Posted by djsunyc:

the price may be frye + lee. that's alot to give up but we're talking about jermaine o'neal, one of the best bigs in the game, in his EARLY prime (he's only 28) that plays DEFENSE in the post.

jermaine + curry + marbury with a supporting cast of crawford, nate, jeffries, and q (if healthy) can make a serious run in the east and not for a year or two, but for 3-5 years.

i think we have to look at this realistically. you MAKE the trade if the price is frye + lee. the knicks WILL make this trade. jermaine is young enough to last another 4-5 years at a very high level. plus he loves isiah.

but without jalen or mo around, a deal for jermaine is pretty much moot.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 01-07-2007 09:23 AM]

When he is healthy He has been injured quite a bit over the past couple of years BUYER BEWARE

Posted by Allanfan20:

Why not try and give them Curry, since his value is probably much higher than Frye's right now, and you can put Frye at the C with JO at the PF? What would be the point in having Curry anyway, if we'd have JO taking control.

I was thinking this same thing, right now Curry is the focus of the offense, we bring in JO to be a shot blocker? I'm not so sure that makes much sense and seems to be more of the same.

I'd prefer we give up role players for a star that fits our needs.

Reading all the seatlle papers, they want Big Game Back...so, what if we did a nate, jerome, Qrich/francis package for Ray Allen?

Rindour (sp?) was hailed as the second coming last year when he outplayed marbury (did he really) but this year he's showing that he's just another point guard.

francis is gone, Qrich is a leader and would hate to see him go and Nate is seattle.

I like crawford's development, clyde said something at the top of the telecast about how he hasn't even really played any basketball...he played two years in high school, one year in college, one full year in the nba and took a year off (injury?), so he's still developing.

A lineup of Ray allen and marbury in the back court, and jeffries/balkman manning the 3 and the front court rotation of lee, curry and frye is something that you write home about.

Bringing in Jermaine oneil and keeping Curry would be worst than frye and Curry. atleast frye has a role. Jermaine's presence would mean we rely on Curry to play defense and rebound.

Are there any teams with two dominant scoring big men?

The guy has been injured so much.. he is a very old 28. You don't give up Lee in any package unless you get a young superstar back.

I like Jneal but not for Lee. No Way!! Trade Frye but you know with Isiah's constant undervaluing Lee that he would trade him in a second for Jermaine who he loves

Posted by gunsnewing:

I like Jneal but not for Lee. No Way!! Trade Frye but you know with Isiah's constant undervaluing Lee that he would trade him in a second for Jermaine who he loves

Isiah trades Lee= Isiah gets fired. I dont think itll happen.

Posted by gunsnewing:

I don't think JO is the right guy to have next to Curry. Both guys score in the post. Curry needs a rugged PF playing next to him. Unless Jermaine is alright with camping out on the perimeter its not gonna work. Lee is a better fit. Would you trade Curry for JO? I wouldn't

Hell no Curry for Oneil. We already have a rugged PF to play next to Curry (once our coach realizes it). Oneil would bring more headaches than hes worth.

frye + dlee for jermaine? you HAVE to pull the trigger on that.

it's not just jermaine you're getting, but a combo of jermaine AND curry.

that's a big time frontline that CAN get to the finals. combine that with marbury and you got something cooking.

you make the deal.

but we are out of the running b/c we don't have any contracts that are palatable for indy to take back. so these type of deals were over once jalen and mo got bought out.

but come on people, let's deal with the real world here. the knicks are not going to wait on frye and lee if it means getting jermaine or kg. either one propel us into an area we haven't been in for 7 years.

I wouldn't move Lee in a trade for Jermaine. Lee is 5 years younger, basically the same as Curry. When Jermaine is over the hill Lee will still have 5 good years in him. Plus, I don't think we've seen the best of Lee by any stretch. He improved so drastically from last year to this year that I think it's likely that he'll continue to improve his game substantially. And substantial improvements to a player at Lee's current level yields something really great. I wouldn't trade 10 years of that for 5 years of Jermaine. Maybe it would be different if Jermaine was the last piece to put us over the top, but in reality we'd still have some considerable building to do to have a genuine shot at the title.

I would definitely be amenable to doing a package based around Frye and Nate though, and I think such a package would be attractive for the Pacers as well. We'll see where it goes.

anyone who wants to trade david lee is on drugs, dlee + frye for jo, thats the worst ****ing trade i have ever heard in my life.....

DLee is a double double right now and is only going to get better, we need a defensive three, that can knock down an open shot, you don't want two post up players at the 4/5 that doesn't solve anything. Curry benefits more for getting those extra shots

Posted by MS:

anyone who wants to trade david lee is on drugs

well i can't argue with that.

the knicks WILL make that trade if proposed. no question about it.

jermaine next to curry is >>>> frye next to him or lee next to him. not to mention jermaine's defense is lightyears better than frye and dlee combined.

in the leastern conference, jo and curry frontcourt may be good enough to get to the finals. he takes all the pressure off of him defensively and opens up the court for our guards to operate (which they can). we're probably one guard away from making a serious run. maybe seattle looks to dump ray allen.

and 5 years in nba time is an eternity. nobody in the knicks organization is thinking 10 years, and if the choice is 10 years or 5 with some more immediate returns, they'll choose 5.

Posted by tomverve:

Posted by djsunyc:

and 5 years in nba time is an eternity. nobody in the knicks organization is thinking 10 years, and if the choice is 10 years or 5 with some more immediate returns, they'll choose 5.

Not arguing that this isn't an accurate depiction of Knicks management, but is that really a good thing? Isn't that one of the problems with our management? Would it be wise to go all-in with two kings and not much else?

yup, it is a problem. it's really a gamble...jermaine is 28. and he's a top big man in the league. definitely top 3 in the east. so you put him next to curry and if that means you get 5 years of playoffs, with advancement, maybe even a finals, then it's worth it. after 6 years of losing, and still no evidence of dumping contracts, getting under the cap is not in the cards, hence "true" rebuilding is not happening here. so they'll make this deal. that's their philosophy and if isiah gets to the playoffs this year, i think they open up the wallet for him this summer. he won't get a chance to make a deal during the season but if they make the playoffs, he'll be back and dolan will let him trade again.