CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:^^^^Because Knicks have the GREATEST fanbase in sports. How many teams suck for years but, still manage to sell out every game. That's why I don't get the Debbie Downers flaming many threads. If you supported when we sucked ass for years, why in the world would you be disillusioned NOW of all times. Seemed quite bi-polar to me

simple: some fans were willing to wade through 2 years of roster flush and genuine re-building according to a plan. many feel that the plan was sabotaged, betraying that two years of patience. though made more complicated by the lockout, the plan could have been adhered to.

so people who believe that the plan was worth scrapping will feel strongly that the team is moving in the right direction, while those who feel it was not worth scrapping feel the team is not moving in the right direction.

I am not sure what part of the plan was scraped. My understanding of the plan was that it involved clearing enough cap space so that the Knicks could sign two stars. That was why Houston got Jordan Hill and the Knicks first round pick last year. That is why David Lee is a Warrior. The Knicks were trying all year to get Melo in the 10-11 season and they had the cap space to sign him to an extension based on their moves. When you say the plan was scraped is that based on your theory that Denver wouldn't move Melo, opting to lose him to free agency for nothing and that Melo would wait until after the owners locked out the players, where owners were saying they were going to reign in free agency with the new cba, and take 25 million less to play in NY on your terms? Please clarify if this is your position because I have asked this before and you haven't responded.

any two stars will do... right? wrong. but if you believe in acquiring talent for its own sake then any trade will do. trouble is that is not a formula for building a team.

when walsh was the gm he stated that players are good at one price and not good at another. he was not willing to give up all the players we eventually gave up which is why he was shoved aside by dolan who then gave denver all those players and more.

don't get me wrong melo is a good player. he would have been a great acquisition through free agency. not an ideal free agent since neither he nor stoudemire are franchise-level talents and it was very clear to me and others that there was way too much overlap to their games. but at least we acquired stat for cash only once we s and t'd lee. lee is turning out to be a pretty damned good player.

almost every team needs two all-star starters if they are going to make a good run. but almost every team that is successful has two all-stars who fit together well and that was not the case with melo coming over to the knicks.

the plan as i understood it was to acquire picks through the draft, develop those picks while constantly looking to upgrade at positions of need. we had stat who is a hybrid small forward power forward. power forward when he is a finisher, small forward when he developed his midrange shot.

and we already had both chandler and gallinari. we were fine at the small forward/power forward position.

now felton was offered two years by walsh at a very low salary-- why? connect the dots: he was going to upgrade at the point guard position at the first opportunity if for no other reason that we had the best finisher in the game in stoudemire. build on what you have and avoid redundancy.

Walsh's plan was to get LBJ and another star and he failed. He had to scramble to get something for all that he gave up to get the cap space he created. Maybe Walsh promised Dolan and/or Dantoni two stars but he never stopped pursuing a second star after he struck out in free agency. I disagree about there being a plan to acquire picks and develop players. The Knicks were not playing or developing their picks in the 09-10 season and used their lottery pick and another pick to create more cap space that season in the Jeffries trade. In regards to the actual Melo trade, reports were that when Denver asked for Moz, Walsh felt it was too much. I can't imagine anyone with the luxury of hindsight would hold up a Melo trade to NY because Moz was included. Also, I asked you to respond to my question in regarding Denver and the Nuggets. Is it your contention that the Nuggets would have held onto Melo at the trade deadline to let him sign with the Knicks while getting nothing for him? Is it your contention that Melo should have ignored the owners threats of an impending lockout that was going to change free agency and that he should have stayed in Denver and signed for 25 mil less in NY so that the Knicks could keep Gallo, Chandler and Moz? Way too many variables to ever think that would actually happen. I also think you would be severely underestimating the guys in Denver's front office as well as Melo himself if you thought they were going to stay put in that economic climate.

no the nuggets had zero intention of letting melo walk for nothing in return. as it stood, because of that inevitability, they had no leverage in any trade scenario. and walsh had every intention of playing that hand as it was dealt.

failing that, yes, melo should have taken less money to come to new york and left the team much more intact. but 25 million you cite is too much-- it is more along the lines of 15 million but w/e.

i don't know about variables but i do know that walsh is a savvy poker player while dolan likes playing roulette.

i don't know how you can draw conclusions that the knicks were not going to develop their players. also i didn't sense there was scrambling going on with walsh so much as there was calculating. i don't know where you get the sense that he was scrambling. that is an assumption isn't it? and if so is it any more valid than my assumptions?

dk7th wrote:no the nuggets had zero intention of letting melo walk for nothing in return. as it stood, because of that inevitability, they had no leverage in any trade scenario. and walsh had every intention of playing that hand as it was dealt.

failing that, yes, melo should have taken less money to come to new york and left the team much more intact. but 25 million you cite is too much-- it is more along the lines of 15 million but w/e.

i don't know about variables but i do know that walsh is a savvy poker player while dolan likes playing roulette.

i don't know how you can draw conclusions that the knicks were not going to develop their players. also i didn't sense there was scrambling going on with walsh so much as there was calculating. i don't know where you get the sense that he was scrambling. that is an assumption isn't it? and if so is it any more valid than my assumptions?

Not true. When you have more than 1 potential trade partner, you do indeed have leverage. Nuggets had at least NJ and NY and prob more beyond that.

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:no the nuggets had zero intention of letting melo walk for nothing in return. as it stood, because of that inevitability, they had no leverage in any trade scenario. and walsh had every intention of playing that hand as it was dealt.

failing that, yes, melo should have taken less money to come to new york and left the team much more intact. but 25 million you cite is too much-- it is more along the lines of 15 million but w/e.

i don't know about variables but i do know that walsh is a savvy poker player while dolan likes playing roulette.

i don't know how you can draw conclusions that the knicks were not going to develop their players. also i didn't sense there was scrambling going on with walsh so much as there was calculating. i don't know where you get the sense that he was scrambling. that is an assumption isn't it? and if so is it any more valid than my assumptions?

Not true. When you have more than 1 potential trade partner, you do indeed have leverage. Nuggets had at least NJ and NY and prob more beyond that.

Thank you!!!!

The Nets being ivolved is what put Dolan into panic mode.

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:no the nuggets had zero intention of letting melo walk for nothing in return. as it stood, because of that inevitability, they had no leverage in any trade scenario. and walsh had every intention of playing that hand as it was dealt.

failing that, yes, melo should have taken less money to come to new york and left the team much more intact. but 25 million you cite is too much-- it is more along the lines of 15 million but w/e.

i don't know about variables but i do know that walsh is a savvy poker player while dolan likes playing roulette.

i don't know how you can draw conclusions that the knicks were not going to develop their players. also i didn't sense there was scrambling going on with walsh so much as there was calculating. i don't know where you get the sense that he was scrambling. that is an assumption isn't it? and if so is it any more valid than my assumptions?

Not true. When you have more than 1 potential trade partner, you do indeed have leverage. Nuggets had at least NJ and NY and prob more beyond that.

Technically you're right although at the deadline we had lots of power as the clock reached the 23rd hour. What could have transpired post deadline had Melo finished the season in Denver was a remote chance at S&T's during the off-season after the lockout. We would have been in no position to oblige to the degree of pre-deadline

We should have called Melo's/Denver's/Jersey's bluff. Since Melo stated post trade he thought he was going to New Jersey had we not pulled the trigger guess what.... they would have been a gutted team and the majority here would be posting at this time how much better we remain than them and how they overshot their load. And You Can Take That To The Bank....Gilbert!!!!!

dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:no the nuggets had zero intention of letting melo walk for nothing in return. as it stood, because of that inevitability, they had no leverage in any trade scenario. and walsh had every intention of playing that hand as it was dealt.

failing that, yes, melo should have taken less money to come to new york and left the team much more intact. but 25 million you cite is too much-- it is more along the lines of 15 million but w/e.

i don't know about variables but i do know that walsh is a savvy poker player while dolan likes playing roulette.

i don't know how you can draw conclusions that the knicks were not going to develop their players. also i didn't sense there was scrambling going on with walsh so much as there was calculating. i don't know where you get the sense that he was scrambling. that is an assumption isn't it? and if so is it any more valid than my assumptions?

Not true. When you have more than 1 potential trade partner, you do indeed have leverage. Nuggets had at least NJ and NY and prob more beyond that.

true, the nuggets had some leverage. the nets were in the mix for a long while. but then prokhorov backed out because they were asking for too much, a show of restraint that dolan is incapable of. after prokhorov withdrew didn't the knicks have leverage? there was plenty of time for the knicks to drive a better deal than what they ended up doing. am i wrong?

on a similar note, i find it highly suspicious that a week later the nets were able to swing a deal for deron williams. prokhorov, a genius in case some didn't know, may well have played dolan during the entire process.

dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:no the nuggets had zero intention of letting melo walk for nothing in return. as it stood, because of that inevitability, they had no leverage in any trade scenario. and walsh had every intention of playing that hand as it was dealt.

failing that, yes, melo should have taken less money to come to new york and left the team much more intact. but 25 million you cite is too much-- it is more along the lines of 15 million but w/e.

i don't know about variables but i do know that walsh is a savvy poker player while dolan likes playing roulette.

i don't know how you can draw conclusions that the knicks were not going to develop their players. also i didn't sense there was scrambling going on with walsh so much as there was calculating. i don't know where you get the sense that he was scrambling. that is an assumption isn't it? and if so is it any more valid than my assumptions?

Not true. When you have more than 1 potential trade partner, you do indeed have leverage. Nuggets had at least NJ and NY and prob more beyond that.

true, the nuggets had some leverage. the nets were in the mix for a long while. but then prokhorov backed out because they were asking for too much, a show of restraint that dolan is incapable of. after prokhorov withdrew didn't the knicks have leverage? there was plenty of time for the knicks to drive a better deal than what they ended up doing. am i wrong?

on a similar note, i find it highly suspicious that a week later the nets were able to swing a deal for deron williams. prokhorov, a genius in case some didn't know, may well have played dolan during the entire process.

I don't recall Prokhorav saying that he absolutely would not deal with Denver... was he crossing his fingers when he said it? Any boy scout promise?

Also, recall that Carmelo wanted to extend his deal under the terms of the old CBA and threatened that he would NOT go into UFA without a deal: that gave Denver more leverage.

NYKMentality wrote:Why the hell are we still talking about the trade? Even Denver's vice president went on record immediately following the Knicks/Denver trade and stated how Denver just got murdered during this deal.

Since the trade:

Raymond Felton has returned to our New York Knicks. Did Felton take one for the team, was this the plan all along?
The Knicks have replaced Gallo with a true franchise leader in Carmelo Anthony. Upgrade.
The Knicks have replaced Wilson Chandler with a true 6th Man of the Year Contender in J.R Smith. Upgrade.
The Knicks have replaced a Russian (rookie) project at the Center position in Mozgov with an American Gold Medalist Olympian, Defensive Player of the Year, top 7 rebounder and now an All-Star Center in Tyson Chandler. Upgrade.

Who's to say we keep Felton if not for landing Melo? Who's to say we land J.R Smith if we still had Wilson Chandler? Who's to say we land Tyson Chandler if we continued to develop a bust in Timofey Mozgov? Who's to say J.R Smith gives us a home town discount without his friend from Denver in Carmelo and/or believed in our Knicks plan? Who's to say that free agents such as Kidd, Pablo, Brewer and Rasheed sign with the Knicks without the likes of Melo and Chandler leading the way? Who's to say Steve Novak signs long term with our Knicks if not for knowing that he's on a true contender being led by Carmelo Anthony himself?

And what and/or how are guys such as Timofey Mozgov, Wilson Chandler and Anthony Randolph doing for (and with) Denver when compared to the likes of Tyson Chandler, J.R Smith and Steve Novak here in New York?

Last but not least, that team in which featured the likes of Gallo, Wilson Chandler, Mozgov, Randolph and Curry were only 24-22 forty six games into the regular season. Only two games above .500.

Our current Knicks team will feature a record of 31-15 with a win tonight. 16 games above .500.

Why the hell are you people STILL talking about the trade for Melo? Laughable...

Why are you?

CashMoney wrote:

dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:no the nuggets had zero intention of letting melo walk for nothing in return. as it stood, because of that inevitability, they had no leverage in any trade scenario. and walsh had every intention of playing that hand as it was dealt.

failing that, yes, melo should have taken less money to come to new york and left the team much more intact. but 25 million you cite is too much-- it is more along the lines of 15 million but w/e.

i don't know about variables but i do know that walsh is a savvy poker player while dolan likes playing roulette.

i don't know how you can draw conclusions that the knicks were not going to develop their players. also i didn't sense there was scrambling going on with walsh so much as there was calculating. i don't know where you get the sense that he was scrambling. that is an assumption isn't it? and if so is it any more valid than my assumptions?

Not true. When you have more than 1 potential trade partner, you do indeed have leverage. Nuggets had at least NJ and NY and prob more beyond that.

true, the nuggets had some leverage. the nets were in the mix for a long while. but then prokhorov backed out because they were asking for too much, a show of restraint that dolan is incapable of. after prokhorov withdrew didn't the knicks have leverage? there was plenty of time for the knicks to drive a better deal than what they ended up doing. am i wrong?

on a similar note, i find it highly suspicious that a week later the nets were able to swing a deal for deron williams. prokhorov, a genius in case some didn't know, may well have played dolan during the entire process.

Walsh probably could have struck a better deal but it's done with and in the past. For all we know Prokhorov could have been bluffing. In restrospect what did we give up? Chandler is forever injured, Mozgov is stuck on the bench, Felton is our starting PG. I was a big fan of Gallo's and still am but if you want talent you have to give up talent. OK, 2nd round draft picks? Maybe we could find a diamond in the rough but whose to say.

At the end of the day we have exactly what we wanted....a WINNING TEAM! Yes, I know we haven't won anything yet but the possibilty is at its greatest point since the Ewing days.

Can't we all just enjoy the seaon we're having and see how this season comes to a close?

but the thing is this: do you acquire talent for its own sake or not. kind of like draft for talent or draft for need. i don't believe in acquiring talent for its own sake... at all! so the trade really angered me. never mind the player it involved. it's the values that were violated if you know what i mean. the deal felt like a reversion rather than a fresh start. obviously dolan's interference is the through line here.

in basketball i think the gm's task is to acquire talent based on need, ie following a plan. otherwise we are left with the situation that the gm's role is to simply acquire talent at the best possible price. again, walsh has stated that players are good at one price and not good at anther. that covers both the building approach as well as the acquisition approach. these concepts and distinctions seem to elude some people with deep pockets like dolan.

we are winning in the regular season and melo puts asses in seats.

nobody is going to be happy if we get eliminated in the second round.

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:no the nuggets had zero intention of letting melo walk for nothing in return. as it stood, because of that inevitability, they had no leverage in any trade scenario. and walsh had every intention of playing that hand as it was dealt.

failing that, yes, melo should have taken less money to come to new york and left the team much more intact. but 25 million you cite is too much-- it is more along the lines of 15 million but w/e.

i don't know about variables but i do know that walsh is a savvy poker player while dolan likes playing roulette.

i don't know how you can draw conclusions that the knicks were not going to develop their players. also i didn't sense there was scrambling going on with walsh so much as there was calculating. i don't know where you get the sense that he was scrambling. that is an assumption isn't it? and if so is it any more valid than my assumptions?

Not true. When you have more than 1 potential trade partner, you do indeed have leverage. Nuggets had at least NJ and NY and prob more beyond that.

true, the nuggets had some leverage. the nets were in the mix for a long while. but then prokhorov backed out because they were asking for too much, a show of restraint that dolan is incapable of. after prokhorov withdrew didn't the knicks have leverage? there was plenty of time for the knicks to drive a better deal than what they ended up doing. am i wrong?

on a similar note, i find it highly suspicious that a week later the nets were able to swing a deal for deron williams. prokhorov, a genius in case some didn't know, may well have played dolan during the entire process.

I don't recall Prokhorav saying that he absolutely would not deal with Denver... was he crossing his fingers when he said it? Any boy scout promise?

Also, recall that Carmelo wanted to extend his deal under the terms of the old CBA and threatened that he would NOT go into UFA without a deal: that gave Denver more leverage.

how does melo putting denver over a barrel with such an ultimatum or threat give denver more leverage and not less? i must be missing something here so please explain.

dk7th wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:no the nuggets had zero intention of letting melo walk for nothing in return. as it stood, because of that inevitability, they had no leverage in any trade scenario. and walsh had every intention of playing that hand as it was dealt.

failing that, yes, melo should have taken less money to come to new york and left the team much more intact. but 25 million you cite is too much-- it is more along the lines of 15 million but w/e.

i don't know about variables but i do know that walsh is a savvy poker player while dolan likes playing roulette.

i don't know how you can draw conclusions that the knicks were not going to develop their players. also i didn't sense there was scrambling going on with walsh so much as there was calculating. i don't know where you get the sense that he was scrambling. that is an assumption isn't it? and if so is it any more valid than my assumptions?

Not true. When you have more than 1 potential trade partner, you do indeed have leverage. Nuggets had at least NJ and NY and prob more beyond that.

true, the nuggets had some leverage. the nets were in the mix for a long while. but then prokhorov backed out because they were asking for too much, a show of restraint that dolan is incapable of. after prokhorov withdrew didn't the knicks have leverage? there was plenty of time for the knicks to drive a better deal than what they ended up doing. am i wrong?

on a similar note, i find it highly suspicious that a week later the nets were able to swing a deal for deron williams. prokhorov, a genius in case some didn't know, may well have played dolan during the entire process.

Walsh probably could have struck a better deal but it's done with and in the past. For all we know Prokhorov could have been bluffing. In restrospect what did we give up? Chandler is forever injured, Mozgov is stuck on the bench, Felton is our starting PG. I was a big fan of Gallo's and still am but if you want talent you have to give up talent. OK, 2nd round draft picks? Maybe we could find a diamond in the rough but whose to say.

At the end of the day we have exactly what we wanted....a WINNING TEAM! Yes, I know we haven't won anything yet but the possibilty is at its greatest point since the Ewing days.

Can't we all just enjoy the seaon we're having and see how this season comes to a close?

but the thing is this: do you acquire talent for its own sake or not. kind of like draft for talent or draft for need. i don't believe in acquiring talent for its own sake... at all! so the trade really angered me. never mind the player it involved. it's the values that were violated if you know what i mean. the deal felt like a reversion rather than a fresh start. obviously dolan's interference is the through line here.

in basketball i think the gm's task is to acquire talent based on need, ie following a plan. otherwise we are left with the situation that the gm's role is to simply acquire talent at the best possible price. again, walsh has stated that players are good at one price and not good at anther. that covers both the building approach as well as the acquisition approach. these concepts and distinctions seem to elude some people with deep pockets like dolan.

we are winning in the regular season and melo puts asses in seats.

nobody is going to be happy if we get eliminated in the second round.

Remember Before the Season Melo Said He Would Do What it Takes To Win?

Well, he's done just that.

Make that a record of 28-11 under Melo. Our Knicks have gone 28-11 during games in which Melo has played.

A winning percentage of .718% to be exact.