[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

THIS is why we should have gotten the Rap's pick with little or no protection
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/4/2006  12:09 PM
wow.. you guys think like Isiah. Is signing FAs the ONLY thing you can do with cap space? Last I checked it also allowed you to trade for a player with a much larger salary. Not only that but a team may be highly motivated to trade a player to a team like the Raps because they get a trade exception back if the dont take a player.

For example. The Clippers had major cap space. The Nets traded them Kittles for a draft pick. The Nets not only cleared space themselves but got a trade exception they later used on Mark Jackson (I think)

Who knows what deals are out there but a team right about the cap could trade Tor a good player, get a good draft pick back, AND get a trade exception they can use later in the year. Cap space = MAX flexibility. You can do so many different things that our GM clearly isnt aware of.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
AUTOADVERT
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/4/2006  12:10 PM
Posted by TMS:
but you can't expect them to give up their top 5 lottery pick just to get cap savings...
Pho did. They then signed Nash and Q

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
2/4/2006  12:14 PM
Posted by fishmike:

wow.. you guys think like Isiah. Is signing FAs the ONLY thing you can do with cap space? Last I checked it also allowed you to trade for a player with a much larger salary. Not only that but a team may be highly motivated to trade a player to a team like the Raps because they get a trade exception back if the dont take a player.

For example. The Clippers had major cap space. The Nets traded them Kittles for a draft pick. The Nets not only cleared space themselves but got a trade exception they later used on Mark Jackson (I think)

Who knows what deals are out there but a team right about the cap could trade Tor a good player, get a good draft pick back, AND get a trade exception they can use later in the year. Cap space = MAX flexibility. You can do so many different things that our GM clearly isnt aware of.

So it's okay to blow cap space to take back more money, but if you take back more money when you are already over the cap it's bad?

And...I may be crazy but do you really think a broken down Kerry Kittles is better than Jalen Rose, even as old as Rose is? Kittles barely played for the Clips and he cost them a pick. Rose is going to help and we got a pick. When you are over the cap, having expiring deals is the equivalent of cap room. You can do the same things with expiring deals that you can with cap space in trades. The only difference is you can't sign FA.

If this franchise can afford it, I don't understand why it's a problem for so many people.
¿ △ ?
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
2/4/2006  12:15 PM
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by TMS:
but you can't expect them to give up their top 5 lottery pick just to get cap savings...
Pho did. They then signed Nash and Q

Phoenix had the 7th pick and they traded it because they heard Atlanta was drafting Igoudala. When ATL passed on Iggy, PHX was pissed. They wanted their hometown star. They regretted that trade.
¿ △ ?
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
2/4/2006  12:15 PM
we got rose, we got a pick...whatever.
we traded AD (still don't know why it wasn't penny)...whatever.

moving AD takes away our best frontcourt defender but it does give frye and curry more minutes. (isiah's 2nd trade for our best defensive frontcourt player for a swingman and a pick). whatever

getting jalen adds a veteran perimeter player but it takes away minutes from q2, ariza, nate. whatever.

we spent alot of money for a pick, but the contract doesn't extend past next year. whatever.

is the jalen move signify an ensuing trade? who knows? whatever.

we have yet to make a move to add any type of defense. but hey, maybe that comes next year...when we have jalen and mo's expiring deals. whatever.

none of this means anything to me until i see how it plays out, on a scale from "fire isiah" to "isiah is god", the official djsunyc stance on the trade is...whatever.
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
2/4/2006  12:17 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

we got rose, we got a pick...whatever.
we traded AD (still don't know why it wasn't penny)...whatever.

moving AD takes away our best frontcourt defender but it does give frye and curry more minutes. (isiah's 2nd trade for our best defensive frontcourt player for a swingman and a pick). whatever

getting jalen adds a veteran perimeter player but it takes away minutes from q2, ariza, nate. whatever.

we spent alot of money for a pick, but the contract doesn't extend past next year. whatever.

is the jalen move signify an ensuing trade? who knows? whatever.

we have yet to make a move to add any type of defense. but hey, maybe that comes next year...when we have jalen and mo's expiring deals. whatever.

none of this means anything to me until i see how it plays out, on a scale from "fire isiah" to "isiah is god", the official djsunyc stance on the trade is...whatever.

Whatever.
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
2/4/2006  12:28 PM
It doesn't matter how good the trade was for Toronto (and it was a good trade for them). All that matters is if the trade helps us out, and it does. Who cares how Toronto makes out? Are you trying to say this trade would have been better if it was a terrible trade for Toronto somehow, but it was just as good for us? Maybe the rule is that once you make a trade with a team, an L on their record is a W on yours? Seriously, I don't get it.

OK, maybe I see where you're coming from-- you're saying that since Toronto got something they wanted badly, we could have squeezed out more from them. Possible, but it's pure conjecture. If you want to believe the rumors in the rags, Toronto was holding off on including any pick at all for a long time. And in any case, TMS is right-- if Tor gave up an unprotected lotto pick just to shave off one year of a max contract, that would have been an absolutely terrible deal for them. It's probably not realistic to expect that they would have even seriously thought of doing that.

Seriously... imagine the situation was identical, but the teams were switched. You're telling me you'd want or expect your Knicks to trade a lottery pick just to get out from under one year of a max contract? Realistically, if that happened, you'd be stomping around saying what a crappy deal it was, along with everyone else... and rightfully so. That's way too much to pay just to get cap relief a year earlier.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/4/2006  12:30 PM
Posted by crzymdups:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by TMS:
but you can't expect them to give up their top 5 lottery pick just to get cap savings...
Pho did. They then signed Nash and Q

Phoenix had the 7th pick and they traded it because they heard Atlanta was drafting Igoudala. When ATL passed on Iggy, PHX was pissed. They wanted their hometown star. They regretted that trade.
no they didnt... they traded that pick because of the $2.5mm in cap space it held.

Anyway the Kittles scenario was an EXAMPLE. I'm not saying Tor should go get Kittles. How about if Tor trades Charlie V, Mo Pete and Alvin Williams and picks for Paul Pierce and Raef? Bos gets to start all over, clear out their worst deal and get picks. Tor gets a star to put with Bosh as they wouldnt be able to sign one otherwise.

Anyway.. if you dont see the point life goes on.

Its my opinion that while this trade DOES help the Knicks we once again did something far more beneficial for another team than us. I think we could have gotten more from them. Thats just one guy's opinion
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
2/4/2006  12:31 PM
Posted by tomverve:

It doesn't matter how good the trade was for Toronto (and it was a good trade for them). All that matters is if the trade helps us out, and it does. Who cares how Toronto makes out? Are you trying to say this trade would have been better if it was a terrible trade for Toronto somehow, but it was just as good for us? Maybe the rule is that once you make a trade with a team, an L on their record is a W on yours? Seriously, I don't get it.

OK, maybe I see where you're coming from-- you're saying that since Toronto got something they wanted badly, we could have squeezed out more from them. Possible, but it's pure conjecture. If you want to believe the rumors in the rags, Toronto was holding off on including any pick at all for a long time. And in any case, TMS is right-- if Tor gave up an unprotected lotto pick just to shave off one year of a max contract, that would have been an absolutely terrible deal for them. It's probably not realistic to expect that they would have even seriously thought of doing that.

Seriously... imagine the situation was identical, but the teams were switched. You're telling me you'd want or expect your Knicks to trade a lottery pick just to get out from under one year of a max contract? Realistically, if that happened, you'd be stomping around saying what a crappy deal it was, along with everyone else... and rightfully so. That's way too much to pay just to get cap relief a year earlier.
Bingo! No way would I give up a top 3 lottery pick when I could be way under the cap just one season later and keep that pick. Would I give up a pick in the 14 to 22 range and a solid veteran like TO did? Yes.
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
2/4/2006  12:34 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

we got rose, we got a pick...whatever.
we traded AD (still don't know why it wasn't penny)...whatever.

moving AD takes away our best frontcourt defender but it does give frye and curry more minutes. (isiah's 2nd trade for our best defensive frontcourt player for a swingman and a pick). whatever

getting jalen adds a veteran perimeter player but it takes away minutes from q2, ariza, nate. whatever.

we spent alot of money for a pick, but the contract doesn't extend past next year. whatever.

is the jalen move signify an ensuing trade? who knows? whatever.

we have yet to make a move to add any type of defense. but hey, maybe that comes next year...when we have jalen and mo's expiring deals. whatever.

none of this means anything to me until i see how it plays out, on a scale from "fire isiah" to "isiah is god", the official djsunyc stance on the trade is...whatever.

dj, you dysphoric, gloomy, listless, forlorn, dispirited, doleful, downcast knicks fan.

i feel the same f'g way.

a whatever of a trade for a team stuck in whatever mode.

buy me a drink man.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/4/2006  12:35 PM
Posted by tomverve:

It doesn't matter how good the trade was for Toronto (and it was a good trade for them). All that matters is if the trade helps us out, and it does. Who cares how Toronto makes out? Are you trying to say this trade would have been better if it was a terrible trade for Toronto somehow, but it was just as good for us? Maybe the rule is that once you make a trade with a team, an L on their record is a W on yours? Seriously, I don't get it.

OK, maybe I see where you're coming from-- you're saying that since Toronto got something they wanted badly, we could have squeezed out more from them. Possible, but it's pure conjecture. If you want to believe the rumors in the rags, Toronto was holding off on including any pick at all for a long time. And in any case, TMS is right-- if Tor gave up an unprotected lotto pick just to shave off one year of a max contract, that would have been an absolutely terrible deal for them. It's probably not realistic to expect that they would have even seriously thought of doing that.

Seriously... imagine the situation was identical, but the teams were switched. You're telling me you'd want or expect your Knicks to trade a lottery pick just to get out from under one year of a max contract? Realistically, if that happened, you'd be stomping around saying what a crappy deal it was, along with everyone else... and rightfully so. That's way too much to pay just to get cap relief a year earlier.
Well Tom thats what separates average GMs from great ones or good ones. A better GM would have seen another teams need, and recognized that the Knicks were the ONLY ones in the league that could help them achieve their goals. That drives the price up. This is business 101 man. When your competitor is desperate for something only you have you drive up the price. Kind of like the Suns did with us. Kind of like the Bulls did with us. Kind of like Jerome Jame's agent did with us. Kind of like Crawford's agent did with us (your welcome Jamal, Vin Baker). Put it all together and you have a crappy GM.

Its adds up Tom. Bad business always does. I think we could have done better than a pick in the 20s with $35mm.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
2/4/2006  12:38 PM
I think the trade is a solid single. Depending on where the ball bounces, maybe it stretches out into a double, maybe not. And hey, I'm happy with that.

It's kind of funny... if Isiah strikes out, people complain he didn't go for the bunt. If he hits a single, people complain he should have went for extra bases. And when he does swing for the fences, people say he should have went for the single.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/4/2006  12:40 PM
Posted by tomverve:

Seriously... imagine the situation was identical, but the teams were switched. You're telling me you'd want or expect your Knicks to trade a lottery pick just to get out from under one year of a max contract? Realistically, if that happened, you'd be stomping around saying what a crappy deal it was, along with everyone else... and rightfully so. That's way too much to pay just to get cap relief a year earlier.
No I wouldnt. Not for a second. It would be a risk but a solid one IMO. I would looking at some incredible options this offseason. Options like Nate,Frye and Spurs pick for Elton Brand. Options like throwing max money at Ben Wallace to rejoin Larry in NY. Options like going after Rashard Lewis.

Options, options, options. My option now is wait and pray to god Isiah drafts a star that slips through the corners somehow.

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/4/2006  12:43 PM
Posted by tomverve:

I think the trade is a solid single. Depending on where the ball bounces, maybe it stretches out into a double, maybe not. And hey, I'm happy with that.

It's kind of funny... if Isiah strikes out, people complain he didn't go for the bunt. If he hits a single, people complain he should have went for extra bases. And when he does swing for the fences, people say he should have went for the single.
I agree... I (brace yourself) have always like Jalen. He's a tough competitor and he shreds soft opponenents (see Knicks). I think his personality and desire to win will help. And yes, Isiah drafts well and we got another pick. These are all good things. My point is we could have done better, and our GM always seems to get taken for a ride by these teams. Just because you like what you get back doesnt mean you shouldnt try to get a better deal, and it seems we NEVER get a better deal.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
2/4/2006  12:45 PM
Posted by tomverve:

I think the trade is a solid single. Depending on where the ball bounces, maybe it stretches out into a double, maybe not. And hey, I'm happy with that.

It's kind of funny... if Isiah strikes out, people complain he didn't go for the bunt. If he hits a single, people complain he should have went for extra bases. And when he does swing for the fences, people say he should have went for the single.

I think you also look at it in context of where the team is right now too. Isiah's been making trades like this one for the last 2 years. we're looking to see what the result is supposed to be in terms of roster balance, team chemistry and output on the floor. it's pretty natural to lump this trade in with all the others which have led to dubious results so far.
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
2/4/2006  12:45 PM
Posted by fishmike:

No I wouldnt. Not for a second. It would be a risk but a solid one IMO. I would looking at some incredible options this offseason. Options like Nate,Frye and Spurs pick for Elton Brand. Options like throwing max money at Ben Wallace to rejoin Larry in NY. Options like going after Rashard Lewis.

Yeah, but if you don't trade the pick, you have those same kind of options the following offseason, *and* you have a young gun from the lottery. Doesn't make sense to ditch the lottery pick just to make the extra options come one year earlier, unless you're targetting one or two guys in particular and you're almost positive you can land at least one of them. That's always a dicey proposition in free agency though.

help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
2/4/2006  12:46 PM
Posted by Marv:
Posted by tomverve:

I think the trade is a solid single. Depending on where the ball bounces, maybe it stretches out into a double, maybe not. And hey, I'm happy with that.

It's kind of funny... if Isiah strikes out, people complain he didn't go for the bunt. If he hits a single, people complain he should have went for extra bases. And when he does swing for the fences, people say he should have went for the single.

I think you also look at it in context of where the team is right now too. Isiah's been making trades like this one for the last 2 years. we're looking to see what the result is supposed to be in terms of roster balance, team chemistry and output on the floor. it's pretty natural to lump this trade in with all the others which have led to dubious results so far.

What expiring contract did he trade for a first round draft pick?
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
2/4/2006  12:47 PM
realistically speaking, i think if Isiah DIDN'T pull the trigger on this deal, people would be complaining he passed up his chance to get another 1st round pick, however late in the teens or 20's it ends up to be... i try to give him a fair shake, & this is 1 time i can't disagree w/the choice he made... it makes sense for the Knicks, which is something i can't say for too many other moves he's made as our GM.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
2/4/2006  12:47 PM
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by tomverve:

Seriously... imagine the situation was identical, but the teams were switched. You're telling me you'd want or expect your Knicks to trade a lottery pick just to get out from under one year of a max contract? Realistically, if that happened, you'd be stomping around saying what a crappy deal it was, along with everyone else... and rightfully so. That's way too much to pay just to get cap relief a year earlier.
No I wouldnt. Not for a second. It would be a risk but a solid one IMO. I would looking at some incredible options this offseason. Options like Nate,Frye and Spurs pick for Elton Brand. Options like throwing max money at Ben Wallace to rejoin Larry in NY. Options like going after Rashard Lewis.

Options, options, options. My option now is wait and pray to god Isiah drafts a star that slips through the corners somehow.

two words missing from msg's dictionary: options and flexibility

when mo got here, the first thing said was "it gives us an expiring deal next year"
now with jalen, some are already saying it gives us a nice expiring deal next year.

ummm, if they don't necessarily help us win, then why are we bringing these type of players here again?

and it's obvious that it's not to get players that fit a style of play since, well, we don't have one.

to be fair, we can't fully judge this deal until we see what happens with the pick.

do we know the protection status yet?

[Edited by - djsunyc on 02-04-2006 12:48 PM]
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
2/4/2006  12:49 PM
and it's obvious that it's not to get players that fit a style of play since, well, we don't have one.

We just got Larry Brown this year! Now it's clear what kind of pieces we need right?
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
Page 2 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
THIS is why we should have gotten the Rap's pick with little or no protection
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy