Posted by islesfan:

A quote from Alan Hahn's blog regarding this trade rumor:

"One GM I spoke with thought it would be a good deal for both teams"

Just saying.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

44-110. Are you seriously gonna blame it all on Rudy or blame him for not carrying the team are you?

No but they've had several draft picks and the team hasn't faired well. They have 4 picks in the Top 20 in their starting line-up I believe. Eventually I feel things will work out for them but explain how the Rockets were hurt by the trade.

Well the rockets were not hurt, battier is a good player and a very good defender, but he is not a guy who is going to carry a team. The rockets have T-mac who is physically on a swift decline. Yao may never make it through a full season, so while battier gives them some balance, Gay would have given them a potential, future franchise player if he keeps improving the way he is now.... This is where the rockets will be hurt, and honestly, reggie evans is no shane battier.... this is why this trade idea sucks, we give up a high value pick, a player who is just 26 with talent(although he is a hard head) and we get back the 16th pick and a hustle player with no talent whatsoever..... No matter how you put it, this trade would be stupid from any angle....

No it wouldn't be TKF I'll prove it to you. Let me ask you at the trade deadline if I SAY UGH offered players to a team under the cap such as Jamal, Malik Rose, and Fred Jones for the 17th pick would you have wanted this trade to go down?

what does that have to do with this trade? As long as he is not offering a high pick to move those guys, I don't see your point...

Here's the point...

TMS I'm kind of shocked you're acknowledging this particular side of the debate but we're pretty much in agreement. The problem with some fans like Joe, Briggs, TKF and our overall fanbase we look at trades strictly from a talent perspective and if we won or not. You can't look at trades that way. You have to look at the scope as to what the trade allows a team to do top to bottom. Let's look at another example closely related to this franchise as the reason to entertain such a trade. Portland traded Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau(expiring), Fred Jones(expiring), Nichols(2nd round pick) 4 Frye(2 yrs removed 8th round pick) and Francis. Our Fans at the time said Knicks>>>>Portland on the trade and primarily pointed to the fact from a talent(asset) perspective Portland got used. How did Portland fair after the trade and how did we? The Atlanta Hawks gave up Shareef, Theo, Dan Dickau to Portland for Rasheed $17mil expiring salary and then sent Rasheed to the Pistons for Bob Sura, Zeljko Rebraca, and what proved to be the 17th pick of the 2004 draft. Now let's look at this very objectively from a talent perspective. ATL at the time gave up talent(assets) to get a couple expirings and a moderate 1rst rounder. The 17th pick Detroit got from a trade they did with Milwaukee via Rodney White trade. So essentially ATL got Milwaukee's first round pick of 2004. Theo Ratliff(age 31 at the trade) ranked first in blocks in the league after the trade was made at 4.4/gm and he avg 2.5 the following yr and SAR(age 27 at the trade) was a 20pts/10reb player when the trade was made. ATL traded Theo and SAR for the 17th pick in the 2004 draft that has produced just one Superstar and about 9 2nd/3rd tier players. If you break the trade down on paper talentwise that would be like us trading Jamal, Malik Rose, and Fred Jones at the deadline for the 17th pick in this yrs draft. You know how many people would have blown their gasket if such a trade was made at the deadline(not me of course).


Well with the 17th pick of the 2004 draft ATL selected.....


GOD BLESS AND GOOD NIGHT!!!!!!!!


[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-07-2008 01:08 AM]

I still don't see the point you are trying to make here.. through all of that long winded post of yours, what does that have to do with trading a 6th pick and a talented player for garbage and cap space?

None of those scenarios you pointed out are similar to this trade... we don't care that we are losing out on the talent aspect. Hell for all I care trade zach for reggie evans straight up!!! I didn't see in any of your scenarios where any of those teams traded a talented player and a top 6 pick to get cap space and a pick 10 spots lower...

And in your own words.. How much better did josh smith make atlanta? until Joe johnson got there they were trash...... I know, I was a season ticket holder bro...

The problem with some fans like Joe, Briggs, TKF and our overall fanbase we look at trades strictly from a talent perspective and if we won or not.

The problem is, you are not reading, go back and look at my post, briggs, fish and others, we would take a zach for reggie evans trade straight up.. hell I would take zach for a player who is on the DL for the whole season if his contract was smaller, I just don't want to include pick#6 to accomplish that!!!

[Edited by - tkf on 07-06-2008 02:28 AM]

it's $10mil and 16 for 6 I just don't see how this is an outlandishly stupid trade. Are there possible better trades than this one? Maybe, but if this is on the table it's not a bad offer. You're looking at the trade with a different vantage point. I don't look at pick 6 and the number or it's lottery position I look at it as an asset and nothing more. Zach's production and age is totally irrelevant in this trade he did nothing for us, actually helped make us worse. What asset am I giving up and what asset(s)(including flexibility) am I getting back. If it ould be proven we had no other talent to grab at 16 then I could see where the concern will be but history has proven tons of mistakes are made between picks 10-30.

LOL Josh Smith may have not helped much initially considering they were in the beginning stages of their rebuild process but one of the main reasons they got Joe Johnson was because they moved their Albatross contracts and that's what we're trying to do here with the Zach trade.

If you would do Zach for Reggie straight up then why do you insist on highlighting Zach's production and/or age? It's irrelevant and has zero factor into trading him.
Here's another example would you trade pick 6 or even 5, Q, Nate for Micheal Redd and a 2nd round pick?



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-07-2008 01:50 AM]

I hightlighted it because we are losing on the talent end, but as I said at this point it doesn't, I mentioned that because we are getting a ton of room in cap space and that zach's talent is what we are basically selling to the sixers for that cap space.. so there should be nothing more I would give them... exchanging picks 6 for 16 in this scenario to me is just not smart..

Posted by islesfan:

I can only assume that the illogical dissent, concerning this trade rumor, are borne out of the ridiculous need to try to screw the other team in every trade proposal, as if trades are supposed to be overwhelmingly is favor of the Knicks

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by islesfan:

I can only assume that the illogical dissent, concerning this trade rumor, are borne out of the ridiculous need to try to screw the other team in every trade proposal, as if trades are supposed to be overwhelmingly is favor of the Knicks

Here is why you don't do this trade.
A. We would not be under the cap immediately NOR does it *guarantee* that we would be under the cap in two years. There is no imminent positive reaction from making this move. We should be patient--we *hurried* the Eddy Curry deal and every other deal the last 5 years and were taken to the cleaners. We need to stay patient and find a deal that is more reasonable. Reasonable meaning I would give them what they want if they truly want Zach for Evans but I will not entice this deal by throwing them a high lottery pick to do so. Looking back at the last 6-7 years--doesnt anyone who has paid attention realize that if we SAT TIGHT and made/executed our own lottery picks that we would have a solid team with a disiplned cap. So what is the answer--immediately panic into trading another high lottery pick so we can continue loading up the NBA with talent we could poccess. This would be an unprecented move--no team has ever traded a larger talent with a very high lottery pick for lesser talent and a much lower pick. B. There is a significant drop in talent from 6-16 and the possibility you give up an all star type caliber talent at 6 is there. Look back at the history of the draft--the odds are OVERWHELMINGLY on my side in this debate--in fact it's soskewed to what Im saying I dont think people have taken the time to go look at the numbers.
C. I think the best approach for the Knicks for now on is methodical instead of radical. Weve had way too much radical type trades. We need to keep it simple and execute--let each coach player scout and GM execute their jobs to their best of their abilities. I have confidence that IF we dont trade Zach that Mike D can alter his game to make him much more valuable than selling him at a low.
D. Why are we doing this anyway? We have FA on a stick in 2011--it's a lock--it's there. It gives us time to rebuild this team so when we have cap space. If we get to FA in 2010 great if not we cant panic or overtrade to get there--history tells you it's not worth it. There is little to NO chance that a top tier FA comes to NY that year. Lebron James is leaving his hometown kids wife and a tem that has done well to come here? Pipe dream. No neccessity to overpay for FA in 2010.
E. We are going to have to pay David Lee and Nate Robinson to keep them--possibly even Jamal C
If we do not --then we are officially purging the roster. This leaves a dangerous alternative--hoping we can pull off two major FA in 2010--something that was tried once by Orlando and landed them in the lottery for 7 years.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by TheGame:

I cannot believe people are still debating whether this is a good trade or not. You actually want to give up the 6th pick and Randolph for Evans (who also has a multi-year contract) and the 16th pick. That is just dumb. Randolph has trade value. Since when does a 20/10 scoring PF not have any trade value in the NBA unless he killed someone. Even if we cannot trade him now, we will be able to trade him when he has 2 years left on his deal. At the very least, I would wait another year to see if we can get his value up. There is a very real chance that Coach Mike's system will increase the trade value of all our players (Curry, Crawford, and Randolph).

At most, I would trade Randolph and a future 2nd round pick for Evans. I mean Philly would be adding a low post scorer and keeping their first round pick. I don't think they have any delusions that Lebron, Bosh, Wade, or Anthony are going to sign with them in 2010.

[Edited by - thegame on 07-06-2008 11:25]

I don't think anyone *wants* to do this trade. That's like countering and saying "I can't believe TKF *wants* Zach to stay on the team next season." There simply are no good options with Zach.

At the very least, I would wait another year to see if we can get his value up.

He put up 24/10 2 years ago and had no trade value. What good is waiting one year gonna do? How exactly are you gonna get his trade value up?

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 06-07-2008 11:39 AM]

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by TheGame:

I cannot believe people are still debating whether this is a good trade or not. You actually want to give up the 6th pick and Randolph for Evans (who also has a multi-year contract) and the 16th pick. That is just dumb. Randolph has trade value. Since when does a 20/10 scoring PF not have any trade value in the NBA unless he killed someone. Even if we cannot trade him now, we will be able to trade him when he has 2 years left on his deal. At the very least, I would wait another year to see if we can get his value up. There is a very real chance that Coach Mike's system will increase the trade value of all our players (Curry, Crawford, and Randolph).

At most, I would trade Randolph and a future 2nd round pick for Evans. I mean Philly would be adding a low post scorer and keeping their first round pick. I don't think they have any delusions that Lebron, Bosh, Wade, or Anthony are going to sign with them in 2010.

[Edited by - thegame on 07-06-2008 11:25]

I don't think anyone *wants* to do this trade. That's like countering and saying "I can't believe TKF *wants* Zach to stay on the team next season." There simply are no good options with Zach.

At the very least, I would wait another year to see if we can get his value up.

He put up 24/10 2 years ago and had no trade value. What good is waiting one year gonna do? How exactly are you gonna get his trade value up?

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 06-07-2008 11:39 AM]

He would have 2 yrs left on his deal rather than 4. He will still be young at 27, most likely he will still be productive. If your known as a problem child then 4 yrs might be to much of a risk for a team to handle. But 2 yrs is way more attractive, especially if you can get him for a role player or 2 with an expiring contract.

The main reason contracts become more appealing when there are fewer years left is that you can more easily take back longer contracts and save the other team money. We don't want to be doing that, though.

Posted by TrueBlue:

TMS I'm kind of shocked you're acknowledging this particular side of the debate but we're pretty much in agreement. The problem with some fans like Joe, Briggs, TKF and our overall fanbase we look at trades strictly from a talent perspective and if we won or not. You can't look at trades that way. You have to look at the scope as to what the trade allows a team to do top to bottom. Let's look at another example closely related to this franchise as the reason to entertain such a trade. Portland traded Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau(expiring), Fred Jones(expiring), Nichols(2nd round pick) 4 Frye(2 yrs removed 8th round pick) and Francis. Our Fans at the time said Knicks>>>>Portland on the trade and primarily pointed to the fact from a talent(asset) perspective Portland got used. How did Portland fair after the trade and how did we? The Atlanta Hawks gave up Shareef, Theo, Dan Dickau to Portland for Rasheed $17mil expiring salary and then sent Rasheed to the Pistons for Bob Sura, Zeljko Rebraca, and what proved to be the 17th pick of the 2004 draft. Now let's look at this very objectively from a talent perspective. ATL at the time gave up talent(assets) to get a couple expirings and a moderate 1rst rounder. The 17th pick Detroit got from a trade they did with Milwaukee via Rodney White trade. So essentially ATL got Milwaukee's first round pick of 2004. Theo Ratliff(age 31 at the trade) ranked first in blocks in the league after the trade was made at 4.4/gm and he avg 2.5 the following yr and SAR(age 27 at the trade) was a 20pts/10reb player when the trade was made. ATL traded Theo and SAR for the 17th pick in the 2004 draft that has produced just one Superstar and about 9 2nd/3rd tier players. If you break the trade down on paper talentwise that would be like us trading Jamal, Malik Rose, and Fred Jones at the deadline for the 17th pick in this yrs draft. You know how many people would have blown their gasket if such a trade was made at the deadline(not me of course).


Well with the 17th pick of the 2004 draft ATL selected.....



GOD BLESS AND GOOD NIGHT!!!!!!!!


[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-07-2008 01:08 AM]

Posted by TMS:

Posted by TrueBlue:

TMS I'm kind of shocked you're acknowledging this particular side of the debate but we're pretty much in agreement. The problem with some fans like Joe, Briggs, TKF and our overall fanbase we look at trades strictly from a talent perspective and if we won or not. You can't look at trades that way. You have to look at the scope as to what the trade allows a team to do top to bottom. Let's look at another example closely related to this franchise as the reason to entertain such a trade. Portland traded Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau(expiring), Fred Jones(expiring), Nichols(2nd round pick) 4 Frye(2 yrs removed 8th round pick) and Francis. Our Fans at the time said Knicks>>>>Portland on the trade and primarily pointed to the fact from a talent(asset) perspective Portland got used. How did Portland fair after the trade and how did we? The Atlanta Hawks gave up Shareef, Theo, Dan Dickau to Portland for Rasheed $17mil expiring salary and then sent Rasheed to the Pistons for Bob Sura, Zeljko Rebraca, and what proved to be the 17th pick of the 2004 draft. Now let's look at this very objectively from a talent perspective. ATL at the time gave up talent(assets) to get a couple expirings and a moderate 1rst rounder. The 17th pick Detroit got from a trade they did with Milwaukee via Rodney White trade. So essentially ATL got Milwaukee's first round pick of 2004. Theo Ratliff(age 31 at the trade) ranked first in blocks in the league after the trade was made at 4.4/gm and he avg 2.5 the following yr and SAR(age 27 at the trade) was a 20pts/10reb player when the trade was made. ATL traded Theo and SAR for the 17th pick in the 2004 draft that has produced just one Superstar and about 9 2nd/3rd tier players. If you break the trade down on paper talentwise that would be like us trading Jamal, Malik Rose, and Fred Jones at the deadline for the 17th pick in this yrs draft. You know how many people would have blown their gasket if such a trade was made at the deadline(not me of course).


Well with the 17th pick of the 2004 draft ATL selected.....



GOD BLESS AND GOOD NIGHT!!!!!!!!


[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-07-2008 01:08 AM]

not sure if u meant to address tkf or me in that post, but this is what i've been saying about how MEM can do well for themselves in that Gasol trade... it all depends on what they do w/the picks & cap flexibility they got, but IMO it was a good trade for them to make... i think if we make this Zach trade it will benefit our franchise in the longrun, even though in the immediate present it may not seem to be such a great value trade to some.

Posted by islesfan:

A quote from Alan Hahn's blog regarding this trade rumor:

"One GM I spoke with thought it would be a good deal for both teams"

Just saying.