[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Kurt for Big Z straight up?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum


Author Poll
Killa4luv
Posts: 7769
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
No picks, just a trade where Z gets 4-5 years starting at 8 (those are KT type numbers). Who would do it?
8 votes
42.11%
Yes
11 votes
57.89%
No


« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
6/28/2005  1:07 PM
It might be a year longer than Kurt but it will certainly be a lot more productive. I say go for it. It makes the drafting of Bynum that much easier, and that gives us a plan for now and a plan for the future. Its a win-win!
AUTOADVERT
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
6/28/2005  1:07 PM
Or maybe we draft Granger, or maybe we draft Fyre and he plays alongside him. I would prefer Bynum and Granger though.
CTKnicksfan
Posts: 20312
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/24/2004
Member: #572
6/28/2005  1:24 PM
i'd prefer to use the MLE on Z, but I guess I could live with this. He's 3 years younger and 6" taller, better offensive player, decent defender (or at least block a couple shots)
MaTT4281
Posts: 34919
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #538
USA
6/28/2005  1:26 PM
I don't want Z in NY, especially for another 4-5 years. Dear God, I can't believe I'm saying this, but...I'd rather have Kurt.
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
6/28/2005  1:29 PM
yeah I didn't think we could do better than Z for Kurt but right now I much rather have Q than Z as much as I love Z. Now Z for the MLE would be great if him and his wife really want to be in NY!
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
6/28/2005  1:46 PM
Posted by MaTT4281:

I don't want Z in NY, especially for another 4-5 years. Dear God, I can't believe I'm saying this, but...I'd rather have Kurt.
I can't believe you're saying it either, it makes it look like you don't know what your talking about.

The case for not getting Z, has NOTHING to do with losing or preferring KT. The trade itself would be great, similar length in contracts for much more production offensively as well as presence in the lane. This trade is a no brainer.
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
6/28/2005  1:48 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by MaTT4281:

I don't want Z in NY, especially for another 4-5 years. Dear God, I can't believe I'm saying this, but...I'd rather have Kurt.
I can't believe you're saying it either, it makes it look like you don't know what your talking about.

The case for not getting Z, has NOTHING to do with losing or preferring KT. The trade itself would be great, similar length in contracts for much more production offensively as well as presence in the lane. This trade is a no brainer.

not when you already have Q in the bag and you can still go after Z for the MLE
Knicksfan
Posts: 33483
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 7/5/2004
Member: #691
USA
6/28/2005  1:51 PM
Well, if you deal KT for Big Z for 4-5 years with the insurance that if he gets injured the insurance pays the contract, its ok. But as others, I would rather get the Q trade done and look for my chances at him qith the MLE. Even then, I would maybe sign Hunter and use the money on other players like Ariza than that. Hunter, Kwame are options..
Knicks_Fan
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
6/28/2005  2:35 PM
Posted by Knicksfan:

Well, if you deal KT for Big Z for 4-5 years with the insurance that if he gets injured the insurance pays the contract, its ok. But as others, I would rather get the Q trade done and look for my chances at him qith the MLE. Even then, I would maybe sign Hunter and use the money on other players like Ariza than that. Hunter, Kwame are options..
There is a universe of difference between Z and (Kwame, Steven Hunter).
An entire universe.

We could trade for Z and sign Granger. What makes you guys think the MLE is even remotely plausible? If we can get him for that of course you do it, get Q, and still draft Granger or Bynum.
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
6/28/2005  2:37 PM
Personally, I think the Q and a pick trade is much better and makes far more sense with our team personel.

Did you guys see Cleveland last year? Z's slowness was a major reason their defense sucked, teams fast-breaked them to death, Z looked old when he wasn't hitting jumpers.

I think it's funny that the Knicks are debating over trading for Z or Q. Such weird nicknames for players. Z? Q? Gimme Q.
¿ △ ?
Knicksfan
Posts: 33483
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 7/5/2004
Member: #691
USA
6/28/2005  2:40 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:

There is a universe of difference between Z and (Kwame, Steven Hunter).
An entire universe.

We could trade for Z and sign Granger. What makes you guys think the MLE is even remotely plausible? If we can get him for that of course you do it, get Q, and still draft Granger or Bynum.

Yeah, but look at the direction this team is taking. If we are in fact going the Suns' uptempo game, Big Z won't fit there.

And, Big Z for another 4-5 years is a Big Risk.
Knicks_Fan
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
6/28/2005  4:15 PM
Posted by crzymdups:

Personally, I think the Q and a pick trade is much better and makes far more sense with our team personel.
I think the q trade is better too. But this is about if that doesn't happen, not doing it instead of it.

I don't know that it makes far more sense. Getting a center when we have a 6-9 guy who can't tippy toe as our starting center, makes quite a bit of sense too.
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
6/28/2005  4:17 PM
Posted by Knicksfan:
Posted by Killa4luv:

There is a universe of difference between Z and (Kwame, Steven Hunter).
An entire universe.

We could trade for Z and sign Granger. What makes you guys think the MLE is even remotely plausible? If we can get him for that of course you do it, get Q, and still draft Granger or Bynum.

Yeah, but look at the direction this team is taking. If we are in fact going the Suns' uptempo game, Big Z won't fit there.

And, Big Z for another 4-5 years is a Big Risk.
We are not turning into the suns, that type of team cannot win a championship, and Zeke knows that. A team more in the mold of the Wizards would seem more viable. Scoring guards with a low-post presence (Z) makes alot of sense.

oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
6/28/2005  4:36 PM
I can't believe anyone would take the Q trade over the entirely made up and unfeasible Z for KT straight up trade, even though the Cavs would have to be insane to deal Z for KT straight up.

When Z has played, he is a better player than Q or KT ever have been. He is also a real starting center, not a forward who plays center. He is also a pretty good center, which by the way is the rarest commodity in basketball. I have seen him actually take over a games before, against Kurt Thomas! Have you ever seen Thomas take over a game? If you have, you were watching him in college.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 06/28/2005 16:38:13]
Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
jaydh
Posts: 23107
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/16/2001
Member: #96
6/28/2005  5:10 PM
Cazs wont do this and Big Z will be making more money than what KT makes.
« Reply To Topic
Kurt for Big Z straight up?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy