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

Trade with Philadelphia making the rounds?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 11 of 12 « First‹ Previous 9  10  11  12 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
6/7/2008  2:42 PM
Posted by TMS:

that's just it, this is why this deal is so appealing... this is the first trade i've even seen where Zach could be traded & we wouldn't have to take back a bad contract in return... & again, we're not giving up our pick, only trading down for a #16 while gaining cap flexibility, a solid role player signed at reasonable dollars, freeing up roles for other players on our team & getting rid of 1 of our main malcontents in the process... we're basically killing 4 birds w/1 stone w/this 1 trade alone... yeah there's a chance we can lose out on a great talent w/the #6, but there's also a chance we can still nab 1 w/that #16... does everyone suddenly no longer trust in Walsh's ability to draft well just because the player they may have been jocking here for the past few months may not be available to us?

[Edited by - TMS on 06-07-2008 11:35 AM]


This must be a factor and many must feel this draft isn't strong otherwise the trade is a fair offer. I think people feel O.J., Randolph, or Westbrook will be on the board at 6 when one of them surely won't be(O.J.). The other 2 players in no way can be assured of being better pros than players available at 16. O.J. and maybe Gordon would be the only exception IMO where I may not make the trade but it wouldn't be because I thought the offer was unreasonable or stupid like some here are suggesting.

LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
AUTOADVERT
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
6/7/2008  2:59 PM
Posted by martin:
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.

Here's another quote from the same blog:

Would you personally rather trade the 6th pick to dump Zach Randolph, or would you rather keep it to draft the best remaining player available.

Alan’s reply
Personally? I don’t trade a lottery pick just to dump a contract. Randolph is a numbers guy and those guys always have value. His contract is an albatross, but there is always someone out there willing to take a chance. And, as you know, at the trade deadline there were two teams ready to take the chance: Denver and Milwaukee. To move him you have to take on a tough contract, as well. But what you try to do is find a player that better fits your team. Zach’s contract wouldn’t even be an issue if he fit well here. There are teams that have a need for low-post scoring – Denver, Dallas, Golden State, Atlanta, etc. – so it’s a matter of finding a fit. And what type of contract/player you’d have to take back in return.

exactly what many of us have been saying, yet we have no patience? If any thing us dissenters are the one's with patience, we are willing to wait to dum zach instead of rushing into a trade where we needlessly throw in a high lottery pick..

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
6/7/2008  3:04 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by martin:
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.

Here's another quote from the same blog:

Would you personally rather trade the 6th pick to dump Zach Randolph, or would you rather keep it to draft the best remaining player available.

Alan’s reply
Personally? I don’t trade a lottery pick just to dump a contract. Randolph is a numbers guy and those guys always have value. His contract is an albatross, but there is always someone out there willing to take a chance. And, as you know, at the trade deadline there were two teams ready to take the chance: Denver and Milwaukee. To move him you have to take on a tough contract, as well. But what you try to do is find a player that better fits your team. Zach’s contract wouldn’t even be an issue if he fit well here. There are teams that have a need for low-post scoring – Denver, Dallas, Golden State, Atlanta, etc. – so it’s a matter of finding a fit. And what type of contract/player you’d have to take back in return.

exactly what many of us have been saying, yet we have no patience? If any thing us dissenters are the one's with patience, we are willing to wait to dum zach instead of rushing into a trade where we needlessly throw in a high lottery pick..


And the thread martin locked og mine that had Phx GM say what many of the other have been saying....


Suns Expect Top Pick To Contribute
Jun 06, 2008 12:01 PM EST

The Suns have the fifteenth pick in this month's NBA Draft and they expect the player they take to contribute out of the gates, according to The Arizona Republic.

"We feel very, very confident that the 15th (pick) will be a solid player and potentially a contributor," Suns Senior Vice President of Basketball Operations David Griffin said. "The draft is very deep. It's not too terribly heavy after the first two picks. That's a good thing, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You could get a guy at 13 who may have been third on your board or, in our case at 15, who may have been fifth."

"If we did anything to our picks, it would be to add picks. We're absolutely committed to getting younger and adding depth," Griffin added.

The Suns worked out Anthony Randolph and Donte Green on Wednesday. D.J. Augustin, Mario Chamlers and J.J. Hickson were also expected to be evaluated this week by the Suns.


Like I said it get's down to your overall opinion on the draft.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-07-2008 2:05 PM]
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/7/2008  3:05 PM
i think it's great to be patient but some of us feel there won't be many deals of this nature presenting themselves to us anytime soon either... a team w/enough cap space to absorb most of Zach's deal w/o throwing back a heinous contract in the process & still giving us back a high enough pick to take a talented player in the process... there are clear benefits to making a deal of this nature that the "dissenters" or whatever you wanna call it shouldn't just completely discount.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
6/7/2008  3:28 PM
Posted by TMS:

i think it's great to be patient but some of us feel there won't be many deals of this nature presenting themselves to us anytime soon either... a team w/enough cap space to absorb most of Zach's deal w/o throwing back a heinous contract in the process & still giving us back a high enough pick to take a talented player in the process... there are clear benefits to making a deal of this nature that the "dissenters" or whatever you wanna call it shouldn't just completely discount.

I agree it's not even a matter of if you would or wouldn't do the trade but judging it for face value it's a fair offer. Not all people do agree on fair business dealings. I think it's understood there may be other ways to pull off better trades that could prove realistic, we do them all the time and this trade would have to be included into those.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/7/2008  3:37 PM
bottomline is Mo Cheeks can only coach 1 team at a time & there won't be many deals like this coming our way... if we have the chance to pull the trigger on a move like this we should take it... throwing away the pick completely & getting nothing back in return but cap space is dumb, no question about it, but this trade addresses more than that.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30259
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
6/7/2008  5:33 PM
If you go by Zach having 4yrs or 3 & 1/2 left on his deal then of course its going to be very hard to trade Randolph without taking back a bad contract as well. The question is whats his value look like when he has 2 yrs left. At 27yrs old dropping 18-20 & 10 I think he will have enough value to be traded for a role player or 2 with a yr shorter.

This reminds me of the lesson we should have learned when we traded Lampe, Milos, 2 draft picks, Mcdyess & Ward for Marbury & Penny Hardaway.

We were headed to the lottery without Marbury coming in. If we would have just took our lumps through that season and got the lottery pick. We would have probably been able to trade our Lottery pick if we wanted to & Dyess or KT &/or Ward &/or Mutombo and gotten Marbury or a player equal to, or a player better than Marbury. Or we could have possibly landed Dwight Howard.

Then with Lampe & Milos and the other draft pick we would have saved we could have possibly packaged them along with Dyess or KT &/or Ward &/or Mutombo for another good player.

If we didn't rush to make a trade for a star, but instead stayed patient and waited for the pick to be at max value we would have been in way better shape.

I would push Randolph for Evans straight up and if they really want that #6 pick then they are going to have to add more to this deal like a 2010 pick. They aren't even offering an expiring contract, a high quality player. We aren't giving away some dead weight scrub. We are giving them 20pts 10rebs and the #6 lottery pick. If they don't like it then I keep Randolph and check back at the deadline then check back next offseason when he has 2 yrs left.

I bet you if this was last yr, Randolph, #6 pick & another prospect would have landed KG.
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
6/7/2008  5:49 PM
Posted by martin:
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.

Here's another quote from the same blog:

Would you personally rather trade the 6th pick to dump Zach Randolph, or would you rather keep it to draft the best remaining player available.

Alan’s reply
Personally? I don’t trade a lottery pick just to dump a contract. Randolph is a numbers guy and those guys always have value. His contract is an albatross, but there is always someone out there willing to take a chance. And, as you know, at the trade deadline there were two teams ready to take the chance: Denver and Milwaukee. To move him you have to take on a tough contract, as well. But what you try to do is find a player that better fits your team. Zach’s contract wouldn’t even be an issue if he fit well here. There are teams that have a need for low-post scoring – Denver, Dallas, Golden State, Atlanta, etc. – so it’s a matter of finding a fit. And what type of contract/player you’d have to take back in return.

This is absolutely dead spot on. There is no necessity to trade a lottery pick to get rid of Zach. Milwaukee was willing to swap up players with nothing added but the GM was on the way out. Moving a 6 pick in the draft to do the same thing? It's a panic move. Be patient. If no one can give us a good deal for Zach--he will only have 2 years on the deal left next year. He gets a full year to turn it around with a good coach. He's very likely gone in two years no matter what---a 6 pick in the draft could be a building block for 10-14 years. If Im trading pick 6 I and Zach randolph I better get Elton Brand back. Look at the cap room in 2010--even if we trade randolph and swap 10mm in salary--once we pay Lee and the pick[not to mention anyone else] were still over the cap. There is absolutely no necessity to do this deal like this none whatsoever. Maybe they want Zach off the team but this is not the proper way to go about it. There will be a deal for a player liek Zac with 1.5 years left on his contract come trading deadline--where if we stink and hes playing good--could grab us assets. This is truly the stupidest thing I ahve heard of--I hoep that what Im hearing is wrong--its no different than paying the Bulls two lottery picks for Curry when they offered EC 20mm to retire. You never have a guarantee in FA---FA will be hard to get to in 2010 no matter what we do and the BOTTON line--Lebron James is NOT coming to NY and no one else is worth it with what would be a purged roster. Build the team with the high pick like we shouldve the last 6 years--if we did that we wouldnt be in such a bad situation. I think Zach can be a good player in this system--whether he starts or comes off the bench. I think these guys will be calm--I dont see any necessity to rush into something like this. Lets see if Mike D can get the guys playing good and let the chips fall where they may.
RIP Crushalot😞
majorleads
Posts: 20536
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/29/2006
Member: #1213
6/7/2008  8:13 PM
Posted by tkf:



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..

How the hell are we losing on the talent end? First of all, there are absolutely no guarantees the player we would draft at 6 will be better for OUR TEAM than at 16. Secondly, give me Reggie Evans any day of the week over that cancer Zach Randolph. Reggie Evans has POSITIVE trade value. Zach Randolph has negative.

So basically this all boils down to whether or not there will be a difference maker at 6 that will offset all of the negatives that is Zach Randolph. I say chances are VERY slim and another Agent Ass!hole awaits us at the 6th spot.


At this moment, Cap room in 2010 + Reggie Evans + 16th pick >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6th pick + Zach Randolph + no cap room in 2010

And we could trade Evans for a lower first round pick. Package him with Crawful or Curry, possibly even Jeffries.


http://majorleads.blogspot.com
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
6/7/2008  8:23 PM
Posted by majorleads:
Posted by tkf:



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..

How the hell are we losing on the talent end? First of all, there are absolutely no guarantees the player we would draft at 6 will be better for OUR TEAM than at 16. Secondly, give me Reggie Evans any day of the week over that cancer Zach Randolph. Reggie Evans has POSITIVE trade value. Zach Randolph has negative.

So basically this all boils down to whether or not there will be a difference maker at 6 that will offset all of the negatives that is Zach Randolph. I say chances are VERY slim and another Agent Ass!hole awaits us at the 6th spot.


At this moment, Cap room in 2010 + Reggie Evans + 16th pick >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6th pick + Zach Randolph + no cap room in 2010

And we could trade Evans for a lower first round pick. Package him with Crawful or Curry, possibly even Jeffries.



Their brains turn off before thinking this. Meanwhile another reference supporting the thought on the draft per DJ's thread..
The New Jersey Nets own picks 10 and 21 in the first round of the NBA Draft later this month, and according to GM Kiki Vandeweghe, the team is fielding a number of calls from opponents who are interested in trading, the New York Post is reporting.

"We're starting to get calls on the number 10 pick and 21. Later in the first round is getting very popular," said Vandeweghe.

"People are seeing this is a deep draft. They're going to find somebody they like," Vandeweghe added. "So I probably fielded five or six calls [Thursday] on 10 and 21. The discussions are starting. What that tells you is we have the opportunity or the chance to get somebody pretty good there."

By my count that's 3 references in this thread alone.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
6/7/2008  8:49 PM
i hope Walsh is at least considering the same options... personally i'd rather we traded the #6 in the Philly deal than give it up for NJ's #10 & 21, unless of course you could parlay the #21 to get rid of 1 of our bad contracts.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
majorleads
Posts: 20536
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/29/2006
Member: #1213
6/7/2008  11:46 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:



Their brains turn off before thinking this. Meanwhile another reference supporting the thought on the draft per DJ's thread..

It's because they're orgasming over unproven "talent" like Bayless who is just another chucker/bad "point guard" like Arenas. Other than Derek Rose, there is nothing in the top ten that should prevent us from trading Zach "the team cancer" Randolph. And Reggie Evans is someone we can either keep or trade. Either way, doesn't matter and he is someone I would love to have here if we were a good playoff team. We're not, so he might have to go in a trade.


The New Jersey Nets own picks 10 and 21 in the first round of the NBA Draft later this month, and according to GM Kiki Vandeweghe, the team is fielding a number of calls from opponents who are interested in trading, the New York Post is reporting.

"We're starting to get calls on the number 10 pick and 21. Later in the first round is getting very popular," said Vandeweghe.

"People are seeing this is a deep draft. They're going to find somebody they like," Vandeweghe added. "So I probably fielded five or six calls [Thursday] on 10 and 21. The discussions are starting. What that tells you is we have the opportunity or the chance to get somebody pretty good there."

By my count that's 3 references in this thread alone.

Yeah, it's why teams are looking to trade out of the top ten. There a lot of players with a ton of upside that will get drafted outside the top 10.

The Zach deal is a no brainier and if it's available, Walsh needs to pounce on it ASAP. Philly can afford to do this because they are more of a now team and they can always buy out the cancer if it spreads and infects the rest of the team.

And there are no other teams that would take Randolph without saddling us with an equally bad bloated contract attached to an equally bad player.

Also, I am 100% in favor of building a team around players we draft, but first, we need to tear down the foundation of this crumbling house. First Zach, then James, then Curry, then Crawful. Jeffries needs to go too. Buy out Marbury ASAP. Not sure what is taking so long. Those 6 need to get the hell out of town. And that would make me a happy man.
http://majorleads.blogspot.com
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
6/8/2008  7:05 AM
It's because they're orgasming over unproven "talent"
I think a lot of people do do that with each draft actually. People are simply ignoring the fact that you could switch the players in the 16th and 6th spots for the entire 20 year span in Briggs' post and no one would have noticed.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
6/8/2008  12:06 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
It's because they're orgasming over unproven "talent"
I think a lot of people do do that with each draft actually. People are simply ignoring the fact that you could switch the players in the 16th and 6th spots for the entire 20 year span in Briggs' post and no one would have noticed.

people do, but the fact that we have not used our lottery picks to actually take players the past few years, and it has been to our detriment, should signal that we may need to try another approach.. I always said, people love the unknown, I bet you would find some idiot that would not trade the first pick in this draft for lebron, because the unknown of derrick rose. As far as they might be concerned, rose may be the next Jordan.. LOL.... Some people are like that... But this is different. We just don't want to waste a huge asset to get rid of zach... you could switch pick 6 and 16 in a lot of cases and not know the difference, but how about all the picks between 6 and 16 that would be available to us? that is the difference man.. There are picks between 6 and 16!!!!! Lets allow Donnie to do his job and get us the best player with all of these available players.... If you drop to 16, you limit the choices of prime players drastically... why would you want to do that? Had we not made that dumb trade in 2002 for Mcdeyse, we easily could have had amare or butler at pick 7.. The important thing is that those guys were available then, at 16 they were not.. so it is up to your front office to make the right pick.. I just want our front office to have those choices available, at 6 there are some good choices, at 16, there are much less...

could you imagine amare in a knicks uni? wow...

Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
majorleads
Posts: 20536
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/29/2006
Member: #1213
6/8/2008  1:44 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by Bonn1997:
It's because they're orgasming over unproven "talent"
I think a lot of people do do that with each draft actually. People are simply ignoring the fact that you could switch the players in the 16th and 6th spots for the entire 20 year span in Briggs' post and no one would have noticed.

people do, but the fact that we have not used our lottery picks to actually take players the past few years, and it has been to our detriment, should signal that we may need to try another approach.. I always said, people love the unknown, I bet you would find some idiot that would not trade the first pick in this draft for lebron, because the unknown of derrick rose. As far as they might be concerned, rose may be the next Jordan.. LOL.... Some people are like that... But this is different. We just don't want to waste a huge asset to get rid of zach... you could switch pick 6 and 16 in a lot of cases and not know the difference, but how about all the picks between 6 and 16 that would be available to us? that is the difference man.. There are picks between 6 and 16!!!!! Lets allow Donnie to do his job and get us the best player with all of these available players.... If you drop to 16, you limit the choices of prime players drastically... why would you want to do that? Had we not made that dumb trade in 2002 for Mcdeyse, we easily could have had amare or butler at pick 7.. The important thing is that those guys were available then, at 16 they were not.. so it is up to your front office to make the right pick.. I just want our front office to have those choices available, at 6 there are some good choices, at 16, there are much less...

could you imagine amare in a knicks uni? wow...

So who do you want with the 6th pick?

And just because Isiah f!ucked us over by gleefully handing out our lottery picks the past several seasons, doesn't mean we HAVE to stay in the lottery to make up for that. We're trying to better this team for the LONG TERM, not just the short term. It's like when you have cap money, STUPID gm's will sign anyone to a bloated contract just because they have money to spend. NO. You still have to sign someone that fits your team AND which is most important, the value of the contract should always equal the players value. This way, if things don't pan out, you're not stuck with a player you cannot trade. GM's always make this mistake and regret it later because they only think short term.

Short term thinking when you're not in position to compete for a title is all about the GM trying to keep his job as long as possible and make the fans happy. That is why you had Isiah always making short term moves taking on tons of money. And that is why those gm's suck. The gm's who don't mind making the tough decisions for the long term success of the franchise when they know full well things will be tough in the short term, are the gm's who reap the rewards down the road. This is the same for all sports, not just the NBA. You need to be able to ride out the short term thinking fan and media pressure to win now and be patient. I think Donnie Walsh when all is said and done, will go the long term route because he is smart, and knows that will leave our franchise in a better situation down the road.
http://majorleads.blogspot.com
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
6/8/2008  2:06 PM
Posted by majorleads:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by Bonn1997:
It's because they're orgasming over unproven "talent"
I think a lot of people do do that with each draft actually. People are simply ignoring the fact that you could switch the players in the 16th and 6th spots for the entire 20 year span in Briggs' post and no one would have noticed.

people do, but the fact that we have not used our lottery picks to actually take players the past few years, and it has been to our detriment, should signal that we may need to try another approach.. I always said, people love the unknown, I bet you would find some idiot that would not trade the first pick in this draft for lebron, because the unknown of derrick rose. As far as they might be concerned, rose may be the next Jordan.. LOL.... Some people are like that... But this is different. We just don't want to waste a huge asset to get rid of zach... you could switch pick 6 and 16 in a lot of cases and not know the difference, but how about all the picks between 6 and 16 that would be available to us? that is the difference man.. There are picks between 6 and 16!!!!! Lets allow Donnie to do his job and get us the best player with all of these available players.... If you drop to 16, you limit the choices of prime players drastically... why would you want to do that? Had we not made that dumb trade in 2002 for Mcdeyse, we easily could have had amare or butler at pick 7.. The important thing is that those guys were available then, at 16 they were not.. so it is up to your front office to make the right pick.. I just want our front office to have those choices available, at 6 there are some good choices, at 16, there are much less...

could you imagine amare in a knicks uni? wow...

So who do you want with the 6th pick?

And just because Isiah f!ucked us over by gleefully handing out our lottery picks the past several seasons, doesn't mean we HAVE to stay in the lottery to make up for that. We're trying to better this team for the LONG TERM, not just the short term. It's like when you have cap money, STUPID gm's will sign anyone to a bloated contract just because they have money to spend. NO. You still have to sign someone that fits your team AND which is most important, the value of the contract should always equal the players value. This way, if things don't pan out, you're not stuck with a player you cannot trade. GM's always make this mistake and regret it later because they only think short term.

Short term thinking when you're not in position to compete for a title is all about the GM trying to keep his job as long as possible and make the fans happy. That is why you had Isiah always making short term moves taking on tons of money. And that is why those gm's suck. The gm's who don't mind making the tough decisions for the long term success of the franchise when they know full well things will be tough in the short term, are the gm's who reap the rewards down the road. This is the same for all sports, not just the NBA. You need to be able to ride out the short term thinking fan and media pressure to win now and be patient. I think Donnie Walsh when all is said and done, will go the long term route because he is smart, and knows that will leave our franchise in a better situation down the road.

I want a starter and a two way player, if mayo is there great, I could also deal with gordon if we had to. If not then I would take a shot at a high upside talent like Randolph or even gallinari.. I want add another starter quality player to this team....
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
6/8/2008  2:19 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by Bonn1997:
It's because they're orgasming over unproven "talent"
I think a lot of people do do that with each draft actually. People are simply ignoring the fact that you could switch the players in the 16th and 6th spots for the entire 20 year span in Briggs' post and no one would have noticed.

people do, but the fact that we have not used our lottery picks to actually take players the past few years, and it has been to our detriment, should signal that we may need to try another approach..
I agree but I'll add that we ignored the cap all these years to our detriment too. Maybe that suggests we should try something different.
majorleads
Posts: 20536
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/29/2006
Member: #1213
6/8/2008  2:41 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by majorleads:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by Bonn1997:
It's because they're orgasming over unproven "talent"
I think a lot of people do do that with each draft actually. People are simply ignoring the fact that you could switch the players in the 16th and 6th spots for the entire 20 year span in Briggs' post and no one would have noticed.

people do, but the fact that we have not used our lottery picks to actually take players the past few years, and it has been to our detriment, should signal that we may need to try another approach.. I always said, people love the unknown, I bet you would find some idiot that would not trade the first pick in this draft for lebron, because the unknown of derrick rose. As far as they might be concerned, rose may be the next Jordan.. LOL.... Some people are like that... But this is different. We just don't want to waste a huge asset to get rid of zach... you could switch pick 6 and 16 in a lot of cases and not know the difference, but how about all the picks between 6 and 16 that would be available to us? that is the difference man.. There are picks between 6 and 16!!!!! Lets allow Donnie to do his job and get us the best player with all of these available players.... If you drop to 16, you limit the choices of prime players drastically... why would you want to do that? Had we not made that dumb trade in 2002 for Mcdeyse, we easily could have had amare or butler at pick 7.. The important thing is that those guys were available then, at 16 they were not.. so it is up to your front office to make the right pick.. I just want our front office to have those choices available, at 6 there are some good choices, at 16, there are much less...

could you imagine amare in a knicks uni? wow...

So who do you want with the 6th pick?

And just because Isiah f!ucked us over by gleefully handing out our lottery picks the past several seasons, doesn't mean we HAVE to stay in the lottery to make up for that. We're trying to better this team for the LONG TERM, not just the short term. It's like when you have cap money, STUPID gm's will sign anyone to a bloated contract just because they have money to spend. NO. You still have to sign someone that fits your team AND which is most important, the value of the contract should always equal the players value. This way, if things don't pan out, you're not stuck with a player you cannot trade. GM's always make this mistake and regret it later because they only think short term.

Short term thinking when you're not in position to compete for a title is all about the GM trying to keep his job as long as possible and make the fans happy. That is why you had Isiah always making short term moves taking on tons of money. And that is why those gm's suck. The gm's who don't mind making the tough decisions for the long term success of the franchise when they know full well things will be tough in the short term, are the gm's who reap the rewards down the road. This is the same for all sports, not just the NBA. You need to be able to ride out the short term thinking fan and media pressure to win now and be patient. I think Donnie Walsh when all is said and done, will go the long term route because he is smart, and knows that will leave our franchise in a better situation down the road.

I want a starter and a two way player, if mayo is there great, I could also deal with gordon if we had to. If not then I would take a shot at a high upside talent like Randolph or even gallinari.. I want add another starter quality player to this team....

Lots of players in the NBA are starter quality, but it doesn't mean you necessarily want them on your team. Gilbert Arenas? You want him? No.

Gallinari? Unknown. Randolph? It will take years to develop him. Don't see that much of a difference between him and players who will be available at 16. Also they list him as a SF, so I guess that means he doesn't like to bang in the paint. And he has no outside shot so what good would he be at SF? Gordon? Undersized 2 guard who went into the toilet this season. Mayo? What is he? A SG or a PG? And if he's a PG, he's far from a true point.

Still haven't seen anything that spectacular that would make me want to keep Zach Randolph on our team and keep us in cap hell in 2010. All they basically are is another piece for down the road, but we can get 2 pieces by trading Zach Randolph. Evans who has positive trade value + 16th pick. Also Evans allows us to package Lee with one another one of our bad contracts. Saves us a TON of money.
http://majorleads.blogspot.com
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
6/8/2008  3:03 PM
Posted by tkf:
Posted by majorleads:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by Bonn1997:
It's because they're orgasming over unproven "talent"
I think a lot of people do do that with each draft actually. People are simply ignoring the fact that you could switch the players in the 16th and 6th spots for the entire 20 year span in Briggs' post and no one would have noticed.

people do, but the fact that we have not used our lottery picks to actually take players the past few years, and it has been to our detriment, should signal that we may need to try another approach.. I always said, people love the unknown, I bet you would find some idiot that would not trade the first pick in this draft for lebron, because the unknown of derrick rose. As far as they might be concerned, rose may be the next Jordan.. LOL.... Some people are like that... But this is different. We just don't want to waste a huge asset to get rid of zach... you could switch pick 6 and 16 in a lot of cases and not know the difference, but how about all the picks between 6 and 16 that would be available to us? that is the difference man.. There are picks between 6 and 16!!!!! Lets allow Donnie to do his job and get us the best player with all of these available players.... If you drop to 16, you limit the choices of prime players drastically... why would you want to do that? Had we not made that dumb trade in 2002 for Mcdeyse, we easily could have had amare or butler at pick 7.. The important thing is that those guys were available then, at 16 they were not.. so it is up to your front office to make the right pick.. I just want our front office to have those choices available, at 6 there are some good choices, at 16, there are much less...

could you imagine amare in a knicks uni? wow...

So who do you want with the 6th pick?

And just because Isiah f!ucked us over by gleefully handing out our lottery picks the past several seasons, doesn't mean we HAVE to stay in the lottery to make up for that. We're trying to better this team for the LONG TERM, not just the short term. It's like when you have cap money, STUPID gm's will sign anyone to a bloated contract just because they have money to spend. NO. You still have to sign someone that fits your team AND which is most important, the value of the contract should always equal the players value. This way, if things don't pan out, you're not stuck with a player you cannot trade. GM's always make this mistake and regret it later because they only think short term.

Short term thinking when you're not in position to compete for a title is all about the GM trying to keep his job as long as possible and make the fans happy. That is why you had Isiah always making short term moves taking on tons of money. And that is why those gm's suck. The gm's who don't mind making the tough decisions for the long term success of the franchise when they know full well things will be tough in the short term, are the gm's who reap the rewards down the road. This is the same for all sports, not just the NBA. You need to be able to ride out the short term thinking fan and media pressure to win now and be patient. I think Donnie Walsh when all is said and done, will go the long term route because he is smart, and knows that will leave our franchise in a better situation down the road.

I want a starter and a two way player, if mayo is there great, I could also deal with gordon if we had to. If not then I would take a shot at a high upside talent like Randolph or even gallinari.. I want add another starter quality player to this team....

Let's assume Mayo and Gordon are gone prove that Galinari and/or Randolph would be better than anybody picked at 16. It sounded like Gordon was a consolation pick for 6 BTW.

Also explain to me how the Celtics draft trade of 2006 was a win now mode trade.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
6/8/2008  3:05 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by Bonn1997:
It's because they're orgasming over unproven "talent"
I think a lot of people do do that with each draft actually. People are simply ignoring the fact that you could switch the players in the 16th and 6th spots for the entire 20 year span in Briggs' post and no one would have noticed.

people do, but the fact that we have not used our lottery picks to actually take players the past few years, and it has been to our detriment, should signal that we may need to try another approach..
I agree but I'll add that we ignored the cap all these years to our detriment too. Maybe that suggests we should try something different.


Actually we've ignored the cap longer. We actually drafted a lottery player with pick 8 and Lo-And-Behold we now how Zach because of it.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
Page 11 of 12 « First‹ Previous 9  10  11  12 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Trade with Philadelphia making the rounds?
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