Posted by nixluva:

I agree EnySpree, this situation get's worse by the day. LA can try to play hardball all they want, but it won't work. You can't make the guy play and be happy about it. I don't believe Chi or Phx have any real interest in making the kind of deal it would take to get Kobe. It's too disruptive to what they've already been doing and been successful with so far. For NY tho, it won't disrupt anything, cuz we only just getting started with this current direction. We could easily shift gears.

We've got the Glamour and Money that a player like Kobe would desire. In truth unless Chi takes a serious interest there isn't any other place better suited to Kobe than NY.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by sebstar:

there is the paradoxical idea that even though the Bulls have more assets, given salary cap restrictions, the Knicks could make the trade and remain an attractive team for Kobe to play for unlike the Bulls.

Huh???

The Bulls don't have to match salary for salary while the Knicks would.

The Bulls have much better and more assets to trade while the Knicks would be offering role players and at least 1 large bad contract.

Why do people think the Bulls have to gut their team to get Kobe but the Knicks would be able to keep their "nucleus" intact while bringing Kobe aboard?

Gordon, Thomas, Nocioni's trade exemption and the #9 pick is eons better than the group of role players and the #23 pick that people have the Knicks giving up for Kobe.

Posted by sebstar:

That package is not "eons" better than what the knicks could offer...SMH, you guys kill me.

Posted by sebstar:

I like the Knicks with Kobe better...just me. Playing with Marbury and Curry, Kobe would make it three all star level offensive talents.

And of course Laker fans wouldnt jump up and down over the acquisition of Jamal Crawford, but how is a bulls package "eons" better? The burden of proof is on you. You are the one making it seem as though the Bulls are offering Magic, Kareem, and Bird in their primes.

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by sebstar:

I like the Knicks with Kobe better...just me. Playing with Marbury and Curry, Kobe would make it three all star level offensive talents.

And of course Laker fans wouldnt jump up and down over the acquisition of Jamal Crawford, but how is a bulls package "eons" better? The burden of proof is on you. You are the one making it seem as though the Bulls are offering Magic, Kareem, and Bird in their primes.

Every single part of the Bulls package I proposed it better than the one that most people think the Knicks will offer. Add it all up and it's eons better.

Gordon is an all star and much better than Crawford.

Thomas has the upside and potential to match up against the tough PF's in the west while Lee and Frye don't.

The #9 pick has a chance to contribute right away if not start while the #23 pick might be lucky to get garbage minutes.

Balkman and Collins don't offer anything that the Lakers don't already have in Walton, Turiaf, Evans, Parker and Farmar.

Consider the burden of proof met.

[Edited by - islesfan on 06-19-2007 3:28 PM]

The only major significance between the deals is the 9 vs. 23...justify your statement all you want, but we are talking about the same deal. A couple of solid starters and solid prospects for arguably the best player in the world.

If this deal goes down it will be because other axillary forces, i.e Lakers willingness to trade, Kobe's preferences, and the interests of the league, will have had just as much of an impact as two similarly themed deals.

sebstar, you are wasting your time with isle. Read his post, it is filled with hate and venom to the point it doesn't make sense. Any reasonable basketball person who doesn't have an agenda or a hate for the Knicks and their GM will look at both the knicks and bulls deal as somewhat equal..

To say that Gordon is much better than crawford is just ridiculous, now one may like gordon better, but skillwise we are looking at two very similar players who are just 2 years apart in age..

then to say that Tyrus thomas who looked like a deer in headlights has the potential to go up against the tough PF's in the west and lee and frye don't is another ridiculous statement. Last time I checked lee averaged a double double playing PF, and we did play the west this past year. Again it is a venom laced post with no reason behind it...

And as far as turiaf and farmar go, hey I am not going to argue this point, but I have the feeling that the lakers would have loved having balkman and collins, length and athleticism along with their defense playing on that team instead of turiaf, walton and farmar..... but that is just me.... I guess I am a homer...

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by sebstar:

I like the Knicks with Kobe better...just me. Playing with Marbury and Curry, Kobe would make it three all star level offensive talents.

And of course Laker fans wouldnt jump up and down over the acquisition of Jamal Crawford, but how is a bulls package "eons" better? The burden of proof is on you. You are the one making it seem as though the Bulls are offering Magic, Kareem, and Bird in their primes.

Every single part of the Bulls package I proposed it better than the one that most people think the Knicks will offer. Add it all up and it's eons better.

Gordon is an all star and much better than Crawford.

Thomas has the upside and potential to match up against the tough PF's in the west while Lee and Frye don't.

The #9 pick has a chance to contribute right away if not start while the #23 pick might be lucky to get garbage minutes.

Balkman and Collins don't offer anything that the Lakers don't already have in Walton, Turiaf, Evans, Parker and Farmar.

Consider the burden of proof met.

[Edited by - islesfan on 06-19-2007 3:28 PM]

The only major significance between the deals is the 9 vs. 23...justify your statement all you want, but we are talking about the same deal. A couple of solid starters and solid prospects for arguably the best player in the world.

If this deal goes down it will be because other axillary forces, i.e Lakers willingness to trade, Kobe's preferences, and the interests of the league, will have had just as much of an impact as two similarly themed deals.

sebstar, you are wasting your time with isle. Read his post, it is filled with hate and venom to the point it doesn't make sense. Any reasonable basketball person who doesn't have an agenda or a hate for the Knicks and their GM will look at both the knicks and bulls deal as somewhat equal..

To say that Gordon is much better than crawford is just ridiculous, now one may like gordon better, but skillwise we are looking at two very similar players who are just 2 years apart in age..

then to say that Tyrus thomas who looked like a deer in headlights has the potential to go up against the tough PF's in the west and lee and frye don't is another ridiculous statement. Last time I checked lee averaged a double double playing PF, and we did play the west this past year. Again it is a venom laced post with no reason behind it...

And as far as turiaf and farmar go, hey I am not going to argue this point, but I have the feeling that the lakers would have loved having balkman and collins, length and athleticism along with their defense playing on that team instead of turiaf, walton and farmar..... but that is just me.... I guess I am a homer...

This is just funny to me.

It's hateful and venomous to think that Ben Gordon is better than Jamal Crawford, despite the fact that there isn't a single front office in the league who would trade Gordon for Crawford straight up. If the Bulls offered Gordon for Crawford, do you think Isiah would make that trade? What would be the reaction around here if he turned it down?

It's hateful and venomous to think that Tyrus Thomas, a 20 year old rookie and 4th pick of the 2006 draft who came on to average 17 minutes a game in the conference semifinals, has more upside and potential to be a better PF than David Lee or Channing "Bambi" Frye.

It's hateful and venomous to think that 2 of the Knicks inexperienced backup role players aren't any better than the backup role players that the Lakers already have under contract. Of course, if the Lakers really wanted Collins, they probably would have drafted him instead of Farmar last year.

You are a homer. I just speak the truth.

Yeah but you're conveniently ignoring the draft picks this season. The 23rd pick is significantly better than the 9th pick. You probably did not realize that they're starting at 30 this time and counting down!