Posted by joec32033:

Posted by nyballer:

I'd agree with ricky davis - good stats somewhat intriguing player but is not what you want on your team since he detracts from others. pretty much what marbury is too.

sheed is/was a better defender, and although some off the court issues spilled onto the court i don't think he was ever considered such a blackhole on offense or such a liability on defense like randolph is. i think sheed's value when he was traded was much higher than what zach's is now.

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by nyballer:

randolph's situation is different from sheed's, because sheed was just an off-court problem. randolph is an off and on the court problem - he really kills the offense.

that being said i don't think we do this unless we have other deals in place to significantly improve our cap situation...if we can get rid of some of those MLE contracts or curry's deal, then i might be more interested. for now i want to see who we can pick up in the draft - some of these guys could turn into very good players

???

Sheed's off court and on court problems were major as were/are Zach's. Right along the line with Zach. I think Sheed and Zack are as comparable as either of them and Ricky Davis.

Remember back when the story leaked out that Boumtje-Boumtje was shooting free throws after practice and Rasheed winged a ball full speed at his head and hit him then laughed about it? Zach was with him and they both laughed at it. Rasheed was Zach's mentor for a while.

Rasheed never put up the number Zach already has. Sheed's best season-19 pts, 8 rebs, 2 blks.(00-01)-His 7th season. Zach's best-23, 10 in (06-07)his 6th season(he did average 20 and 10 in his third season).

I think you can give and take on small aspects and differences between the 2 but, imo, they are very comparable. Wallace was a cancer before he got to Detroit.

It was Bonzi Wells who was with Sheed not Zach. Then again Sheed has never sucker punched somebody in the eye and broke their socket like Zach and toting guns drag racing in the wee hours of the night.

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by joec32033:

That's assuming that there's no question about the talent. We all know that there are huge questions about Randolph on and off the court.

Isles, in all honesty can you question that there is not a talent disparity between Evans and Randolph? All personal feelings aside. Based on pure talent.

As I side. Off court issues are always present. Rasheed Wallace had off court issues and was traded. So was the ultimate in Ron Artest. Stephen Jackson. Ben Wallace had major issues with his teammates in Chi., declining numbers, and a massive contract and was traded. Ricky Davis in the ultimate bastard teammate and has been traded multiple times. Sprewell was traded twice.

Bottom line is NOONE is untradeable, they are just harder to trade.

So the Knicks are just doing it for the hell of it?

The Knicks drop $12M off their cap, give themselves a much better chance of getting under the cap in 2010 (which is one of Walsh's stated goals), get rid of a cancer on the team who had incidents on the bench with the head coach and a few of his teammates and don't have to watch Randolph stagnate the offense so he can get his. All of that is multiplied by the 3 years left on Randolph's contract. That's a hell of a reward and all to no risk to the Knicks.

Like I said, this is all about screwing the other team in every trade scenario concerning the Knicks.

The Knicks reward is maybe getting someone by saving some dough in the long run. That isn't even a reward to me.


[Edited by - joec32033 on 08 June 2008 20:43]

It's never been a question of talent when it comes to Randolph. Do you agree with that?

Go back and tell me exactly what those guys were traded for before you make any generalizations about their tradeability.

So you honestly don't think that the Knicks have anything to gain from trading Randolph, even in a straight up trade for Evans?

Rasheed Wallace and Wesley Person for Abdur Rahim(who was averaging 20 and 8 at the time), Ratliff and Dan Dickau. Later traded to the Pistons for :

Atlanta Hawks General Manager Billy Knight announced today that the club has obtained a first-round draft pick (owed to Detroit from Milwaukee), guard Bob Sura and center Zeljko Rebraca from the Detroit Pistons, as well as veteran forward Chris Mills from the Boston Celtics, with forward Rasheed Wallace going to the Pistons in exchange. As part of the three-team deal, Chucky Atkins, Lindsey Hunter, a first-round draft pick and cash compensation go from Detroit to Boston in exchange for Mike James.

.

Ron Artest was traded for Peja(who also had a massive expiring deal).

Stephen Jackson was traded in that massive deal with Harrington and Sarunas for Murphy, Dunleavy, Diogu, and Keith McLoud.

Ben Wallace was traded in that deal this season:

Cavaliers get:
Bulls F/C Ben Wallace
Bulls F Joe Smith
Bulls 2009 2nd-round pick
Sonics F Wally Szczerbiak
Sonics G Delonte West
Bulls get:
Cavaliers F Drew Gooden
Cavaliers G Larry Hughes
Cavaliers F Cedric Simmons
Cavaliers G Shannon Brown
Sonics get:
Cavaliers F Ira Newble
Cavaliers F Donyell Marshall
Bulls F Adrian Griffin

Ricky Davis(comparable to Zach):

From Wolves to Heat:The Minnesota Timberwolves today announced the team has acquired forwards Antoine Walker and Wayne Simien and center Michael Doleac, along with a first-round draft pick and financial considerations from the Miami Heat in exchange for center Mark Blount and guard Ricky Davis.

From Boston to Minny:

Minnesota Timberwolves Vice President of Basketball Operations Kevin McHale today announced the team has acquired guards Ricky Davis and Marcus Banks, center Mark Blount and forward Justin Reed from the Boston Celtics for forward Wally Szczerbiak, centers Michael Olowokandi and Dwayne Jones and a future protected first-round NBA draft pick. In addition, the Timberwolves will receive two second-round picks.

From Cavs to Boston:

The Celtics and Cavaliers on Monday have agreed to a trade that will send Ricky Davis, Chris Mihm and Michael Stewart to Boston for Eric Williams, Tony Battie and Kedrick Brown......The Cavs also will send a second-round pick, which they acquired from the Celtics in the Jumaine Jones trade this summer, back to Boston.

.

Sprewell: From NY to Minny

Six players were involved, with Latrell Sprewell going to Minnesota, Glenn Robinson and Marc Jackson to Philadelphia, Keith Van Horn to New York and Terrell Brandon and Randy Holcomb to Atlanta.

Two draft picks were also exchanged, and the deal could have been even bigger........The 76ers also sent Holcomb, a reserve, and a first-round draft pick to Atlanta, while they reacquired their own 2006 second-round pick from the Hawks.

From GS to NY:

Sprewell, 32, spent the past five seasons with New York, which grabbed him from Golden State for John Starks, Chris Mills and Terry Cummings.

.

Weed was traded for a borderline all star in SAR and then for a 1st rd pick.

Artest was traded for a borderline all star in Peja who had a massive expiring contract.

Jackson was part of a bigger trade for 2 good players in Murphy and Dunleavy.

Wallace doesn't have anywhere near the baggage that Zach has and is also on the downside of his career.

Davis doesn't equate to Randolph but in 2 of those 3 trades a first round pick was sent in return.

Sprewell was traded along with 2 other downside of their career players, Robinson and Van Horn in a 3 team trade.

When he was traded to NY, he had the most baggage and was still playing at a high level and GS didn't get much of anything in return. 3 players on the far downside of their careers.

I still don't see your point. The circumstances between those trades and this trade proposal are completely different. If anything, those trades prove my point. Most of those trades involved something of value much greater than what you, Briggs and others want to give the Sixers in return for Randolph. the Sprewell trade to NY was the closest and he had just choked his coach and was a complete pariah. Randolph isn't close to that but you think that that's the type of compensation that should be required. It doesn't make any sense.

I do appreciate you going back and finding the information though.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BRIGGS:


The deal is moving 6-16 not your made up schmeal. Once you move 6-16 you lose ANY opportunity at

Mayo Bayless Gordon Westbrook Alexander Randolph Lopez--that is huge. You are sliding back to second tier players.

Let's use your list. First of all, Mayo and Bayless will already be gone and they were the 2nd tier beneath Rose and Beasely. Gordon, Westbrook, Alexander, Randolph, Lopez and a few others are in the 3rd tier. Now it's debatable how far that 3rd tier goes, for example NBA.com's consensus mock has Alexander going 14th (just 2 picks away from the 16th), but the difference between the 3rd tier players and the few players just outside of it isn't that great. At 16, the Knicks would be able to get one of those players.

First off what reason do I have to move any spot? I still do not get it? What am I profiting from in terms of value?

Secondly and I will agree with you--there are 4 segments of this draft. Pick 16 is close to the top of segment 3 pick 6 is close to the top at segment 2. I think the players in segment two are an excellent set--the best since 2005. What am I getting to move all the way down to 16 from 6? I need something valuable--trading Zach Randolph for Reggie Evans is a fair deal straight up. Enticing the deal makes no sense because Im not guaranteed FA--in fact I think that the 2010 goal is way too difficult to achieve without purging the teams best assets. Im NOT overpaying for that--it doesn't make an iota of sense. If we have learned anything--and I think you may agree with me IF we stood pat and executed our lottery picks over the last 6 years--we would have a much better team WITH better cap discipline. When you make mistakes the best thing you can do is learn from them--keep it simple--take the BPA at 6 its going to be a very good player IMHO. I am not interested in overpaying for anything. In fact I'm not really interested in trading with anyone unless a deal is perfect for us. I'm willing to sit tight--acquire a couple of good players in the draft to go with some of the players we have here and then in a year or two start using my ending contracts for S+T or just straight wait it out to 2011 when we can acquire two players in FA. IF we get to FA in 2010 Great if not so be it.

Posted by joec32033:



Come, on Isles, my point is very clear. You also understand my point because it was you who asked me to go find the info when I mentioned these players by name when drawing a comparison between them and Zach.

Either way, my point is that no one is as completely untradeable as you're making Zach out to be. These guys that I mentioned had comparable bad reps as Zach or where considered as untradeable at one point or another and they were shipped out and their former teams were able to extract some meaningful value from them-as opposed to overpaying to get a team to take a guy off our hands.

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by joec32033:



Come, on Isles, my point is very clear. You also understand my point because it was you who asked me to go find the info when I mentioned these players by name when drawing a comparison between them and Zach.

Either way, my point is that no one is as completely untradeable as you're making Zach out to be. These guys that I mentioned had comparable bad reps as Zach or where considered as untradeable at one point or another and they were shipped out and their former teams were able to extract some meaningful value from them-as opposed to overpaying to get a team to take a guy off our hands.

I asked about the specifics of the trades because I didn't want to comment until we knew exactly what you were trying to say.

I never said anyone was untradeable but players do get harder to trade when they accumulate more baggage and are no longer worth their contract. The harder they are to trade, the more you need to sweeten the pot.

The Knicks have so much to gain from getting rid of Randolph and every team knows it. Dropping down 10 spots is not overpaying.

I still don't understand the rush to drop down those 10 spots when getting rid of him now has absolutely now real value to us within the next 3 years if we do.

We trade him-especially for that package-and great he's off the team and we are dropping 10 spots in the draft. That's the difference between getting a guy like Eric Gordon and a guy like DJ Augustine. The farther we drop the more questions we are going to have about the guy we are going to pick.

I'm all for trading Randolph, but I am not going to shoot myself in the foot to do it because it I will not see the benefits for over three years. On top of that, his value is very fluid and alot can change in that 3 years. Too much can change, imo, to give up so much just to get rid of him.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by joec32033:



Come, on Isles, my point is very clear. You also understand my point because it was you who asked me to go find the info when I mentioned these players by name when drawing a comparison between them and Zach.

Either way, my point is that no one is as completely untradeable as you're making Zach out to be. These guys that I mentioned had comparable bad reps as Zach or where considered as untradeable at one point or another and they were shipped out and their former teams were able to extract some meaningful value from them-as opposed to overpaying to get a team to take a guy off our hands.

I asked about the specifics of the trades because I didn't want to comment until we knew exactly what you were trying to say.

I never said anyone was untradeable but players do get harder to trade when they accumulate more baggage and are no longer worth their contract. The harder they are to trade, the more you need to sweeten the pot.

The Knicks have so much to gain from getting rid of Randolph and every team knows it. Dropping down 10 spots is not overpaying.

I still don't understand the rush to drop down those 10 spots when getting rid of him now has absolutely now real value to us within the next 3 years if we do.

We trade him-especially for that package-and great he's off the team and we are dropping 10 spots in the draft. That's the difference between getting a guy like Eric Gordon and a guy like DJ Augustine. The farther we drop the more questions we are going to have about the guy we are going to pick.

I'm all for trading Randolph, but I am not going to shoot myself in the foot to do it because it I will not see the benefits for over three years. On top of that, his value is very fluid and alot can change in that 3 years. Too much can change, imo, to give up so much just to get rid of him.

Celtics dropped 14 spots, picked Rondo instead of Brandon Roy how did it hurt them? It will only hurt you if you don't have a plan in place after you make certain trades. This is the point posters like you and others fail to understand.

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by joec32033:



Come, on Isles, my point is very clear. You also understand my point because it was you who asked me to go find the info when I mentioned these players by name when drawing a comparison between them and Zach.

Either way, my point is that no one is as completely untradeable as you're making Zach out to be. These guys that I mentioned had comparable bad reps as Zach or where considered as untradeable at one point or another and they were shipped out and their former teams were able to extract some meaningful value from them-as opposed to overpaying to get a team to take a guy off our hands.

I asked about the specifics of the trades because I didn't want to comment until we knew exactly what you were trying to say.

I never said anyone was untradeable but players do get harder to trade when they accumulate more baggage and are no longer worth their contract. The harder they are to trade, the more you need to sweeten the pot.

The Knicks have so much to gain from getting rid of Randolph and every team knows it. Dropping down 10 spots is not overpaying.

I still don't understand the rush to drop down those 10 spots when getting rid of him now has absolutely now real value to us within the next 3 years if we do.

We trade him-especially for that package-and great he's off the team and we are dropping 10 spots in the draft. That's the difference between getting a guy like Eric Gordon and a guy like DJ Augustine. The farther we drop the more questions we are going to have about the guy we are going to pick.

I'm all for trading Randolph, but I am not going to shoot myself in the foot to do it because it I will not see the benefits for over three years. On top of that, his value is very fluid and alot can change in that 3 years. Too much can change, imo, to give up so much just to get rid of him.

Celtics dropped 14 spots, picked Rondo instead of Brandon Roy how did it hurt them? It will only hurt you if you don't have a plan in place after you make certain trades. This is the point posters like you and others fail to understand.

Oh. So if you had Brandon Roy, you would be fine with trading him straight up for Rajon Rondo?

You also have to understand, the Celtics are a HUGE exception to the rule because I can't remember a team doing what they did. They dropped down but acquired Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen in the process.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Hey Bonn how many PF in the league have the ability to average 24 points 10 rebounds 2 assists shooting 47% a season? I know there are a couple but I think that would qualify you as a legit starting PF in the NBA.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by joec32033:



Come, on Isles, my point is very clear. You also understand my point because it was you who asked me to go find the info when I mentioned these players by name when drawing a comparison between them and Zach.

Either way, my point is that no one is as completely untradeable as you're making Zach out to be. These guys that I mentioned had comparable bad reps as Zach or where considered as untradeable at one point or another and they were shipped out and their former teams were able to extract some meaningful value from them-as opposed to overpaying to get a team to take a guy off our hands.

I asked about the specifics of the trades because I didn't want to comment until we knew exactly what you were trying to say.

I never said anyone was untradeable but players do get harder to trade when they accumulate more baggage and are no longer worth their contract. The harder they are to trade, the more you need to sweeten the pot.

The Knicks have so much to gain from getting rid of Randolph and every team knows it. Dropping down 10 spots is not overpaying.

I still don't understand the rush to drop down those 10 spots when getting rid of him now has absolutely now real value to us within the next 3 years if we do.

We trade him-especially for that package-and great he's off the team and we are dropping 10 spots in the draft. That's the difference between getting a guy like Eric Gordon and a guy like DJ Augustine. The farther we drop the more questions we are going to have about the guy we are going to pick.

I'm all for trading Randolph, but I am not going to shoot myself in the foot to do it because it I will not see the benefits for over three years. On top of that, his value is very fluid and alot can change in that 3 years. Too much can change, imo, to give up so much just to get rid of him.

Celtics dropped 14 spots, picked Rondo instead of Brandon Roy how did it hurt them? It will only hurt you if you don't have a plan in place after you make certain trades. This is the point posters like you and others fail to understand.

Oh. So if you had Brandon Roy, you would be fine with trading him straight up for Rajon Rondo?

You also have to understand, the Celtics are a HUGE exception to the rule because I can't remember a team doing what they did. They dropped down but acquired Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen in the process.

Because Danny had a plan his first target was Iverson, next was Shawn Marion(who probably was still going to be a precursor to landing Garnett). I don't want to hear this cry me a river excuse that Boston was an exception. The heart of the matter is if you have a solid plan in place doesn't necessarily mean a team will get burned by giving a lottery pick away. I've already named other examples in this thread as proof. Houston giving up Gay for Battier, Boston giving up Green(5th pick 2007) and a near expiring(Wally) for Ray Allen. Neither team got worse after their trades.