If you keep Chandler and Gallo, eventually, you will have to pay them. You're gonna have to hit big on this draft pick and the next one in order to compete with Miami and Chicago. But, if you do the deal, you tell the entire NBA you have 2 all-stars and a rookie player who does everything well in Landry Fields. That's attractive to guys like CP3/Deron, and then you'll see guys of the ilk of Mike Miller and James Jones throwing away money to sit on your bench, come in, and hit the occasional three.

"Standing pat" is a misrepresentation of the thesis.

To be perfectly clear, The Answer Man believes in change. Change is good. Change is inevitable. Trading away half of your rotation for one player (no matter who that player is) is not change. That is much closer to starting over. Giving up on your productive yoots, one win away from equaling the win total of last season, is as much a crap shoot as the NBA draft lottery. Lupica is correct, the Carmelo Anthony trade is more lopsided than the trade for Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

Solid franchises do not blow up their core, no matter how flawed, for the flavor of the month.

Fields is mentioned in the deal as well. Why are you eager to dump the best rookie since Mark Jackson?

What is star power?

Buy a pick or two in the first round of the draft? Please cite the last time any franchise bought two first round draft picks. Please consider the current NBA economic stress.

misterearl wrote:Three Questions KnickFanPete

Fields is mentioned in the deal as well. Why are you eager to dump the best rookie since Mark Jackson?

What is star power?

Buy a pick or two in the first round of the draft? Please cite the last time any franchise bought two first round draft picks. Please consider the current NBA economic stress.

1. I've seen the deal in two forms: Gallo, Chandler, Felton, Curry contract, 1 pick or Fields, Mozgov, Chandler, Felton, Curry contract, 1 pick. I'm not eager to dump Fields or Gallo for that matter, but I see why the Knicks would consider it if they're getting back Melo. I wish he'd sit tight and sign here in the offseason, but that doesn't look to be the case.

2. Star power is an opponent coming in here having to defend Amare and Melo. You can't double both of them.

3. Didn't we buy a pick in a recent draft? 09? The 28th pick rings a bell.

Gutting the Knicks team is not simply measured in the number of players given up. You are completely ignoring the negative residue from sudden, massive turnover and the relationships destroyed. Basketball is a team game. It is played best by men who learn to trust each other. Does the word TRUST mean anything to you?

Have you ever played on a team where suddenly half of your playing partners or road buddies were gone in one day?

What did that feel like?

pg- billups
sg- fields
sf- melo
pf- amare
c- mosgov

or worse case:

pg- billups
sg- mason ( still a person who can defend and shoot well)
sf- melo
pf- amare
c- turiaf

i think it is a team that can still make noise this year. its not a step back rather a step forward. then next year we will have to tweak it and make room for 2012, which was our plan anyway. Build a solid playoff team now, which we will have, and then a championship contender in 2012.

KnickFanPete wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

KnickFanPete wrote:The only productive youths we'd be giving up would be Gallo and Chandler. Your core 3 would change from Amare, Gallo, and Chandler to Amare, Melo, and Fields. It's not gutting the team, it's adding more star power. It keeps us in the hunt for CP3 or Deron in 2011, and we can buy a pick or two at the end of round 1 in the coming draft.

Then what would be an example of gutting the team?

Gutting the team would be Fields, Gallo, Felton, Mozgov, Chandler, and Bill Walker for just Melo. The two trade rumors I have seen are A) Fields, Mozgov, Felton, Chandler, Curry, and number 1 for Melo, Billups, A. Carter and B) Gallo, Felton, Chandler, Curry and number 1 for Melo, Billups, and Carter. In one incarnation, you're trading 4 contributors for 2. In the other you're trading 3 contributors for 2. It's not a 5 for 1 deal.

Bonn1997 wrote:

KnickFanPete wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

KnickFanPete wrote:The only productive youths we'd be giving up would be Gallo and Chandler. Your core 3 would change from Amare, Gallo, and Chandler to Amare, Melo, and Fields. It's not gutting the team, it's adding more star power. It keeps us in the hunt for CP3 or Deron in 2011, and we can buy a pick or two at the end of round 1 in the coming draft.

Then what would be an example of gutting the team?

Gutting the team would be Fields, Gallo, Felton, Mozgov, Chandler, and Bill Walker for just Melo. The two trade rumors I have seen are A) Fields, Mozgov, Felton, Chandler, Curry, and number 1 for Melo, Billups, A. Carter and B) Gallo, Felton, Chandler, Curry and number 1 for Melo, Billups, and Carter. In one incarnation, you're trading 4 contributors for 2. In the other you're trading 3 contributors for 2. It's not a 5 for 1 deal.

So basically because we get an old PG who has 1 1/3 years left on his contract, it's not gutting the team? After Billups retires and the trade turns into a 4 for 1 (as the other 5 players will all still be playing), should we re-label the trade as "gutting the team"? Why not?

Or you could count the # of years each player has left in his career in that 4 for 2 scenario and it's probably about 55 to 10 favoring Denver.

It can be argued how good the team is after the trade in comparison to the other teams in the East top tier, but it's got to be seen as a step in the right direction. 2 Superstars verses one is an upgrade. Besides this deal isn't going to be the end of Donnie's efforts to improve the team, it's just the biggest piece to the puzzle that remained. I fully expect other moves to be made to improve. I just hope this is the end and Denver signs off on this.

misterearl wrote:False

"As much as I like Chandler and Gallo and hate to see them go, the reality is that we have to give Amar'e the best possible shot to win in the next 5 years."

nixluva - None of this is about giving Amere a shot to win in the next five years. He is paid $100M to show up and do his job. He is not owed anything else.

The best possible shot to win in five years is through building trust and building a complementary set of skills. Not by putting your core players on front street every February.

The Knicks ARE back. Why is it so necessary to restart again by coveting one guy?

See the definition of "starphucking". That's why brotha.