Posted by TMS:

u guys seriously have to stop quoting the entire string of a conversation when u hit the reply button.

Lazy too many good topics going.

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

It's the Bobcats looking at the various Mocks and determining who may fall them along with projecting their own Mock.

Joe I've never been opposed to getting another pick. Have you not seen some of my trade offers(although some didn't like them). I had us getting Jermaine, 11th, and 19th. I had us getting Wally, 16th, and 19th.

I noticed another Mareese Speights Realgm has him going in the Top 10 and on other mocks he isn't even listed in the Top 30 and most have him outside of 20.

So you're saying CDR, Greene, Rush, McGee, Lawson, Arthur won't be a solid contributors?

Some guys are mysteries TB, I don't deny that. Speights has some MAJOR character issues.

And no I am not saying any of those guys won't be contributers, but I am saying that there is a reason they are not talked about the same way guys like Rose, Beasley, Gordon, whoever in the top 10, are. They are missing size, some talent, motivation, character flaws...something doesn't make them as appealing as other players. That is the whole point of this.

I won't chalk it up as excuses from you but regardless if it's because teams are drafting for need, players being mysteries, character issues(Beasley has them, O.J. is involved in controversy), physical measurement issues, lack of workouts, lack of scouting, but you know what it doesn't change a player's talent. There are going to be some who slip all because of these reasons and others not listed. There are going to be very good players on the board at 16, that will rival players picked before, outside of the Top 5.

BOOK IT!!!!



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-10-2008 1:16 PM]

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-10-2008 1:24 PM]

I don't get this. You would rather be stuck with whatever guy with issues that falls to us as opposed to getting a guy with less/smaller issues that may be a better talent overall anyway. That sounds like horrid business.

Actually ignoring Randolph's declining trade value, while passing on the best offer for him because you waited too long, would be horrid business.

Nobody is saying that the 6th pick is the same as the 16th pick. We're saying that there's no guarantee that the 6th pick will be better than the 16th, the difference in talent level probably isn't going to be that drastic and we would still be able to draft a good player with upside at 16.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by TMS:

who are they tho? i keep hearing names like Ben Wallace & Wally Z, but IMO that's got a very low chance of happening.

Who cares about Z bo.

The fact that you don't care about or don't understand the consequences of keeping Randolph, speaks volumes.

Think about this. If we went to Zbo and said Phiily wants you--this is what we'll do--they'll give you an MLE with an opt after 3 so you can start 4 for them. You will get PT there and you like MO Cheeks. We will buy you out - the 15mm spread over the same 3 years. Not only do we save the 15mm get rid of the player but also save lux tax of 5mm and we gave up nothing. We get cap relief in 2010 of 5mm---what is wrong with that?

This doesn't make any sense contractually and even if it did, it's pure fantasy land. Why exactly is Randolph willing to take $15M instead of the $51M that he has guaranteed coming to him?

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by TMS:

who are they tho? i keep hearing names like Ben Wallace & Wally Z, but IMO that's got a very low chance of happening.

Who cares about Z bo.

The fact that you don't care about or don't understand the consequences of keeping Randolph, speaks volumes.

Think about this. If we went to Zbo and said Phiily wants you--this is what we'll do--they'll give you an MLE with an opt after 3 so you can start 4 for them. You will get PT there and you like MO Cheeks. We will buy you out - the 15mm spread over the same 3 years. Not only do we save the 15mm get rid of the player but also save lux tax of 5mm and we gave up nothing. We get cap relief in 2010 of 5mm---what is wrong with that?

This doesn't make any sense contractually and even if it did, it's pure fantasy land. Why exactly is Randolph willing to take $15M instead of the $51M that he has guaranteed coming to him?

If he signs an MLE with Philidelphia he makes the same amount of money.

i.e the Knicks pay him a buyout of 15mm $ less[the amount that would be paid by philly] than the 50mm [35mm]owed him spread over 3 years. This would cut the cap number to 11,666,000 per year or 6mm less in 2010. I would not do this because I know we can trade him.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by TMS:

who are they tho? i keep hearing names like Ben Wallace & Wally Z, but IMO that's got a very low chance of happening.

Who cares about Z bo.

The fact that you don't care about or don't understand the consequences of keeping Randolph, speaks volumes.

Think about this. If we went to Zbo and said Phiily wants you--this is what we'll do--they'll give you an MLE with an opt after 3 so you can start 4 for them. You will get PT there and you like MO Cheeks. We will buy you out - the 15mm spread over the same 3 years. Not only do we save the 15mm get rid of the player but also save lux tax of 5mm and we gave up nothing. We get cap relief in 2010 of 5mm---what is wrong with that?

This doesn't make any sense contractually and even if it did, it's pure fantasy land. Why exactly is Randolph willing to take $15M instead of the $51M that he has guaranteed coming to him?

If he signs an MLE with Philidelphia he makes the same amount of money.

i.e the Knicks pay him a buyout of 15mm $ less[the amount that would be paid by philly] than the 50mm [35mm]owed him spread over 3 years. This would cut the cap number to 11,666,000 per year or 6mm less in 2010. I would not do this because I know we can trade him.

Ok, why would Randolph accept $15M less of the $51M that he's owed? Because the Knicks tell him that they want to buy him out and that the Sixers want him? Even then, you're guaranteed of keeping $12M on your cap for the next 3 years. Sorry, it's not a smart move.

The Knicks may or may not do this trade but they have to seriously consider it while looking to do something similar to get rid of Randolph.

Posted by joec32033:


Randolph's value hasn't declined. It hasn't moved at all we got him on the cheap for his talent level. Think about it. We got him for Francis and Frye. Evans had a better season than both. His value can't get any lower. Portland had Aldridge and just drafted Oden and still took Frye.

I am not arguing about not getting a good player at 16. We can get a better player at a better value at 6.

Randolph's value has declined. We didn't get him on the cheap, Portland had to pay a price to get rid of him. We didn't just "get him" for Francis and Frye - Portland knew they would be trading for Francis and immediately buying out the last TWO YEARS $30M of his deal, just to get rid of Zach. Think about THAT.

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by joec32033:

It's the Bobcats looking at the various Mocks and determining who may fall them along with projecting their own Mock.

Joe I've never been opposed to getting another pick. Have you not seen some of my trade offers(although some didn't like them). I had us getting Jermaine, 11th, and 19th. I had us getting Wally, 16th, and 19th.

I noticed another Mareese Speights Realgm has him going in the Top 10 and on other mocks he isn't even listed in the Top 30 and most have him outside of 20.

So you're saying CDR, Greene, Rush, McGee, Lawson, Arthur won't be a solid contributors?

Some guys are mysteries TB, I don't deny that. Speights has some MAJOR character issues.

And no I am not saying any of those guys won't be contributers, but I am saying that there is a reason they are not talked about the same way guys like Rose, Beasley, Gordon, whoever in the top 10, are. They are missing size, some talent, motivation, character flaws...something doesn't make them as appealing as other players. That is the whole point of this.

I won't chalk it up as excuses from you but regardless if it's because teams are drafting for need, players being mysteries, character issues(Beasley has them, O.J. is involved in controversy), physical measurement issues, lack of workouts, lack of scouting, but you know what it doesn't change a player's talent. There are going to be some who slip all because of these reasons and others not listed. There are going to be very good players on the board at 16, that will rival players picked before, outside of the Top 5.

BOOK IT!!!!



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-10-2008 1:16 PM]

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 06-10-2008 1:24 PM]

I don't get this. You would rather be stuck with whatever guy with issues that falls to us as opposed to getting a guy with less/smaller issues that may be a better talent overall anyway. That sounds like horrid business.

Actually ignoring Randolph's declining trade value, while passing on the best offer for him because you waited too long, would be horrid business.

Nobody is saying that the 6th pick is the same as the 16th pick. We're saying that there's no guarantee that the 6th pick will be better than the 16th, the difference in talent level probably isn't going to be that drastic and we would still be able to draft a good player with upside at 16.

Randolph's value hasn't declined. It hasn't moved at all we got him on the cheap for his talent level. Think about it. We got him for Francis and Frye. Evans had a better season than both. His value can't get any lower. Portland had Aldridge and just drafted Oden and still took Frye.

I am not arguing about not getting a good player at 16. We can get a better player at a better value at 6.

It hasn't declined?? You think a fair trade would be Randolph for Evans straight up and you don't think his trade value has declined? Please explain.

We traded a huge expiring contract and a 2nd year player who was the 8th pick overall. I think that's a little more than a package centered around Reggie Evans.

Unless you had a crystal ball, you have to use Frye's numbers from the year before, not this year. Frye alone had at least as much value as Evans does now but the big thing was Francis' expiring contract. It gives them a ton of cap room after next year and a bunch of their core players are going to need to be re-signed.

It's amazing to me that you're trying to compare Evans' year compared to Francis' year, as if that had anything to do with this. I really hope you know better than that.

if that's the case then that's the case... don't u think if the Sixers GM is out there denying these rumors about this trade it makes the whole argument about this trade not being fair value for the Knicks even weaker on your part?

originally posted by islesfan


It hasn't declined?? You think a fair trade would be Randolph for Evans straight up and you don't think his trade value has declined? Please explain.

We traded a huge expiring contract and a 2nd year player who was the 8th pick overall. I think that's a little more than a package centered around Reggie Evans.

Unless you had a crystal ball, you have to use Frye's numbers from the year before, not this year. Frye alone had at least as much value as Evans does now but the big thing was Francis' expiring contract. It gives them a ton of cap room after next year and a bunch of their core players are going to need to be re-signed.

It's amazing to me that you're trying to compare Evans' year compared to Francis' year, as if that had anything to do with this. I really hope you know better than that.

Don't need a crystal ball. Frye was traded after that disaster that he called a season. Remember he hurt his knee at the end of the year before and wasn't the same all season? We were considering buying out Francis. Would I have made that trade-not with the current make-up of the team. My first thought was the low block was going to be awfully crowded.

However be that as it may, a lot of our players(all of our players) faults are awfully magnified by how horrible we have been the last few seasons.

Look at it like this-Zach needs to show over half a season that he is what he was 3 years ago. An up and coming, blue collar, below the rim power forward with range to 18-20 feet and he has gained some trade value.

As for the Evans angle. DW said our goal is to get under the cap. Evans makes less than 1/3 of what Zack makes and is a better fit here. Do I think Zach is worth more, yes, a lot more, but tight now his value is hurting and low. And let's be honest here. Everyone on our roster's value is low except for maybe David Lee because he is viewed as the underdog who overcame a lack of minutes to average a double-double.

I think with his contract is worth a late lotto pick(9-12). I would be willing to accept Reggie Evans and the #16 for him because Evans is cheaper, a better fit and I think something like that makes up for those 4 or so picks from 12-16.

But that is just me. I understand at some point you want to cut your losses but cutting your own throat in the process is not a reliable practice.

[Edited by - joec32033 on 11 June 2008 08:02]

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by joec32033:


Randolph's value hasn't declined. It hasn't moved at all we got him on the cheap for his talent level. Think about it. We got him for Francis and Frye. Evans had a better season than both. His value can't get any lower. Portland had Aldridge and just drafted Oden and still took Frye.

I am not arguing about not getting a good player at 16. We can get a better player at a better value at 6.

Randolph's value has declined. We didn't get him on the cheap, Portland had to pay a price to get rid of him. We didn't just "get him" for Francis and Frye - Portland knew they would be trading for Francis and immediately buying out the last TWO YEARS $30M of his deal, just to get rid of Zach. Think about THAT.

& now the Sixers are asking for a #6 pick just to take on his contract... his value has dropped significantly.

So the Sixers are asking for the 6 pick. The Grizzlies wanted the 13 pick and Outlaw from the Blazers for Mike Miller. Asking for something doesn't mean you're gonna get it.

no doubt but it is a good gauge of what the actual trade value of the player in question is compared to the made up fantasy values being placed on them by fans of their respective teams, that's my point.

lol, come on bro... MEM gave up a promising young PG, 2 1st rounders, the draft rights to another prospect & 2 expiring contracts while unloading a ton of cap space for a him... i wouldn't exactly call that a worthless package... i've been on the record saying MEM made an excellent trade for their franchise by pulling that move off... it gives them a ton of options going into the future... now it all depends on how they utilize those picks & that cap space to see whether or not they get full value from that move... all i know is Gasol wasn't gonna take them anywhere.

Miller for Outlaw & the #13 was refused by the Blazers dude... in this case it's the team that's being rumored to have made the offer stating it was a complete fabrication (the Sixers)... that tends to suggest that the package was balanced in the Knicks' favor in this case if anything, no?

the Eddy Curry example was clearly a case of overspending but let's consider who was the one making the trade to begin with.

in this case the GM who's being rumored to have made the offer is squashing the rumor saying it was never made, much like has been happening for months now whenever any trade rumor has been discussed about Zach Randolph... this should be telling you something loud & clear... Zach has zero trade value.