Posted by martin:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by King1:

I know for a fact that Bulls wanted to trade up for David in the first round. David thought he was going to Phoenix in the draft so 30 wasnt a REACH. He is going to surprise you if he works hard.

Im not saying David Lee is some kind of bad player we reached for, Im saying we gave up more compensation to keep than Toronto gave for Vince Carter--that is obscene---if things go south, we could give them two lottery picks and 2 numbers 2 even potentialy greg oden--is that risk worth lee?

king, welcome to BRIGG's world. The team, last year, without Curry, was a .500 team. Unless Marb, Q and Curry all go down, this team is not gonna be anywhere near the high lottery.

I agree with Briggs. I'm hoping that these points will be moot because we'll be doing so well. We definitely took a big risk if the picks are unprotected. But, I think we're a playoff team for the foreseeable future, so I think it's moot.

Posted by PresIke:

Briggs we have not won the lottery since 1985.

This kind of speculation seems to be going a bit too far. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are right about Lee not being worth the picks, then why didn't Isiah do as you say?

This is speculation that's just too difficult to comment on. No matter what, those who disagree with you are wrong, because obviously the #1 pick has a better chance of being a superior player than Lee. I mean, really, what are the chances of this occuring? IT COULD HAPPEN, but that's part of the risk of trading picks and players with enlarged hearts. The Knicks are in salary-cap hell with immense pressure on the organization to win.

I think the chances of winning the lottery with one of the picks we traded versus Lee contributing well are so hard to gauge I think any attempt at figuring out which is better is more guesswork than science.

[Edited by - PresIke on 10-04-2005 10:30 PM]

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by PresIke:

Briggs we have not won the lottery since 1985.

This kind of speculation seems to be going a bit too far. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are right about Lee not being worth the picks, then why didn't Isiah do as you say?

This is speculation that's just too difficult to comment on. No matter what, those who disagree with you are wrong, because obviously the #1 pick has a better chance of being a superior player than Lee. I mean, really, what are the chances of this occuring? IT COULD HAPPEN, but that's part of the risk of trading picks and players with enlarged hearts. The Knicks are in salary-cap hell with immense pressure on the organization to win.

I think the chances of winning the lottery with one of the picks we traded versus Lee contributing well are so hard to gauge I think any attempt at figuring out which is better is more guesswork than science.

[Edited by - PresIke on 10-04-2005 10:30 PM]

------The Knicks are in salary-cap hell with immense pressure on the organization to win.

what the heck is david lee going to do to stop this? if he was that good, he wouldve been pick 8 and played better at Florida. If he does, than you can say Briggs you ole chicken-headed fool, keep quiet next time!


Im sorry, but it's to much compensation for David Lee--we took a chance with Curry--we all must agree that we took a chance IF he does fail, those picks could be possible franchise type saviours--even with a reasonably small risk--is david lee worth a number 1 unrestricted pick 2 #2's and the ability for chicago to swap 2007 if they wish--meaning for some reason if we had 1 and they had 27--we would terrorize the franchise again? NO way, we took are gamble with Curry, you DO NOT committ all those picks when you are in salary cap hll just to keep Lee. I mean a disaster scenario is not something like 2% its much higher than that---like the Robinson example--we could be one marbury broken ankle fom the lottery in either 2006 or 2007--you just dont do that without minimal protection of top 5--we couldnt negotiate atleast that in?

BRIGGS I hear your argument, but I think we are just not privy to all of the information here.

It's either that Isiah REALLY likes Lee (or thought the Bulls REALLY did...which I suppose one could believe was spin to get the Knicks to give up picks instead) or that it wasn't all about Lee at all, and to get Curry we had to give those picks.

It sounds like you are suggesting to know more about basketball than Isiah then, or would have been a better negotiator.

Hey, I'm all for protecting the chances of landing a top drafted player too if Curry can't play. You're right about the risk of injury to say, Marbury as well, but then NO TEAM SHOULD EVER TRADE FUTURE PICKS unless they have an abundance of "superstar" caliber or players who can clearly fill in at every position (whether they are young guys with "potential" or savy-vets with skill).

I dunno why Isiah didn't do as you say, but I think since we don't have the real information then making these kinds of comments reeks of sports talk radio speculation. (sorry, if that was offensive, I generally like your posts)

Did you see the film "Friday Night Lights?" There is a scene were the coach keeps in his best player at the end of the game when they were blowing the other team out and gets injured. We later hear sports talk radio jocks and fans complaining about "WTF WAS THE COACH THINKING LEAVING HIM IN THERE!?!?"

The problem is they didn't know that he was suppossed to be off the field but the player who was suppossed to go on couldn't find his helmet (for reasons we don't know...it could have been the star player who wanted to pad his stats) so the star player had to play.

This is the kind of info fans have no insight on. I think the same applies to this case as well.



[Edited by - PresIke on 10-04-2005 11:03 PM]

i agree, no one has the pure facts, but, knowing that curry is at a minimum a reasonable risk[if smart money is running away from insurance premiums, that can atleast tell us something] than we shouldve had atleast minimal protection for the downside risk. we threw all of our eggs in eddie curry's basket--and IF it is as I believe for the right to keep lee out of the deal--it was a poor judegment.

until w's are produced lets keep the praises low. we all were surprised by the last few days, lets settle in now. i appreciate what isiah is trying to do, but he has done so with high risk and just gave away our hedge

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by BRIGGS:

[quote]Posted by PresIke:

Briggs we have not won the lottery since 1985.

This kind of speculation seems to be going a bit too far. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are right about Lee not being worth the picks, then why didn't Isiah do as you say?

This is speculation that's just too difficult to comment on. No matter what, those who disagree with you are wrong, because obviously the #1 pick has a better chance of being a superior player than Lee. I mean, really, what are the chances of this occuring? IT COULD HAPPEN, but that's part of the risk of trading picks and players with enlarged hearts. The Knicks are in salary-cap hell with immense pressure on the organization to win.

I think the chances of winning the lottery with one of the picks we traded versus Lee contributing well are so hard to gauge I think any attempt at figuring out which is better is more guesswork than science.

[Edited by - PresIke on 10-04-2005 10:30 PM]

------The Knicks are in salary-cap hell with immense pressure on the organization to win.

what the heck is david lee going to do to stop this? if he was that good, he wouldve been pick 8 and played better at Florida. If he does, than you can say Briggs you ole chicken-headed fool, keep quiet next time!


Im sorry, but it's to much compensation for David Lee--we took a chance with Curry--we all must agree that we took a chance IF he does fail, those picks could be possible franchise type saviours--even with a reasonably small risk--is david lee worth a number 1 unrestricted pick 2 #2's and the ability for chicago to swap 2007 if they wish--meaning for some reason if we had 1 and they had 27--we would terrorize the franchise again? NO way, we took are gamble with Curry, you DO NOT committ all those picks when you are in salary cap hll just to keep Lee. I mean a disaster scenario is not something like 2% its much higher than that---like the Robinson example--we could be one marbury broken ankle fom the lottery in either 2006 or 2007--you just dont do that without minimal protection of top 5--we couldnt negotiate atleast that in?

BRIGGS I hear your argument, but I think we are just not privy to all of the information here.

It's either that Isiah REALLY likes Lee (or thought the Bulls REALLY did...which I suppose one could believe was spin to get the Knicks to give up picks instead) or that it wasn't all about Lee at all, and to get Curry we had to give those picks.

It sounds like you are suggesting to know more about basketball than Isiah then, or would have been a better negotiator.

Hey, I'm all for protecting the chances of landing a top drafted player too if Curry can't play. You're right about the risk of injury to say, Marbury as well, but then NO TEAM SHOULD EVER TRADE FUTURE PICKS unless they have an abundance of "superstar" caliber or players who can clearly fill in at every position (whether they are young guys with "potential" or savy-vets with skill).

I dunno why Isiah didn't do as you say, but I think since we don't have the real information then making these kinds of comments reeks of sports talk radio speculation. (sorry, if that was offensive, I generally like your posts)

Did you see the film "Friday Night Lights?" There is a scene were the coach keeps in his best player at the end of the game when they were blowing the other team out and gets injured. We later hear sports talk radio jocks and fans complaining about "WTF WAS THE COACH THINKING LEAVING HIM IN THERE!?!?"

The problem is they didn't know that he was suppossed to be off the field but the player who was suppossed to go on couldn't find his helmet (for reasons we don't know...it could have been the star player who wanted to pad his stats) so the star player had to play.

This is the kind of info fans have no insight on. I think the same applies to this case as well.



[Edited by - PresIke on 10-04-2005 11:03 PM]

i agree, no one has the pure facts, but, knowing that curry is at a minimum a reasonable risk[if smart money is running away from insurance premiums, that can atleast tell us something] than we shouldve had atleast minimal protection for the downside risk. we threw all of our eggs in eddie curry's basket--and IF it is as I believe for the right to keep lee out of the deal--it was a poor judegment.

until w's are produced lets keep the praises low. we all were surprised by the last few days, lets settle in now. i appreciate what isiah is trying to do, but he has done so with high risk and just gave away our hedge