(06-17-2022, 11:33 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I see it differently.  I think I'm the only one who isn't fully ignoring the possibility Brunson doesn't work out the way everyone thinks it will.  Nothing that happened Wednesday changes that possibility.

(06-17-2022, 11:11 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: Ya, this is a pretty good way to look at it. I think in terms of on court impact, Luka/JB vs Luka/SD in a starting role (if JB decides to go elsewhere, let’s not lose sight of JB HAS to sign here even if he is not “the guy”), the drop off is really not that big if there is one at all. The drop off comes when you add Dragic instead of SD on the bench as the 3rd guy. How big of a drop off though? Sometimes big, other times none at all, I would contend. We also should get a vet min/development 4th guy in that scenario, we still have the roster spots to do that.


In that sense, does Toppin enter your radar on that list somewhere? Young promising bigger body wing. Might be able to man the 5 spot in a “smallball” set. I could see that as a possibility where we need a 3rd team to help facilitate. Toppin and our 23 back is a decent snt return, maybe we can extract more?

(06-17-2022, 11:28 AM)mvossman Wrote: We are replacing Bullock in the starting lineup, so I don't think it needs to be a big wing (although that is probably preferable).  Some other guys I would have ahead of Grant:

Jrue
Middleton
George
Brown
Fred (awkward fit with Brunson, but perfect fit with Luka)
Smart
Bane (ouch)
Mikal Bridges
Miles Bridges
Edwards
Ingram
Wiggins
Mobley
Anunoby
Wagner

Thats a lot of guys, a lot of them significantly better than Grant or younger.  Including your list that is over 20 guys.  A lot of them will not be available, but a couple should be.  This list could also grow with young guys taking a big step this coming season.

(06-17-2022, 11:40 AM)mvossman Wrote: Toppin is a good one.  I missed him on my added list.  There are probably more guys if I looked a little harder.  

I lean towards the Brunson to Dinwiddie being a fairly big drop off.  Brunson is just so efficient scoring, and I'm not sure he is done getting better.  If he pulls the trigger on more threes its not hard to see him be an efficient 20 points a game scorer.

(06-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Branduil Wrote: I think most of us are trying not to think about the Mavs destroying their future by not re-signing Brunson.

Finding ways to minimize the damage with S&Ts is nice but it's still kind of like figuring out the best way to shoot your toes off with a magnum.

(06-17-2022, 11:49 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: I’m in the camp of sign Brunson at (most) all costs. What if NY wants to max him out? Are you willing to do that? I’m not sure I am.

(06-17-2022, 11:51 AM)Branduil Wrote: I would do it just because it would be extremely funny for the Knicks to spend assets dumping all of the contracts necessary to even threaten that only for him to re-sign.

(06-17-2022, 11:33 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I see it differently.  I think I'm the only one who isn't fully ignoring the possibility Brunson doesn't work out the way everyone thinks it will.  Nothing that happened Wednesday changes that possibility.

(06-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Branduil Wrote: I think most of us are trying not to think about the Mavs destroying their future by not re-signing Brunson.

Finding ways to minimize the damage with S&Ts is nice but it's still kind of like figuring out the best way to shoot your toes off with a magnum.

(06-17-2022, 11:56 AM)mvossman Wrote: I think several posters have discussed that possibility.  I think the prevailing thought is that from an asset perspective it will be nearly impossible to acquire as much asset value in a S&T as it would to simply sign him.

(06-17-2022, 11:59 AM)Dundalis Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I like Brunson as a player, but "destroying their future" is absolute hyperbole. He's not a game changing player, even if he does have improvement left in him. If they pull off the right moves, this team could absolutely be better without Brunson on it.

(06-17-2022, 11:28 AM)mvossman Wrote: We are replacing Bullock in the starting lineup, so I don't think it needs to be a big wing (although that is probably preferable).  Some other guys I would have ahead of Grant:

(06-17-2022, 12:04 PM)Branduil Wrote: There is no S&T they can do with Brunson that would be better than re-signing him, I can guarantee that at least. It would be pennies on the dollar.

(06-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Mapka Wrote: John Collins

(06-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Mapka Wrote: Clarke

(06-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Mapka Wrote: Edwards

(06-17-2022, 11:51 AM)Branduil Wrote: I would do it just because it would be extremely funny for the Knicks to spend assets dumping all of the contracts necessary to even threaten that only for him to re-sign.

(06-17-2022, 11:59 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: You never do when you are the team losing the FA (thus the word "losing").  However, if done correctly, it does open up our stash of picks and positions us for a broader makeover now rather than a year from now.

(06-17-2022, 11:59 AM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: You never do when you are the team losing the FA (thus the word "losing").  However, if done correctly, it does open up our stash of picks and positions us for a broader makeover now rather than a year from now.

(06-17-2022, 12:07 PM)omahen Wrote: I think it has to be a big wing, I don't think we can be a true contender without one. Smart, FVV, Jrue, Bane, Edwards are all small guards. Ingram is a PF but doesn't really play defense. I think Middleton, both Bridges, George, Brown, Anunoby and Wiggins are all too small for the need too. Mobley can't shoot but he could be interesting - I didn't include him on my list because of his shooting. Wagner is not there yet.