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

Include Curry in a Package for Kobe?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum


Author Poll
VDesai
Posts: 23302
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
I believe Isiah has come out and said that he would not trade Curry in a package for Kobe. But if the Lakers were willing to get the deal done if Eddy was involved, would yo do it? For theoretical purposes, lets say the deal on the table is: Eddy, Jamal, Lee + no.23 and a future no.1 for Kobe But you can assume your own variation- the key question is whether you'd deal Eddy.
Yes
No
View Results


Page 1 of 7  1  2  3 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/18/2007  12:37 PM
i'd trade the entire team & next year's unprotected 1st rounder for Kobe in a heartbeat.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
AUTOADVERT
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
6/18/2007  12:39 PM
I voted Yes just for the principcal of trade value but honestly I don't want the selfish Whore on this team. We still should find ways to trade Curry, Crawford, Marbury, Francis

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-18-2007 11:41 AM]
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
6/18/2007  12:43 PM
I'm the 1st no vote. I can't see the point of bringing Kobe here if we don't have a man in the middle to make it all work. Despie Curry's weaknesses, he's still a force inside and will demand attention of teams or they risk having him shoot 60% on easy lay ins and dunks.

[Edited by - nixluva on 06-18-2007 12:44 PM]
nyk4ever
Posts: 41012
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
6/18/2007  12:43 PM
I would trade Curry if it meant keeping Lee/Frye
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
6/18/2007  12:50 PM
I'm 50/50. If we can keep Lee, I'd probably do it. But you can't trade both, because otherwise you're in a worse situation than the Lakers are in the west... and there's no point to putting Kobe on a team that has no shot at winning.
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
6/18/2007  12:52 PM
Posted by Solace:

I'm 50/50. If we can keep Lee, I'd probably do it. But you can't trade both, because otherwise you're in a worse situation than the Lakers are in the west... and there's no point to putting Kobe on a team that has no shot at winning.

Logical reasoning but you'd agree Kobe's value should be about that right?
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
bigbeast
Posts: 22333
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 12/21/2005
Member: #1060
6/18/2007  12:58 PM
That is a fair trade but I vote No because you bring Kobe here to pair him with the big man.
"Man, who knows with this team." Aguirre.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
6/18/2007  1:01 PM
i think we should be willing to part with alot of our pieces and go get kobe.

the knicks WILL spend money and have expiring deals in marbury/francis/malik after next season. the knicks can parlay that into some veteran talent to help kobe out in the east after next season with our ability to take back $$$$'s.
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
6/18/2007  1:03 PM
Posted by TMS:

i'd trade the entire team & next year's unprotected 1st rounder for Kobe in a heartbeat.

And the Lakers would still be getting ripped off and laughed at for not getting anywhere near enough for Kobe.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
6/18/2007  1:04 PM
btw, the answer is YES - i would trade curry in a package for kobe without any hesitation.

i still have faith in frye as the center of this team (not as the PF and not paired with eddy).
VDesai
Posts: 43302
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
6/18/2007  1:07 PM
Theoretically you'd keep Frye as your "big man" isntead of Curry. Maybe you could split the MLE between people like Mike Sweetney and Melvin Ely to give you some potential inside scoring and rebounding (or maybe more of a full MLE or Magloire or Mihm see FA listhttp://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2654216).

I think you can keep one of Lee or Frye if you deal Curry, but you know the Lakers are gonna demand Lee. Does Frye+Balkman or Frye+Nate or maybe even all 3 of them add up to the value of Lee?
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/18/2007  1:13 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by TMS:

i'd trade the entire team & next year's unprotected 1st rounder for Kobe in a heartbeat.

And the Lakers would still be getting ripped off and laughed at for not getting anywhere near enough for Kobe.

there's no possible way for the Lakers to get back "fair value" for the best player in the NBA unless we're talking Lebron, D Wade, Dwight Howard, etc., all players that will NOT be traded by their respective teams.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
VDesai
Posts: 43302
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
6/18/2007  1:16 PM
I think a deal with Curry, Crawford and Lee + picks is probably better than a Bulls deal, which has to include Ben Wallace for salary purposes, and unless the Bulls gave up Deng AND Gordon (which pretty much guts their team) or more picks than we could imagine, I think the Knicks deal is better.
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
6/18/2007  1:29 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by TMS:

i'd trade the entire team & next year's unprotected 1st rounder for Kobe in a heartbeat.

And the Lakers would still be getting ripped off and laughed at for not getting anywhere near enough for Kobe.

there's no possible way for the Lakers to get back "fair value" for the best player in the NBA unless we're talking Lebron, D Wade, Dwight Howard, etc., all players that will NOT be traded by their respective teams.

I didn't say "fair value". Obviously they'd be giving up the best player, by far, but there's nothing on the Knicks roster that would evenly remotely make it worth giving up Kobe.

Why would the Lakers want Curry? Bynum is already better than Curry at everything but post offense and he's only 19 years old.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
Michael6835
Posts: 21319
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/12/2004
Member: #828
6/18/2007  1:32 PM
I don't see the point in bringing in Kobe, if we don't have a dominate big man. Plus your giving lee away and JC who can score as well.
What does Kobe provide to the Knicks if he we remove the Curry,Lee, and JC.
answer, not a darn thing. It would be the exact same thing he is trying to get away from.

I voted no btw.

Many may dislike Curry, but please do not undermine what he brings to the table. Take the assumption that he improves this summer and comes back even more dominant in the paint. Most of the teams in the post jordan era, featured a low post threat. Exclusions from that list is the Bulls with Jordan and the Pistons where everyone was clicking.

M
technomaster
Posts: 23358
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/30/2003
Member: #426
USA
6/18/2007  1:33 PM
You'd think that the Lakers would absolutely demand Eddy Curry in a deal with the Knicks. Of our many flawed players, Curry brings some very unique skills that you simply don't find anywhere in the NBA. He's the key player w/ value on the Knicks. The rest of our cast is flawed.

I can also see interest in Crawford - he's the type of big guard that Phil Jackson tends to like giving minutes to. While he's no Kobe, he can get the job done from the perimeter - especially if the key responsibility would be feeding the ball to the post.

Maybe a deal based around Curry/Crawford for Kobe would be enough. Is that fair on our end? We'd still have Frye and Lee.
“That was two, two from the heart.” - John Starks
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
6/18/2007  1:33 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Solace:

I'm 50/50. If we can keep Lee, I'd probably do it. But you can't trade both, because otherwise you're in a worse situation than the Lakers are in the west... and there's no point to putting Kobe on a team that has no shot at winning.

Logical reasoning but you'd agree Kobe's value should be about that right?

Of course. That's why I don't think we're getting him.
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/18/2007  1:38 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by TMS:

i'd trade the entire team & next year's unprotected 1st rounder for Kobe in a heartbeat.

And the Lakers would still be getting ripped off and laughed at for not getting anywhere near enough for Kobe.

there's no possible way for the Lakers to get back "fair value" for the best player in the NBA unless we're talking Lebron, D Wade, Dwight Howard, etc., all players that will NOT be traded by their respective teams.

I didn't say "fair value". Obviously they'd be giving up the best player, by far, but there's nothing on the Knicks roster that would evenly remotely make it worth giving up Kobe.

Why would the Lakers want Curry? Bynum is already better than Curry at everything but post offense and he's only 19 years old.

if the only other choice is to let Kobe whine & moan all season long & then leave for greener pastures for nothing, then the Knicks' young players & future picks might start looking better to Mitch Kupchak.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
VDesai
Posts: 43302
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
6/18/2007  1:41 PM
Not saying its better than having Kobe, but:

PG: Farmar/Smush
SG: Crawford/pick
SF: Odom/Walton
PF: Lee/Cook
C: Curry/Bynum

Isn't such a bad team after losing a player like Kobe. Those are definitely 3 starters that they'd be getting.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
6/18/2007  1:41 PM
Posted by Michael6835:

I don't see the point in bringing in Kobe, if we don't have a dominate big man. Plus your giving lee away and JC who can score as well.
What does Kobe provide to the Knicks if he we remove the Curry,Lee, and JC.
answer, not a darn thing. It would be the exact same thing he is trying to get away from.

I voted no btw.

Many may dislike Curry, but please do not undermine what he brings to the table. Take the assumption that he improves this summer and comes back even more dominant in the paint. Most of the teams in the post jordan era, featured a low post threat. Exclusions from that list is the Bulls with Jordan and the Pistons where everyone was clicking.

Z is not a dominant big man, yet cleveland made the finals.

and right now, kobe > lebron.

this is the knicks - the point isn't about winning a title, the point is about as winning as much as you can.
Page 1 of 7  1  2  3 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Include Curry in a Package for Kobe?
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