Posted by Bonn1997:

AGAIN, Briggs can you list any reasons why Q wouldn't go back to the role he's more comfortable with--the one he played his whole career with--as a post scorer and perimeter shooter, awesome rebounder, and solid defender. You do understand that players have different roles when they're on different teams, right? He had a different role in Phoenix. Why should he have done anything besides shoot perimeter shots on Phoenix? The last thing they would want is Q taking up space in the post that Amare should be using. It's not like he had an injury that ruined his post game. I would do this deal without Q if it were just Kurt for a 1st rd pick (if the CBA allowed you to do that). Getting Q makes it beyond ridiculous in favor of the Knicks. We get the better player in the short- and long-term and a 1st rd pick!

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 06/23/2005 17:47:10]

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

AGAIN, Briggs can you list any reasons why Q wouldn't go back to the role he's more comfortable with--the one he played his whole career with--as a post scorer and perimeter shooter, awesome rebounder, and solid defender. You do understand that players have different roles when they're on different teams, right? He had a different role in Phoenix. Why should he have done anything besides shoot perimeter shots on Phoenix? The last thing they would want is Q taking up space in the post that Amare should be using. It's not like he had an injury that ruined his post game. I would do this deal without Q if it were just Kurt for a 1st rd pick (if the CBA allowed you to do that). Getting Q makes it beyond ridiculous in favor of the Knicks. We get the better player in the short- and long-term and a 1st rd pick!

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 06/23/2005 17:47:10]

I dont know. Im going to wait and see--the concept of the trade is good, but I think there are many unkown variables. We are NOT getting better defensively in this trade, but is Q a good 6th man? If he plays disciplined, yes, if not, then we screwed up.

Posted by gunsnewing:


Crawford is the 6th man. We still need a SF who can defend the perimeter

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

AGAIN, Briggs can you list any reasons why Q wouldn't go back to the role he's more comfortable with--the one he played his whole career with--as a post scorer and perimeter shooter, awesome rebounder, and solid defender. You do understand that players have different roles when they're on different teams, right? He had a different role in Phoenix. Why should he have done anything besides shoot perimeter shots on Phoenix? The last thing they would want is Q taking up space in the post that Amare should be using. It's not like he had an injury that ruined his post game. I would do this deal without Q if it were just Kurt for a 1st rd pick (if the CBA allowed you to do that). Getting Q makes it beyond ridiculous in favor of the Knicks. We get the better player in the short- and long-term and a 1st rd pick!

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 06/23/2005 17:47:10]

I dont know. Im going to wait and see--the concept of the trade is good, but I think there are many unkown variables. We are NOT getting better defensively in this trade,

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

AGAIN, Briggs can you list any reasons why Q wouldn't go back to the role he's more comfortable with--the one he played his whole career with--as a post scorer and perimeter shooter, awesome rebounder, and solid defender. You do understand that players have different roles when they're on different teams, right? He had a different role in Phoenix. Why should he have done anything besides shoot perimeter shots on Phoenix? The last thing they would want is Q taking up space in the post that Amare should be using. It's not like he had an injury that ruined his post game. I would do this deal without Q if it were just Kurt for a 1st rd pick (if the CBA allowed you to do that). Getting Q makes it beyond ridiculous in favor of the Knicks. We get the better player in the short- and long-term and a 1st rd pick!

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 06/23/2005 17:47:10]

I dont know. Im going to wait and see--the concept of the trade is good, but I think there are many unkown variables. We are NOT getting better defensively in this trade,

Why not? Q's a much better defender than Crawford or TT. I assume he'll be replacing one of them. I assume we'll have a new PF next year, but we have enough PFs whose defense is comparable to Kurt's(i.e., mediocre just like Kurt's) that we don't lose any defense in the frontcourt.

Posted by Rich:

WFAN reported that the trade is 50/50 and that Q has yet to pass a physical.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Bottom line with Q

positives
good offensive player
good post player
can get on a role from 3
strong body athletic
excellent rebounder from the 2
Young can still improve
negatives
undisciplned game on both ends
porous defender
cant get his own shot, needs to be set up which is a disaster in the playoffs[and thats what happened]
tweener
settles on to much perimeter game


how will he fit here, unkown variable.

but drafting a Granger or Graham would easily solve those problems and allow us to let these guys battle for minutes and trade either crawford, Ariza, Q or Marbury for frontcourt help!

knowing full well the help this team needs at the 3 and the 5 and zeke's first move in the off-season is at the guard ?.............i dont get it

this trade looks like a dagger for h20