RealGM

Would you guys be interested in a trade based around Jennings for Brandon knight?

Not a chance.

I definitely would be intrigued, while Brandon is an excellent teammate and locker room guy and Jennings is apparently the exact opposite, every metric I trust shows Jennings is a better point guard, what were you thinking?

Nope. Don't think you can win with Jennings. Even if Knight never evolves, at worst he's a 3 and D guy at the 1. Those guys, at worst, are still rotation players on Championship teams.

OneBadMutha wrote:Nope. Don't think you can win with Jennings. Even if Knight never evolves, at worst he's a 3 and D guy at the 1. Those guys, at worst, are still rotation players on Championship teams.

This.

I don't want anything to do with jennings, hes a chucker and like said before isn't someone you can win with.

Both suck...so I guess I'd just keep the cheaper one in Knight.

I'm surprised no one else is intrigued by this, he may be a locker room misfit, but at this point we should have enough good guys in the locker room to see him straight, if we can offload charlie V and Stuckey I think were perfectly equipped to handle him. With Chauncey here as a veteran presence at the point and if he is signed to a reasonable deal I don't see any reason any character concerns cant be overwhelmed. He's no longer the guy and I think he can play well in Detroit, he's talented, pretty good defensively a capable passer, hes just an inefficient chucker who takes bad shots, but his shot isn't broken and his efficiency could improve, but even as a chucker he is just as efficient as knight is right now and hes a much better fit at the point for us. If were going to keep knight its as a 6th guard who plays primarily shooting guard, where his metrics are miles better then at point, but we need a point and Jennings can provide adequate production for the lineup we have. I think cheeks can have more of an impact on a guy like jennings who has all the tools to succeed but isn't playing efficiently then knight who doesnt have a future as a point. If were playing up cheek's performance with westrook then jennings is a risk we can afford to take especially if he signs a reasonable deal

Not a huge fan of Knight as he hasn't proven himself to me yet but I would take him in a NY minute over Jennings. I think this thread is an embarrassment!!!

Eww. Just... eww. Pass.

I thought about this last night. Jennings may do better on a flashier team like Detroit (I can't believe I'm saying that). We could be lob city 2.0

Big concern of mine with Knight is simply that after two years, he still can't throw a lob for ****.

I'd consider it. But may say no because of Knight's makeup and character. If Jennings didn't have character issues, I'd say yes without thinking.

Although Jennings had a good year last year, ehhmm contract year, I still wouldn't trade for him and make him our point guard of the future.

Han Solo wrote:I thought about this last night. Jennings may do better on a flashier team like Detroit (I can't believe I'm saying that). We could be lob city 2.0

Big concern of mine with Knight is simply that after two years, he still can't throw a lob for ****.

I'd consider it. But may say no because of Knight's makeup and character. If Jennings didn't have character issues, I'd say yes without thinking.

So sick of hearing about lobs. They constitute a fraction of the offense and aren't any more impactful than a good entry pass, other than they make the highlight reel.

ballhawk1 wrote:Although Jennings had a good year last year, ehhmm contract year, I still wouldn't trade for him and make him our point guard of the future.

He actually had a down year this year although he put up more points this year in terms of advanced stats he regressed a little bit, but his advanced stats have improved every other year since his rookie year, I think hes a good fit if we can get him at the QO which is what seems reasonable right now, and it could potentially be an excellent move if cheeks does have the ability to chorale him mentally and get him to play more efficiently and as a better teammate. What concerns me are his assist numbers, hes always been a capable passer he just isn't putting up the numbers he should be. However these numbers are much better then knights are or probably ever will be

Cowology wrote:

Han Solo wrote:I thought about this last night. Jennings may do better on a flashier team like Detroit (I can't believe I'm saying that). We could be lob city 2.0

Big concern of mine with Knight is simply that after two years, he still can't throw a lob for ****.

I'd consider it. But may say no because of Knight's makeup and character. If Jennings didn't have character issues, I'd say yes without thinking.

So sick of hearing about lobs. They constitute a fraction of the offense and aren't any more impactful than a good entry pass, other than they make the highlight reel.

Right now, they are pretty important. Big reason we signed Bynum. His chemistry with Drummond.
Big part of Drummond's offensive game is going up in the air and getting it. If we can have a point guard that can feed him that way, his confidence keeps building. Unless I see an improvement from Knight this year, he is unfortunately, an undersized 2-guard. He's got Chauncey there now. Maybe that helps him take the next step.

And for the record, I am a Brandon Knight fan. I'll be cheering for him just like all of you. But as we sit, starting PG is our weakest position.

No interest in Jennings based purely on his attitude. His ego is too much and that's the last thing this team needs.

No interest. Too much baggage. Add the fact he will make 12 mill per year and plays hero ball, ill just pass.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Cowology wrote:Eww. Just... eww. Pass.

lol

Han Solo wrote:

Cowology wrote:

Han Solo wrote:I thought about this last night. Jennings may do better on a flashier team like Detroit (I can't believe I'm saying that). We could be lob city 2.0

Big concern of mine with Knight is simply that after two years, he still can't throw a lob for ****.

I'd consider it. But may say no because of Knight's makeup and character. If Jennings didn't have character issues, I'd say yes without thinking.

So sick of hearing about lobs. They constitute a fraction of the offense and aren't any more impactful than a good entry pass, other than they make the highlight reel.

Right now, they are pretty important. Big reason we signed Bynum. His chemistry with Drummond.
Big part of Drummond's offensive game is going up in the air and getting it. If we can have a point guard that can feed him that way, his confidence keeps building. Unless I see an improvement from Knight this year, he is unfortunately, an undersized 2-guard. He's got Chauncey there now. Maybe that helps him take the next step.

And for the record, I am a Brandon Knight fan. I'll be cheering for him just like all of you. But as we sit, starting PG is our weakest position.

I have to agree with Han. With our personnel group ( A center still developing a post game, a PF without a jump shot, and a 3 who plays above the rim and also doesn't have a jump shot) lobs become a much more necessary skill.

Contrast this with the hypothetical situation where we had great perimeter shooters. In that case I'd say it's much more important for the PG to be able to penetrate and then kick out via a bounce, chest pass, behind the back etc.

If we can't get Rondo for Knight, I would definitely do this. Though I'm at least a little intrigued by what Billups can do with Knight and would like to see that play out before trading for Jennings.