But what do you guys think about the 2nd deal...Patterson/Ratliff would really upgrade the defensive situation. Patterson runs 1 more year and Ratliff 2 more. Another bad trade money wise, but in reality, those guys have shorter contracts than everyone else on our roster.

Posted by McK1:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by McK1:

Unlikely Babcock isn't giving up the Denver pick. Isiah may get a 2nd rounder.

This move would put them about ten mil under instead of 6 mil over the salary cap. They must realize that they can turn their team around better with a near max contract FA than with a pick from Denver at around 16 to 22.


[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 01-22-2006 10:51 AM]

When has Toronto been a desired FA destination. Who wants to play for Sam Mitchell?

Toronto's best bet is to use the draft.

It's not about playing for Sam Mitchell. It's about playing with guys like Bosh and Charlie V.
Also, another big factor that potential FAs might consider appealing is the fact that you don't have to shell out the same in taxes that players that work and live in the states do. That's a big factor for some...

[Edited by - finestrg on 01-22-2006 1:54 PM]

Unless we haven't learned our lessons (which is always possible) bringing in Jalen would have to mean that we have another trade in mind to ship out Ariza and or Q, otherwise we would have like 8 wing men.

Posted by BRIGGS:

well, if he plays like he is and he brings a Denver pick it should help the team. what else can they do? Jalen has been playing much much better-near all star level his last 9-10 games and if we add in a pick we will improve. Its not the defensive type of improvement youd like to see--what we ned, but a true 3 with length and his vet ways will help this club as marbury and avis come back IF it actually happens.

Briggs--How do you go in less than one week from lashing out at me for merely thinking the Knicks might still be willing to take back more salary to upgrade the roster to now posting this "close" deal that would take back $34 mil in expenses (counting luxury tax) to get a solid SF and a 1st rd pick?



[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 01-22-2006 3:17 PM]

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Unless we haven't learned our lessons (which is always possible) bringing in Jalen would have to mean that we have another trade in mind to ship out Ariza and or Q, otherwise we would have like 8 wing men.

Dude we're making the trade for solid, temporary relief at small forward and the draft pick. You mean to tell me you don't want that pick? Suppose we turn that pick into Steven Smith, Nick Fazekas or Hilton Armstrong? It'd be worth it, even if we had 20 wing men. For the Knicks, that trade's mostly about that pick.

[Edited by - finestrg on 01-22-2006 3:48 PM]

Considering Jalen Rose shows how lame that team is, it's getting pathetic

Posted by Caseloads:

Posted by tkf:

caseloads: Since these guys can't play defense at least we can get a guy who has a killer mentality. rose on offense has that mentality to bury opponents. Forget getting a defensive wing, there is none out there available, Artest? forget it! But getting the pick does not mean that IT feels he made a mistake, he still feels that it was not worth passing on the deal to get curry to keep a lottery pick, I agree, how can you compare the two situations? anyway getting the pick just gives him some pieces to work with to package for another player or move up, but hey that means we can have our cake and eat it too, we get curry and a chance to move up still, how is that bad?

It's never bad to add picks, but seriously, i don't think he had to give up this year plus next year's draft picks - or unprotect them. At lease protect them if you get the #1 pick in the draft. Anyway... seriously, the biggest problem is burying David Lee, Q2, etc. But I guess Penny is giving the Knicks nothing, and Jalen is something, but it means sending someone to the bench. I'd like to see:

PG - marbury
SG - Jalen
SF - Lee
PF - Davis
C - Curry

all IT gave up was this years pick and the option to swap picks next year, when you make a comment like this:

i don't think he had to give up this year plus next year's draft picks - or unprotect them.

comments like the above change the scope of the conversation, it makes it seem worse than it really is, we just gave up 1 pick, I think we will be as good as the bulls are next year, so the swap may never take place. Now getting back to the deal at hand, if we get the denver pick, this is a no brainer, it is a short term solution, guy slike Lee, nate and Q-2 will get their time and if they can put jalen on the bench then they have earned their spots and we will as a team be better for it and we can then move jalen's expiring deal next year, and that would be easier since he is a player who still has a lot of game left and a huge expiring deal...

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by Caseloads:

Posted by tkf:

caseloads: Since these guys can't play defense at least we can get a guy who has a killer mentality. rose on offense has that mentality to bury opponents. Forget getting a defensive wing, there is none out there available, Artest? forget it! But getting the pick does not mean that IT feels he made a mistake, he still feels that it was not worth passing on the deal to get curry to keep a lottery pick, I agree, how can you compare the two situations? anyway getting the pick just gives him some pieces to work with to package for another player or move up, but hey that means we can have our cake and eat it too, we get curry and a chance to move up still, how is that bad?

It's never bad to add picks, but seriously, i don't think he had to give up this year plus next year's draft picks - or unprotect them. At lease protect them if you get the #1 pick in the draft. Anyway... seriously, the biggest problem is burying David Lee, Q2, etc. But I guess Penny is giving the Knicks nothing, and Jalen is something, but it means sending someone to the bench. I'd like to see:

PG - marbury
SG - Jalen
SF - Lee
PF - Davis
C - Curry

all IT gave up was this years pick and the option to swap picks next year, when you make a comment like this:

i don't think he had to give up this year plus next year's draft picks - or unprotect them.

comments like the above change the scope of the conversation, it makes it seem worse than it really is, we just gave up 1 pick, I think we will be as good as the bulls are next year, so the swap may never take place. Now getting back to the deal at hand, if we get the denver pick, this is a no brainer, it is a short term solution, guy slike Lee, nate and Q-2 will get their time and if they can put jalen on the bench then they have earned their spots and we will as a team be better for it and we can then move jalen's expiring deal next year, and that would be easier since he is a player who still has a lot of game left and a huge expiring deal...

why do so many people presume we will be better than the bulls? they couod very well have two lottery picks and cap space for next year and they are already better than us now.

that is debatable, and when does having two lottery picks guarantee you success, see the clippers, bulls, Hawks, etc......

Posted by McK1:

see the management of those teams. Pax was not there. Pax has already proved himself an able GM.

The addition by subtraction with Crawford followed up by drafting Gordon and trading picks with Phoenix, a no. 7 that yielded Deng vs what turned out to be a no. 21 is proof enough. They took a short-term step back with the Curry trade but we'll see this summer if Pax made the right move.

[Edited by - McK1 on 01-22-2006 4:31 PM]

The Bulls had one playoff run but otherwise have been a lottery team for several consecutive years and are still a lottery team. The Crawford trade did nothing for the Bulls. They could have let Jamal walk and gotten a year of solid play and role model behavior from JYD instead. Pax has developed a nice core young at PG, SG, and SF but I don't see him as the genius others do.