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

Here's how I see it going down at the trade deadline
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 1 of 3  1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Rookie
Posts: 27322
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 10/15/2008
Member: #2274
2/12/2009  2:09 PM
I'm convinced that Walsh will move Lee and N8 by the deadline. This has nothing to do with Lee or N8's ability or popularity, it's all about getting maximum cap space in 2010 while remaining competitive until then. This is how I see it going down:

Lee will be traded to Portland along with Jeffries for Aldridge and Bayless. If we have to give up a second rd. pick or a future first, I'd still sign off on it to get rid of JJ2's contract.

N8 will go to Golden State for Randolf. Maybe we even swap Roberson for C.J. Watson in the deal.



AUTOADVERT
Rookie
Posts: 27322
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 10/15/2008
Member: #2274
2/12/2009  2:20 PM
Here's how it breaks down:

http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=5001455

http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=5001459
martin
Posts: 79933
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
2/12/2009  2:26 PM
maybe Don Nelson hates Roandolf at LOT and Mullin wants a future job in NY, so they do the Nate trade.

BUT, why does POR give up a first round pick and Aldridge for Lee and crapola? I know they like Lee, but do they have that much of a man crush?
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Rookie
Posts: 27322
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 10/15/2008
Member: #2274
2/12/2009  2:41 PM
I wish. I meant that 'we' give up a pick (pref a 2nd rd) if we 'have' to to get rid of our crapola. I wouldn't let a pick get in between us and dumping JJ2. We would have alot of young talent to develop and have good cap flexibilty by 2010 to do the rest through free agency. We keep our expiring's and let Marbury and Rose's combined 28.5M come off of the cap.Everyone we traded for expires by 2010 giving us max flexibility....ya' dig?

young talent:
Chandler - 2 yrs 1.2M
Gallo - 2 yrs 2.9M
Aldridge - 2 yrs 4.6M
Bayless - 2 yrs 1.9M
Randolf - 2 yrs. 1.7M

[Edited by - Rookie on 02-12-2009 2:42 PM]
martin
Posts: 79933
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
2/12/2009  2:47 PM
Posted by Rookie:

I wish. I meant that 'we' give up a pick (pref a 2nd rd) if we 'have' to to get rid of our crapola. I wouldn't let a pick get in between us and dumping JJ2. We would have alot of young talent to develop and have good cap flexibilty by 2010 to do the rest through free agency. We keep our expiring's and let Marbury and Rose's combined 28.5M come off of the cap.Everyone we traded for expires by 2010 giving us max flexibility....ya' dig?

young talent:
Chandler - 2 yrs 1.2M
Gallo - 2 yrs 2.9M
Aldridge - 2 yrs 4.6M
Bayless - 2 yrs 1.9M
Randolf - 2 yrs. 1.7M

[Edited by - Rookie on 02-12-2009 2:42 PM]

What I meant to imply was that Bayless was the first round pick.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
VDesai
Posts: 43301
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
2/12/2009  2:50 PM
Isn't having Nate, Ellis and Craw as useless as having Nate, Steph and Craw
JohnWallace44
Posts: 25119
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 6/14/2005
Member: #910
USA
2/12/2009  2:51 PM
I would be blown away if we got Aldridge and Bayless for Lee.

I would not hold your breath on that one.
Alan Hahn: Nate Robinson has been on a ridonkulous scoring tear lately (remember when he couldn't hit Jerome James with a Big Mac in early January?)
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
2/12/2009  2:55 PM
Posted by Rookie:

I wish. I meant that 'we' give up a pick (pref a 2nd rd) if we 'have' to to get rid of our crapola. I wouldn't let a pick get in between us and dumping JJ2. We would have alot of young talent to develop and have good cap flexibilty by 2010 to do the rest through free agency. We keep our expiring's and let Marbury and Rose's combined 28.5M come off of the cap.Everyone we traded for expires by 2010 giving us max flexibility....ya' dig?

young talent:
Chandler - 2 yrs 1.2M
Gallo - 2 yrs 2.9M
Aldridge - 2 yrs 4.6M
Bayless - 2 yrs 1.9M
Randolf - 2 yrs. 1.7M

[Edited by - Rookie on 02-12-2009 2:42 PM]

Now this is rebuilding.
No sarcasm...




"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
Rookie
Posts: 27322
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 10/15/2008
Member: #2274
2/12/2009  2:57 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by Rookie:

I wish. I meant that 'we' give up a pick (pref a 2nd rd) if we 'have' to to get rid of our crapola. I wouldn't let a pick get in between us and dumping JJ2. We would have alot of young talent to develop and have good cap flexibilty by 2010 to do the rest through free agency. We keep our expiring's and let Marbury and Rose's combined 28.5M come off of the cap.Everyone we traded for expires by 2010 giving us max flexibility....ya' dig?

young talent:
Chandler - 2 yrs 1.2M
Gallo - 2 yrs 2.9M
Aldridge - 2 yrs 4.6M
Bayless - 2 yrs 1.9M
Randolf - 2 yrs. 1.7M

[Edited by - Rookie on 02-12-2009 2:42 PM]

What I meant to imply was that Bayless was the first round pick.

Martin, what do you think would get it done?
GKFv2
Posts: 26752
Alba Posts: 114
Joined: 1/16/2007
Member: #1259
USA
2/12/2009  3:02 PM
No way the Warriors trade another forward for a guard but then again this is the Warriors.
Thank you, Rick Brunson.
martin
Posts: 79933
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
2/12/2009  3:02 PM
Posted by Rookie:
Posted by martin:
Posted by Rookie:

I wish. I meant that 'we' give up a pick (pref a 2nd rd) if we 'have' to to get rid of our crapola. I wouldn't let a pick get in between us and dumping JJ2. We would have alot of young talent to develop and have good cap flexibilty by 2010 to do the rest through free agency. We keep our expiring's and let Marbury and Rose's combined 28.5M come off of the cap.Everyone we traded for expires by 2010 giving us max flexibility....ya' dig?

young talent:
Chandler - 2 yrs 1.2M
Gallo - 2 yrs 2.9M
Aldridge - 2 yrs 4.6M
Bayless - 2 yrs 1.9M
Randolf - 2 yrs. 1.7M

[Edited by - Rookie on 02-12-2009 2:42 PM]

What I meant to imply was that Bayless was the first round pick.

Martin, what do you think would get it done?

I think POR would want Lee as a third big man in a rotation of Oden and Aldridge. So nada I guess. Don't know.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
JamaicanJetFan
Posts: 20617
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/27/2008
Member: #2297
USA
2/12/2009  3:06 PM
There's no way Portland is giving you Aldridge.

But I'd love a Lee for Bayliss trade. Especially if we can get rid of JJ along the way.
Rookie
Posts: 27322
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 10/15/2008
Member: #2274
2/12/2009  3:08 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by Rookie:
Posted by martin:
Posted by Rookie:

I wish. I meant that 'we' give up a pick (pref a 2nd rd) if we 'have' to to get rid of our crapola. I wouldn't let a pick get in between us and dumping JJ2. We would have alot of young talent to develop and have good cap flexibilty by 2010 to do the rest through free agency. We keep our expiring's and let Marbury and Rose's combined 28.5M come off of the cap.Everyone we traded for expires by 2010 giving us max flexibility....ya' dig?

young talent:
Chandler - 2 yrs 1.2M
Gallo - 2 yrs 2.9M
Aldridge - 2 yrs 4.6M
Bayless - 2 yrs 1.9M
Randolf - 2 yrs. 1.7M

[Edited by - Rookie on 02-12-2009 2:42 PM]

What I meant to imply was that Bayless was the first round pick.

Martin, what do you think would get it done?

I think POR would want Lee as a third big man in a rotation of Oden and Aldridge. So nada I guess. Don't know.

It was rumored that Aldridge and Bayless were part of the package offered for Stoudomire. My thinking is that if they don't get Stoudemire, we might be able to pry Aldride loose in a package for Lee and I'd give up picks to get it done. We'd be set as far as young talent for awhile and wouldn't need our 2009 first round pick or the 2010 which we don't own anymore..AND..we get rid of jeffries.



[Edited by - Rookie on 02-12-2009 3:11 PM]
GKFv2
Posts: 26752
Alba Posts: 114
Joined: 1/16/2007
Member: #1259
USA
2/12/2009  3:14 PM
Lee is nowhere near comparable to Amare. You would definitely not get the same deal for him. That's giving up way too much for Lee.
Thank you, Rick Brunson.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/12/2009  3:15 PM
we are taking Bayless. Nate is a 1000 times better than Bayless. Nate had 9 rebs the other night. He gets a lot of boards and is a consistant midrange pull up jumper away from being a start PG in this league.

The two guys I would be looking to move would be Duhon and Lee in separate deals. Possibly package in Malik's expiring in one and JJ or Curry in another.

I think Duhon has great value right now as a leader on both ends. He's got a super cap friendly deal and any bubble team or contender could really use him.

Lee's value speaks for itself.

I think if you can make those trades you can get rid of JJs contract and get a high pick back and or a combo of lower picks and prospects.

I think you look to resign Nate this offseason.

Finding a player to do what Nate can do is harder than finding a guy that can do what Lee does. I love Lee... I think he's awesome and I am only looking to sell high. Same with Duhon who was pivotal in turning this team around.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
MS
Posts: 27064
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/28/2004
Member: #724
2/12/2009  3:19 PM
Lee/Gallo/Jefferies for Bayless and Larmarcus is a deal I would do in a heartbeat. If you have to include Duhon I wouldn't be opposed although I like him
Rookie
Posts: 27322
Alba Posts: 28
Joined: 10/15/2008
Member: #2274
2/12/2009  3:21 PM
Posted by MS:

Lee/Gallo/Jefferies for Bayless and Larmarcus is a deal I would do in a heartbeat. If you have to include Duhon I wouldn't be opposed although I like him

If you include Gallo, you probably have to take back Frye.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/12/2009  3:25 PM
Frye is waste. Are we resigning him? No. Aldridge isnt getting traded unless Amare or Bosh are coming back. They already the rebounder in Oden, they need LA's scoring more than Lee's rebounding.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
LivingLegend
Posts: 26564
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 8/13/2007
Member: #1645
2/12/2009  3:26 PM
Posted by Rookie:

I'm convinced that Walsh will move Lee and N8 by the deadline. This has nothing to do with Lee or N8's ability or popularity, it's all about getting maximum cap space in 2010 while remaining competitive until then. This is how I see it going down:

Lee will be traded to Portland along with Jeffries for Aldridge and Bayless. If we have to give up a second rd. pick or a future first, I'd still sign off on it to get rid of JJ2's contract.

N8 will go to Golden State for Randolf. Maybe we even swap Roberson for C.J. Watson in the deal.

Dude -

We are not getting Aldridge and Bayless for Lee and a bad contract (not possible at least in my mind).

We are not getting Randolph for Nate either.

You have to factor (lower the value) the free-agent status of Lee and Nate into any trade scenario.

There value is lower because the acquiring team could lose them to free agency or they may have to overpay to keep them.
TheGame
Posts: 26651
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
2/12/2009  3:26 PM
Why would Portland trade Aldridge for Lee? They are trying to build around him and I question whether Lee is better even though Lee is putting up solid number. MDA system inflates numbers due to the increase in the number of possessions. On Portland's team I doubt Lee does much better than Aldridge other than in rebounds and Portland already has Oden to be their rebounder.

I think a Lee for Bayless, (Outlaw, Webster, or Frye), and a top-10 protected 1st round pick is about all Portland would offer. They still would have to deal with resigning Lee, so they are not going to give up too much for him.

If we got Bayless, we could then trade Nate in a separate deal for a high #1 pick. That would give up 3 picks in the upcoming draft and a boatload of cap room.

We then rebuild the team around Bayless, Chandler, and D.G.
Trust the Process
Page 1 of 3  1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Here's how I see it going down at the trade deadline
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