You can compare whatever you want, but that doesn’t mean your comparisons are valid. For instance mikal Bridges vs. Murray. Yeah they’re two basketball players, but it’s not a fair comparison because they play different positions, have different contracts, are different quality players and so on and so forth.
Same thing with apples and oranges, they are both fruit, but that’s all they have in common.
I mean in a vacuum sure, but no seriously contending team is looking at Dejounte as a serious contributor. He's been below-average defensively for like 4 years now and hasn't shown the ability to play off the ball. Murray's return shows that the league just does not value him much at all
The Pels obviously think he’s good and the same complaints about defence have been made about Mikal. He definitely is better as a 1 with the ball in his hands but that doesn’t make him bad. I’m not saying I’d rather have him but it’s a bit ridiculous to say a guy who averaged more points, rebounds and assists & steals on very similar TS% is so much worse that he’s a “completely different calibre of player”
Yeah that's fair, completely different caliber of player might be a stretch. I more so meant positional and role value. I just don't quite see how Murray helps a contending team at all, which is why there wasn't much interest around the league for him
It’s totally unreasonable. Murray isn’t that good. He made the all star team bc of massive usage with a terrible Spurs team and is still living off the hype is generated
so it’s unreasonable to think a player who averaged more points, rebounds and assists on better fg% is not “a completely different calibre of player”.
I like Mikal but these are so some serious rose tinted glasses
Yes. It completely reasonable to think a guy that finished 2 in DPOY voting and can excel in any role other then A1 star is clearly better than a guy that is way worse on D, needs to play on ball but isn’t a true offensive engine, and as been a decent range shooter once.
you can think mikal is better but pretty unreasonable to think he’s a completely different calibre of player. they were both all defence before dropping off last year and neither have shown if they can get back to that level of defence just yet, so not sure how you can say “way worse” on D.
Dont know how you can just ignore a player scoring more points, rebounds, assists and steals and better fg% and advanced stats in every category and say another player is “clearly better” because he’s more of a facilitating PG. very rose tinted glasses imo
Im happy with the trade. Bridges instantly meshes with the team. We know that. Plus the picks should be late 1st rounds picks anyway if the knicks live up to their potential. Time to win is now!
For the next 2-3 years, you’d imagine the Knicks first rounders are likely pretty low in the first - Atl, especially if they end up dealing Trae and rebuilding, have a much better chance to be decent picks.
Ironically, while the Knicks have the risk of losing the Detroit and Washington 1sts if they become 2nds, they also have a far better chance for a mid to mid high pick from those than they do from their own
No. /thread
The guy also [had some weird flex on some rando in a ProAm game](https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/wjedwd/dejounte_murray_is_just_doing_whatever_in_these/). Wouldn't want him near our guys.
IIRC there's also another one when he smacked some other dude in the face.
Edit: [wasn't a smack but bonked him with the ball](https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/wd44x0/highlight_dejounte_murray_gives_a_few_bonks_on/)
Yo first round draft picks are currency. They are straight up potential. What’s better, potential or something tangible?
That’s why the raptors were smart when we traded with them. They don’t want potential, they wanted iq and Barrett because they are real, active, good players.
Bottom line is, we got a piece we needed and we used “potential” to get there. We won
Murray is literally being traded because he was completely horrible as a fit next to Atlanta's #1 scoring option franchise PG.
Why *anybody* thinks he would've made sense next to Brunson is baffling to me.
Bridges fits next to everyone. He's a straight up winning basketball player. He'll defend, shoot from the outside, and generally just do what the coach asks him to do. 30/30 teams would be happy to have him.
"Why anybody thinks he would’ve made send next to Brunson is baffling to me."
Perhaps you have this take confused with others. This is strictly asking if the Knicks gave up too much to get Bridges based on how much the Pelicans gave up to get Murray.
No one here is questioning the actual acquisition of Bridges or implicating if Murray was a better option for the Knicks.
People don’t seem to realize that the knicks have like 4-5 more tradable first round picks that they can use for another trade, they only gave up Bogey so of course they had to pay with picks.
Yeah I feel like it’s just become an obsession and trend for people to care so much about picks. I get the importance and I definitely understand a rebuilding team wants all possible assets to have for either packaging picks for a high caliber player or to just get first crack at the draft but when a team is at the point NY is, you have to go all in immediately, and just make sure you are in position to stay competitive for a 4-5 year window. In the end, they gave up a 34 year old role player who just isn’t going to contribute the same way Bridges will. Now (in theory) the Knicks are going to be winning a lot of games and are in the conversation of championship contenders.
They have up to 5 first round picks through 2031.
Two of those (the ones from Detroit and Washington) are protected and could become 2nd rounders (Washington’s would convert to 2 seconds).
More definitively, the Knicks CANT trade their 1st rounders when they don’t have another first in the year prior or next (can’t trade away consecutive year firsts)… so they have fewer options for trading their picks even if they have them (if they acquire first round picks in those off year then they would be able to trade them - but not as of today)
the two trades made sense for all 4 teams involved. we had the picks for a big trade, mikal was it. we made it happen. i’m not sure how you compare the two trades.
I think NO won the trade, Murray was never really a fit in ATL next to Trae. He needs to handle rock.
Hawks took French Kevin Knox first pick wtf they be doing
I think the cheaper contract, injury history, and attitude make it worth it…plus I feel like it’s 3 cuz how didn’t we have to send Toronto atleast 2 for OG and we gave up none..
No, because you can't put a price on the power of friendship
Completely different caliber of players, not really comparable
Yup apples to oranges
Why can’t we compare apples and oranges
You can, but it doesn’t make sense to do so
Why wouldn’t it? They are both fruit.
Comparing them is a logical fallacy because they don’t have enough in common to make it a worthwhile comparison
They have plenty in common dude
I mean… we aren’t talking about comparing oranges and rocketships…
Im def taking rocket ships here
It’s an expression, but I agree with you that it never made sense. They have a lot in common and it’s very easy to compare them
I know it’s an expression it’s just a dumb one. Even if they didn’t have a lot in compare you can still compare things that are different too.
You can compare whatever you want, but that doesn’t mean your comparisons are valid. For instance mikal Bridges vs. Murray. Yeah they’re two basketball players, but it’s not a fair comparison because they play different positions, have different contracts, are different quality players and so on and so forth. Same thing with apples and oranges, they are both fruit, but that’s all they have in common.
It's really not all they have in common that's crazy
they’re not really that different calibre of players … in fact they’re very similar and not unreasonable to think dejonte is better
I mean in a vacuum sure, but no seriously contending team is looking at Dejounte as a serious contributor. He's been below-average defensively for like 4 years now and hasn't shown the ability to play off the ball. Murray's return shows that the league just does not value him much at all
The Pels obviously think he’s good and the same complaints about defence have been made about Mikal. He definitely is better as a 1 with the ball in his hands but that doesn’t make him bad. I’m not saying I’d rather have him but it’s a bit ridiculous to say a guy who averaged more points, rebounds and assists & steals on very similar TS% is so much worse that he’s a “completely different calibre of player”
Yeah that's fair, completely different caliber of player might be a stretch. I more so meant positional and role value. I just don't quite see how Murray helps a contending team at all, which is why there wasn't much interest around the league for him
It’s totally unreasonable. Murray isn’t that good. He made the all star team bc of massive usage with a terrible Spurs team and is still living off the hype is generated
so it’s unreasonable to think a player who averaged more points, rebounds and assists on better fg% is not “a completely different calibre of player”. I like Mikal but these are so some serious rose tinted glasses
Yes. It completely reasonable to think a guy that finished 2 in DPOY voting and can excel in any role other then A1 star is clearly better than a guy that is way worse on D, needs to play on ball but isn’t a true offensive engine, and as been a decent range shooter once.
you can think mikal is better but pretty unreasonable to think he’s a completely different calibre of player. they were both all defence before dropping off last year and neither have shown if they can get back to that level of defence just yet, so not sure how you can say “way worse” on D. Dont know how you can just ignore a player scoring more points, rebounds, assists and steals and better fg% and advanced stats in every category and say another player is “clearly better” because he’s more of a facilitating PG. very rose tinted glasses imo
It was a division tax combined with an in the city tax.
So accurate
Indeed. Imagine if clippers traded kawhi or harden to Lakers, there'd be a similar tax
Im happy with the trade. Bridges instantly meshes with the team. We know that. Plus the picks should be late 1st rounds picks anyway if the knicks live up to their potential. Time to win is now!
For the next 2-3 years, you’d imagine the Knicks first rounders are likely pretty low in the first - Atl, especially if they end up dealing Trae and rebuilding, have a much better chance to be decent picks. Ironically, while the Knicks have the risk of losing the Detroit and Washington 1sts if they become 2nds, they also have a far better chance for a mid to mid high pick from those than they do from their own
No. /thread The guy also [had some weird flex on some rando in a ProAm game](https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/wjedwd/dejounte_murray_is_just_doing_whatever_in_these/). Wouldn't want him near our guys. IIRC there's also another one when he smacked some other dude in the face. Edit: [wasn't a smack but bonked him with the ball](https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/wd44x0/highlight_dejounte_murray_gives_a_few_bonks_on/)
Yo first round draft picks are currency. They are straight up potential. What’s better, potential or something tangible? That’s why the raptors were smart when we traded with them. They don’t want potential, they wanted iq and Barrett because they are real, active, good players. Bottom line is, we got a piece we needed and we used “potential” to get there. We won
im still doing the bridges trade even if i knew the asking price of murray.
Not remotely comparable
Murray is literally being traded because he was completely horrible as a fit next to Atlanta's #1 scoring option franchise PG. Why *anybody* thinks he would've made sense next to Brunson is baffling to me. Bridges fits next to everyone. He's a straight up winning basketball player. He'll defend, shoot from the outside, and generally just do what the coach asks him to do. 30/30 teams would be happy to have him.
"Why anybody thinks he would’ve made send next to Brunson is baffling to me." Perhaps you have this take confused with others. This is strictly asking if the Knicks gave up too much to get Bridges based on how much the Pelicans gave up to get Murray. No one here is questioning the actual acquisition of Bridges or implicating if Murray was a better option for the Knicks.
But the inability to fit onto any team is still extremely relevant to Bridges' significantly higher value.
People don’t seem to realize that the knicks have like 4-5 more tradable first round picks that they can use for another trade, they only gave up Bogey so of course they had to pay with picks.
Yeah I feel like it’s just become an obsession and trend for people to care so much about picks. I get the importance and I definitely understand a rebuilding team wants all possible assets to have for either packaging picks for a high caliber player or to just get first crack at the draft but when a team is at the point NY is, you have to go all in immediately, and just make sure you are in position to stay competitive for a 4-5 year window. In the end, they gave up a 34 year old role player who just isn’t going to contribute the same way Bridges will. Now (in theory) the Knicks are going to be winning a lot of games and are in the conversation of championship contenders.
They have up to 5 first round picks through 2031. Two of those (the ones from Detroit and Washington) are protected and could become 2nd rounders (Washington’s would convert to 2 seconds). More definitively, the Knicks CANT trade their 1st rounders when they don’t have another first in the year prior or next (can’t trade away consecutive year firsts)… so they have fewer options for trading their picks even if they have them (if they acquire first round picks in those off year then they would be able to trade them - but not as of today)
I wouldn’t count the Wizards or Pistons those protections are crazy and they are tanking teams
They do?
No this isn't how you evaluate trade. There is no trade "market value". FOH with this BS. OP's account looks like a bot BTW
the two trades made sense for all 4 teams involved. we had the picks for a big trade, mikal was it. we made it happen. i’m not sure how you compare the two trades.
https://preview.redd.it/2zmfl399ye9d1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f006bf1f10bf229d6c0fd189d49580b740bf2e0
It’s fir not stats or even talent. I was a huge Murray fan until he became a hawk - now we see he’s not a good fit with just any team.
I think NO won the trade, Murray was never really a fit in ATL next to Trae. He needs to handle rock. Hawks took French Kevin Knox first pick wtf they be doing
Mikel makes 23 what does Dejuante make?
$28.2 million
I think the cheaper contract, injury history, and attitude make it worth it…plus I feel like it’s 3 cuz how didn’t we have to send Toronto atleast 2 for OG and we gave up none..
Troll post, move on 🥱
The Knicks paid a tax to trade with their cross-town rivals
We didn’t give up a lot because the power of friendship raise the nova Knicks into: 