RealGM

Fournier
Grimes

for

Dougie Buckets
Jones

Knicks get a backup PG upgrade and a veteran shooter.
Spurs get a look at a young 3&D wing with another rookie year left. Any French connection with Wemby is a bonus but not a primary selling point.

Add a 2nd to your favorite team of course.

Knicks probably prefer trading 2nds instead of grimes to get those players

Godaddycurse wrote:Knicks probably prefer trading 2nds instead of grimes to get those players

Sure. I've been using Grimes because we were getting reporting that Thibs was frustrated with Grimes and Grimes was frustrated with NY. Felt like they might both want to move on.

But if they've kissed and made up, 2nds are fine.

Texas Chuck wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:Knicks probably prefer trading 2nds instead of grimes to get those players

Sure. I've been using Grimes because we were getting reporting that Thibs was frustrated with Grimes and Grimes was frustrated with NY. Felt like they might both want to move on.

But if they've kissed and made up, 2nds are fine.

I guess i shouod say knicks fans lol

Texas Chuck wrote:Fournier
Grimes

for

Dougie Buckets
Jones

Knicks get a backup PG upgrade and a veteran shooter.
Spurs get a look at a young 3&D wing with another rookie year left. Any French connection with Wemby is a bonus but not a primary selling point.

Add a 2nd to your favorite team of course.

I think if we trade Grimes and Fournier for a package headlined by Dougie Buckets I'll jump in front of a train.

I don't see the Spurs giving up Jones for Grimes - definitely wouldn't for 2nd round picks. McBuckets you can have for scraps though.

I don’t have tre worth a 1st. So if 2nds aren’t enough I see him sticking around SAS which it sounds likebabies values him the most.

Edit: bad autocorrect.

HartfordWhalers wrote:I don’t have tre worth a 1st. So if 2nds aren’t enough I see him sticking around SAS which it sounds like babies him the most.

Kind of assuming that's an auto-correct for values, which is accurate. Spurs are going to value Tre more than other teams because he's shown he can play well with Wemby.

The proposal may not be unfair value wise, but Spurs can't afford to let Tre go. He might not be a long term starter but he's, at the very least, a good long term backup and the only legit PG we have right now. We already got a preview of what a Tre-less Spurs looks like with the Sochan experiment at the start of the season, and I hope we don't go through it again. So unless it comes attached with another trade for a PG to replace Tre (even if it takes a couple 2nds), I'd have to pass.

What if it were K. Johnson for Fournier/Grimes?

louc1970 wrote:What if it were K. Johnson for Fournier/Grimes?

Absolutely not. That's a deal breaker.

I don't think the value is close with Grimes. I personally would not trade him unless it's in a package for Bridges or someone of near-star merit (Murray). Defense is elite, we know he can shoot, and he is getting more comfortable with penetrating with aggression.

Jones can't reach his career high for 3P% of whopping 28.5% and would be taking up about $10 M in cap next year.
He couldn't beat out Duce for the backup PG spot & McDermott would be just like Fournier glued to the bench. That's just giving Grimes away.

wemby wrote:

louc1970 wrote:What if it were K. Johnson for Fournier/Grimes?

Absolutely not. That's a deal breaker.

Reasoning?

louc1970 wrote:

wemby wrote:

louc1970 wrote:What if it were K. Johnson for Fournier/Grimes?

Absolutely not. That's a deal breaker.

Reasoning?

24 year old wing on a 4 year, descending contract that will pay him 17.5M in 3 years, capable offensive player and rebounder, good kid that's coachable and doesn't complain... I don't see why we should move him unless it's for a clear improvement, likely in a package with other players and/or assets for a star, otherwise just keep him... he's not the reason we suck.

wemby wrote:

louc1970 wrote:

wemby wrote:Absolutely not. That's a deal breaker.

Reasoning?

24 year old wing on a 4 year, descending contract that will pay him 17.5M in 3 years, capable offensive player and rebounder, good kid that's coachable and doesn't complain... I don't see why we should move him unless it's for a clear improvement, likely in a package with other players and/or assets for a star, otherwise just keep him... he's not the reason we suck.

Good enough. I am under the impression that SA wants to move him as Vassell is outplaying him.

louc1970 wrote:

wemby wrote:

louc1970 wrote:Reasoning?

24 year old wing on a 4 year, descending contract that will pay him 17.5M in 3 years, capable offensive player and rebounder, good kid that's coachable and doesn't complain... I don't see why we should move him unless it's for a clear improvement, likely in a package with other players and/or assets for a star, otherwise just keep him... he's not the reason we suck.

Good enough. I am under the impression that SA wants to move him as Vassell is outplaying him.

Vassell is a 2, Keldon is a 3/4. Also, Keldon coming off the bench doesn't mean he's been demoted, Pop usually likes having someone who can score in the 2nd unit, doesn't mean Champagnie is better than him just because he's starting. I'm not saying he's untouchable, but with so many things going wrong right now, there's really no urgency to move him unless it involves a clear upgrade at a position of need.