The Murray, Brunson debate is not just about who is better. I think most would agree that Murray is better or at least has a higher upside.
However, you have to look at the big picture. If we trade all our chips for Murray we are done. No trade capital, no cap room. We would have a big 3 of Murray, RJ, and Randle. Not bad , but not a title contender.
If we sign Brunson, we still have the capital to acquire a Beal, or Lavine, or, Mitchell, or Zion, or whoever shakes loose. We could end up with Mitchell, RJ, Randle, Brunson, Mitch. To me that’s a team that could grow into a contender. That’s why I’m pro Brunson. ~Christopher Meyers~
If you go after Murray, you are trading, which means you match or send more salary than his. SAS has cap room still, so technically we can send more than comes back. Trade for Murray and the cap space that was created, is still there, and possibly higher than it is now. ~Mark Russell~
I like Brunson, 25M is a bit too high for me though, still better than no move. With Murray, you get an all defensive team, big PG, who is also one of the best playmakers in the league…at less cost salary wise. He also led the league in steals last year. Two of the things we need most. In Brunson we’d get guy who can get into the lane on anyone, but any PG can also drive on him. We’d have to cover for him with a rim protecting C at all times. He does compete on that end but doesn’t have the length or athleticism to keep opposing Gs out of the paint.
I think Murray brings more of what this team needs and is a more versatile piece. I just worry about a Brunson/Fournier starting backcourt. Yes, the cost in assets will be more, it’d probably take one of IQ, Grimes, Cam, Obi then both unprotected picks next year (us and Mavs) one of the conditional ones (most likely Wizards), and most likely Mil’s 2025 FRP. To get Murray we’d only be giving up one of our own picks, and a young player who has potential but not on the same level as Murray. We have the picks to make it happen without killing our depth. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be happy with either player but if we have a chance at Murray, I think he is the better fit, both next year and long term. ~Jesse Lapham~
I am not for Brunson because he is a shoot first point guard. Although he had an ok year the knicks are falling into the Randle trap. Randle had one All star season but he got. away from what made him good in the first place which is tenacity at the boards. Brunson is a mid range scorer in a 6’1 body. That good for a team that need offense but asking Brunson to be a point guard for a team of players that need a point guard to feed Randle, RJ, quickly, Obi and Fournier the ball. Our biggest issue was not our offense it was our defense. Is it the reason why the organization got rid of Kemba. To get another guy similar is running back this year season. I have more but if I had to choose between Brunson and Murray that is an easy choice. Murray. ~Ricky Gibson~
