EwingsGlass wrote:Rookie wrote:martin wrote:Rookie wrote:The Knicks have a very bad history of trading for and signing aging veterans who are past their prime. This trade is a nod to the bad old days. If we had traded Grimes for a player in his prime who filled a bigger need then I wouldn't be bitching. This was a bad trade.
I have to tell you, I am a little confused as to why the Knicks traded Grimes. All things being equal, trading Grimes for Bogs, especially considering age, doesn't make sense, right? That's easy.
So, if the Knicks didn't trade Grimes, they definitely have a different type of Obi/Randle situation with Grimes/DDV, right? And DDV is fitting that starting lineup like a Villanova born and breed Glove. So where are Grimes' minutes gonna come from? Cause DDV is deserving of even more than the 25mpg, right?
Or do we need to relearn that lesson again? Is it - was it - worth it keeping Grimes in that situation? Knowing DDV is playing at historical levels of shooting good at half the price of what Grimes could ask for in contract.
As well, Bogs is easier to move than Grimes moving forward. Grimes contract would be $4M next year, which is both a blessing and a hindrance cause you need to include other big contracts to match him into a bigger trade. You can keep Fournier but he is just dead weight.
Did the Knicks position themselves better for this playoffs as well as their next trade (draft, summer or after summer) than they would have if they kept Grimes?
Tough ask. But that seems like the consideration?
My point is that neither Burks or Bojan fit the profile of players we have either signed or traded for. It fits the profile or moves we were making when Isiah was in Dolan's ear. This new group has had tremendous patience. his feels more like a desperation move
On the one hand, my immediate impression of this trade was that it signified a deeper injury issue than revealed by the Knicks at the time. That impression was right for the wrong reason. I thought it meant Randle was worse. It actually meant that OG was down for a longer period. I saw the trade as an attempt at warm bodies for the months of February and March. They added positional size with their aged players. So, the desperation you are speaking of is real, but more that they took the conservative approach to filling out the bench due to injury concerns.
I don't think there are lasting consequences to this trade. They have given up the upside of Grimes. They have added the scoring of Bogs. They have the vet presence of Burks. Burks isn't playing the way I remember him just yet. There is usually an approximate 10 game adjustment period with new players. The intention would have been to skip that with Burks and plug him into the rotation.
The new guys are taking less efficient shots and not making the rotations on defense. I don't see any boxing out from Bogs when he is PF. But then again, I don't think he really has the body to be a NYK PF.
I am holding out for healthy players. Not angry about the Bogs/Burks trade. Don't think it was a mistake. Just think the reasoning for it will dissipate when the rest of the team gets healthy.
Not for nothing, but as newyorknewyork alludes to, the trade could have just been that the FO thought the Knicks should just go for it too. Like, go for Championship and Bogs/Burks gives Knicks a better chance than Fournier/Grimes.
As well, it also sets you up better for a trade a the draft or during summer.
Take this hypothetical: If Mikal (or someone at ~$20M) comes available at the drift, I don't know if the Knicks could have traded Fournier or if Bogs is the easier contract to move. I am not sure of the logistics of extending Fournier if his contract is not already guaranteed, same with Bogs TBH but he definitely has value over Fournier.
If the Knicks kept Grimes and extended him, they can't trade him. If they kept him, they would have to include him in a trade at $4M mark, and that's hard to trade for Mikal or Donovan.
