You have a commodity on your team that has a very high trade value. With this value you can trade Lee and Crawford. This would get rid of a long contract and in return you could get a player like Artest, AK, Nocioni, and probably a high draft pick. It would balance your team out and fill some holes. Frye doenst have as high of trade value right now. The team you currently have wont ever win and I dont see in 2 years the Knicks wanting to give Lee 50 million.

The title of this thread should be for the Knicks to get immediately better we should trade Lee. I dont see how trading Lee for a guy who has been in the league 8 years is for the future. Or for a guy who misses half the season with injuries while in his physical prime. Or for a bum like Nocioni. Id say to build for the future we keep our young front court, but then again i dont know the secret signal for a screen so what do i know?

Why not get rid of Frye and keep the guy who is arguably the most promising player on our team?

frye and robinson should be the package shopped around, only that. trading lee makes no sense.

Curry's the one with value to trade. Lee's the one with value to keep.

Posted by King1:

You have a commodity on your team that has a very high trade value. With this value you can trade Lee and Crawford. This would get rid of a long contract and in return you could get a player like Artest, AK, Nocioni, and probably a high draft pick. It would balance your team out and fill some holes. Frye doenst have as high of trade value right now. The team you currently have wont ever win and I dont see in 2 years the Knicks wanting to give Lee 50 million.

We gave Jeffries and JJ1 $30 mil. I see no reason why we cannot give Lee $50 mill. Marbury and Francis' deals will be coming off the books, so our overall salary situation would not change much. I would really like to see Frye and Lee develop more. I think time is on our side because both will get better. I think Frye and Lee's trade value this time next year will be higher than it is now.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Curry's the one with value to trade. Lee's the one with value to keep.

what team would accept the heart risk?

Posted by King1:

You have a commodity on your team that has a very high trade value. With this value you can trade Lee and Crawford. This would get rid of a long contract and in return you could get a player like Artest, AK, Nocioni, and probably a high draft pick. It would balance your team out and fill some holes. Frye doenst have as high of trade value right now. The team you currently have wont ever win and I dont see in 2 years the Knicks wanting to give Lee 50 million.

Why don't we just let the dumb contracts run out like starbury and francis to open up some buying room that way, and keep Lee and Crawford. By the time we get someone else of value, will have a young team who have a lot of experience together. Just like a busines, you always have to take experience into consideration, before you fire everyone.

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by kam77:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Curry's the one with value to trade. Lee's the one with value to keep.

what team would accept the heart risk?

Teams would line up to trade for Curry, especially if they have a defensive PF to put next to him. He is no worse than the 5th best post player in the league on offense.

Its not about basketball, its about risk. No team will be willing to gamble on a guy with a heart condition. Any trade we do try to swing if possible, will never be for equal value. If we can't trade Q because of his uninsured back, no team would take Curry's uninsured heart. Only deep-pockets Cablevision could afford to lose a 50million investment without insurance. Curry is basically untradeable.

Posted by kam77:

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by kam77:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Curry's the one with value to trade. Lee's the one with value to keep.

what team would accept the heart risk?

Teams would line up to trade for Curry, especially if they have a defensive PF to put next to him. He is no worse than the 5th best post player in the league on offense.

Its not about basketball, its about risk. No team will be willing to gamble on a guy with a heart condition. Any trade we do try to swing if possible, will never be for equal value. If we can't trade Q because of his uninsured back, no team would take Curry's uninsured heart. Only deep-pockets Cablevision could afford to lose a 50million investment without insurance. Curry is basically untradeable.

it's one of the benefits of having dolan as your owner, no price is a risk.

i think, today, teams will trade for curry, especially considering the big bucks doled out for chandler, kaman, and dalembert. curry provides the complete opposite of those guys and now that he's shown he can play two full seasons (even if last season he was out of shape), i don't think the heart is as big an issue to other GM as it was 2 summers ago.

but quentin...well he's already missed at least 10 games this year b/c of his back so it's a chronic problem.

[/quote]

it's one of the benefits of having dolan as your owner, no price is a risk.
[/quote]

It's just not a good idea to stay in debt like that. Let alone get' into debt. It corners you and there's nothing you can do about it, unless Dolan wants to buy out about 80 millions dollars worth of players, in which case you know' he's not about to do.