ as you secondary ball handlers who are good for some assists. But against teams that can pressure or blanket Brunson and definitely during playoffs and against elite defenses, you need another prominent ball handler.

I’d definitely go after Murray as a piece, regardless of seamless fit with Brunson.

And not for nothing, but Brunson’s elite strength is his scoring and shooting, so why not let him be that off ball guy?

Agree with most of this Martin but I see Murray as a starter and good pairing with Brunson for reasons you noted.

Less than a 3 point shooter we need a legit player next to Jalen who can get some buckets, make plays and defend—— depending on price this could be good get. I’d certainly swap IQ for Murray but preferably we would get him for something else - Grimes/Fournier maybe?

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:yea they are different players, I think IQ is more efficient and a better defender.

DJ is RJ's level of scoring and efficiency but more dynamic.

Not sure he's the guy we need.

Outside of Brunson, Knicks really don’t have another guard or wing with good breakdown and pass or setup ability.

Even Brunson is lacking in the setup ability as your main on ball guy, you need at least 1 more guy like that on roster. IQ, for all do does well in, is not that guy IMO

Against like 80+% of league, you can get away with Randle, RJ, IQ as you secondary ball handlers who are good for some assists. But against teams that can pressure or blanket Brunson and definitely during playoffs and against elite defenses, you need another prominent ball handler.

I’d definitely go after Murray as a piece, regardless of seamless fit with Brunson.

And not for nothing, but Brunson’s elite strength is his scoring and shooting, so why not let him be that off ball guy?

Brunson's elite skill is mid range shooting which he won't get on C&S but rather on isolation. and yes he's turned into an elite 3pt shooter as well. but defenses aren't going to choose to leave him open vs Randle, RJ, and our bigs. so I dont think he'd get many opportunities there.

The only way DJ makes sense to me is if you're trading RJ for him and moving Grimes to SF to keep the spacing. but that makes us even smaller and leaves IQ with almost no role.

otherwise you're adding another RJ efficiency wise guy who isn't a C&S guy either and making our spacing worse again.

its worth it for a true star but DJ isn't that. and you gotta look at how bad ATL has been, even though in theory he was a great fit with Trae. or the fact that SA didn't think he was a core piece to build around at age 25.

That's just 1 move ahead. I like Murray in the IQ role.

Knicks will need to turn Fournier into value. It's doesn't have to make sense just after the trade. My guess is that the Knicks are kicking all of the doors to see what comes loose.

And I am not talking about building around Dejounte (and starting next to Brunson) but rather complimenting the roster with a talent type that is missing.

I don't even think RJ is a starter on a deep playoff team, so I would never represent him in that role. He will be moved unless his efficiency is that of the first month.