shannon brown, jared jeffries AND al harrington?

#1 - who plays where?
#2 - what happens to qyntel and dlee?

jared jeffries is an lb target...not on isiah's radar.

but harrington definitely is.

nbadraft.net now has PHX taking Boone at 27. they're the most accurate draft site, maybe they've heard that someone is interested in Boone higher than 29. that could be why the Knicks are looking to trade the pick now.

I wouldn't trust a single thing an actual GM says at this stage, it's all posturing. some guy saying, "Boone was horrible for us, but someone will probably make the mistake of taking him in the late first round," probably really means, "dear god I hope he falls to us!"

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by PresIke:

btw -- #29 + Nate for #10 does seem like overpaying a bit there dj, no?

depends on where nate fits. stephon, francis, crawford, nate, quentin. 5 guys in the backcourt, and 4 of them are redundant. so where does nate fit? he can't be a starting sg and we all know he's not a starting pg. so he's a 6th man. but then what is crawford? if nate is ultimately a 20 min player off the bench, that's cool. i love the kid and i don't want to trade him but looking at our situation, he's pretty expendable and he's a piece we can use to get into the lottery.

who would you rather have, or should i say, what does this team need - nate or a guy like o'bryant, shelden, brewer, etc?

[Edited by - djsunyc on 06-19-2006 10:06 AM]

I agree that it's hard to find a place for Nate right now, but I'd rather hold onto him for now, unless something more certain comes up, and wait for Marbury and Francis to either be traded or have their contracts end. Nate could be a pretty darn good player in a few years. I think it's too early to give up on him and one of our 1st round picks for an unproven player.

Clearly the needs of the team are an athetlic big man/shot blocker, a small foward who can shoot from the outside, and a future PG who doesn't need to score in order to be effective.

I'd love to get Brewer, Williams or O'Bryant, but not sure I'd give up Nate + our 29th pick to get them. It seems like a bit more of a risk than necessary, despite how tempting it is to get one of those three. You gotta figure (well...hope) that somewhere down the line the Knicks can find a way to move at least one of those players you named as redundant to balance out the roster. Of course, it seems doubtfull now because it hasn't seemed to have happened, but I'd rather wait for Nate and our other young guy's value to improve and maybe package one of them with one of those bums on the roster, or just hold them and wait for the dreck's contracts to end, if needs be.

If Seattle is strapped for cash, then let's offer it, since we do have an abundance of that apparently.

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by PresIke:

btw -- #29 + Nate for #10 does seem like overpaying a bit there dj, no?

depends on where nate fits. stephon, francis, crawford, nate, quentin. 5 guys in the backcourt, and 4 of them are redundant. so where does nate fit? he can't be a starting sg and we all know he's not a starting pg. so he's a 6th man. but then what is crawford? if nate is ultimately a 20 min player off the bench, that's cool. i love the kid and i don't want to trade him but looking at our situation, he's pretty expendable and he's a piece we can use to get into the lottery.

who would you rather have, or should i say, what does this team need - nate or a guy like o'bryant, shelden, brewer, etc?

[Edited by - djsunyc on 06-19-2006 10:06 AM]

I agree that it's hard to find a place for Nate right now, but I'd rather hold onto him for now, unless something more certain comes up, and wait for Marbury and Francis to either be traded or have their contracts end. Nate could be a pretty darn good player in a few years. I think it's too early to give up on him and one of our 1st round picks for an unproven player.

Clearly the needs of the team are an athetlic big man/shot blocker, a small foward who can shoot from the outside, and a future PG who doesn't need to score in order to be effective.

I'd love to get Brewer, Williams or O'Bryant, but not sure I'd give up Nate + our 29th pick to get them. It seems like a bit more of a risk than necessary, despite how tempting it is to get one of those three. You gotta figure (well...hope) that somewhere down the line the Knicks can find a way to move at least one of those players you named as redundant to balance out the roster. Of course, it seems doubtfull now because it hasn't seemed to have happened, but I'd rather wait for Nate and our other young guy's value to improve and maybe package one of them with one of those bums on the roster, or just hold them and wait for the dreck's contracts to end, if needs be.

If Seattle is strapped for cash, then let's offer it, since we do have an abundance of that apparently.

i wouldnt worry about nate--clearly that is NOT what they are asking for--its a fantasy made up here. if the article is to be believed and this has been reported by a few places--that seattle wants $$$ to hire an assistant and are willing to sell the pick--


it sounds like the parameters can be 3mm +pick 29---possibly an additional 2. 29 is paid for by the 3mm and thats what they are trying to acheive--id be willing to do 20 and 3mm if they were willing to do it now--possibly allowing us to look at moving up even higher

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by PresIke:

btw -- #29 + Nate for #10 does seem like overpaying a bit there dj, no?

depends on where nate fits. stephon, francis, crawford, nate, quentin. 5 guys in the backcourt, and 4 of them are redundant. so where does nate fit? he can't be a starting sg and we all know he's not a starting pg. so he's a 6th man. but then what is crawford? if nate is ultimately a 20 min player off the bench, that's cool. i love the kid and i don't want to trade him but looking at our situation, he's pretty expendable and he's a piece we can use to get into the lottery.

who would you rather have, or should i say, what does this team need - nate or a guy like o'bryant, shelden, brewer, etc?

[Edited by - djsunyc on 06-19-2006 10:06 AM]

I agree that it's hard to find a place for Nate right now, but I'd rather hold onto him for now, unless something more certain comes up, and wait for Marbury and Francis to either be traded or have their contracts end. Nate could be a pretty darn good player in a few years. I think it's too early to give up on him and one of our 1st round picks for an unproven player.

Clearly the needs of the team are an athetlic big man/shot blocker, a small foward who can shoot from the outside, and a future PG who doesn't need to score in order to be effective.

I'd love to get Brewer, Williams or O'Bryant, but not sure I'd give up Nate + our 29th pick to get them. It seems like a bit more of a risk than necessary, despite how tempting it is to get one of those three. You gotta figure (well...hope) that somewhere down the line the Knicks can find a way to move at least one of those players you named as redundant to balance out the roster. Of course, it seems doubtfull now because it hasn't seemed to have happened, but I'd rather wait for Nate and our other young guy's value to improve and maybe package one of them with one of those bums on the roster, or just hold them and wait for the dreck's contracts to end, if needs be.

If Seattle is strapped for cash, then let's offer it, since we do have an abundance of that apparently.

i wouldnt worry about nate--clearly that is NOT what they are asking for--its a fantasy made up here. if the article is to be believed and this has been reported by a few places--that seattle wants $$$ to hire an assistant and are willing to sell the pick--


it sounds like the parameters can be 3mm +pick 29---possibly an additional 2. 29 is paid for by the 3mm and thats what they are trying to acheive--id be willing to do 20 and 3mm if they were willing to do it now--possibly allowing us to look at moving up even higher

if seattle is indeed just looking for cash and a pick for #10 - then we don't have that much of an advantage b/c the max cash that can be offered is $3 mil. lakers can EASILY catapult up there since they have #26 and dallas can as well since they have #28.

so yeah, it would probably cost us #20 (at the very least).

Posted by BRIGGS:

would i move from 20-10 for 3mm bucks? let me see last year the difference is andrew bynum vs julius hodge

of course you do. that's why i'm even prepared to part with nate (if need be). i love the kid and think he will be a player but if we can grab #10 to take a player or possibly even move HIGHER and end up with marcus williams or shelden or brewer or gay or roy, then that's TWO solid starting material players in 2 consecutive drafts.

Posted by BRIGGS:

would i move from 20-10 for 3mm bucks? let me see last year the difference is andrew bynum vs julius hodge

Briggs, who would you target at 10? Brewer? sounds like the Sonics will keep the pick if Shelden is available. I don't think it's possible to do this trade with the Sonics until they are assured Atlanta is takign Shelden.

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by PresIke:

dj, my thing is that Nate has already proven he can play at the NBA level and reasonably well (of course, with some obvious flaws). I'd trade #20 + $3 mil for 10 if needs be, but not Nate at this point.

i totally understand. and this team needs as much help as it can get and nate helps. but if i have a shot to get a better player at a position of need, then i'd make the deal. and i think there are nba starter quality players available there. i think, like briggs said, a guy like ronnie brewer is EXACTLY what we need. what does that do other than give us a starting SF that plays defense? it also prevents us from doing a stupid s&t for al harrington or a dmiles deal. it may cost us nate, but ultimately, if we can walk away with two starters in two consecutive drafts, that's much more important to me than a potentially very good 6th man.

I'm hesitant to trade Nate because watching these playoffs, one of the players on the current squad who I think would excel in that environment is Nate. I think he's made for the playoffs. I think he's made for the new rules. I think he can start and be unguardable with the new rules. He's got a defensive mentality, he's infectious, he's a winner. I don't think you trade Nate.

Posted by crzymdups:



I'm hesitant to trade Nate because watching these playoffs, one of the players on the current squad who I think would excel in that environment is Nate. I think he's made for the playoffs. I think he's made for the new rules. I think he can start and be unguardable with the new rules. He's got a defensive mentality, he's infectious, he's a winner. I don't think you trade Nate.

my thoughts exactly.

speed kills especially with the frequency teams put up the 3 and the long rebounds that usually come with misses. I can see Nate and Lowry tracking down balls and changing direction with them all day