Posted by TheGame:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by VDesai:

Look, I didn't like the fact that the trade had us taking on more money, but isn't a bit presumptuous to assume we can't get under the cap for 2010? If they can shed Crawford and Jeffries for like Artest and Kenny Thoams that immediately gives us shorter term deals.

Exactly. The NBA is too dynamic to try a strategy of "we are getting under the cap in 3 years." So what, the team is supposed to lose for three more years while we get under the cap on the hope that LeBron or Wade would rather play for N.Y. About six years ago, Orlando took the same under the cap strategy to try and land Tim Duncan. They traded away Maggette, Ben Wallace, and Chucky Atkins to get Grant Hill and ultimately Tracy McGrady. They lost out on Duncan because he decided to resign with his hometeam, which is going to happen 90% of the time. You know the rest of the story; the Magic won nothing and ultimately traded away McGrady. There are no guarantees and this idea of waiting around for 3 years in the hope that a superstar wants to sign here is not a winning strategy in my opinion. Moreover, as Boston and Memphis can attest, the strategy of trying to lose games to draft a superstar is not a guaranteed strategy either.

News flash, we can trade Randolph in two years for an expiring contract and get under the cap then when we have a better idea whether James or Wade actually want to leave their current teams. Randolph has value. Curry has value. There are not many players on this team who we could not trade to another team for cap space and the few that we couldn't will mostly be off the books by 2010. In the meantime, IT has given us a better chance to win now. I think James and Wade would be more likely to come to NY if we are in the playoffs and look like we just need one more piece to get over the hump, rather than us being a nonplayoff team hoping to sign a savior in 2010.

[Edited by - thegame on 07-05-2007 12:46 PM]

LOL Who is going to trade for Zach, for their cap room, when he has 2 years left at around 18M a year if the Knicks are going to be looking to trade him after just 2 years?

Same goes for Curry, who can opt out in a couple years anyway so who would give up cap space when they can sign him outright if they wanted.

THe reason we got Zack cheap is because of his off the court problems. If he stays out of trouble for the next two years and continues to put up 20/10 type numbers and shows that he is a team player, other teams will want him, but it is not even about trading him for an expiring deal. The most likely way to get a Lebron or Wade is the have 5-6 players that other teams want. Why do you think everyone always mentions Chicago as a trading partner. Because they have 4-5 young players that other teams want. Assuming that Zack stays out of trouble and Curry continues to develop, in 2-3 years we will have Lee, Curry, Balkman, Zack, Crawford, and Collins as solid young guys other teams would want. Moreover, if Nichols and Chandler actually can play, that is 2 more guys. You get a Lebron or Wade by: 1) them demanding a trade out of town; and 2) offering their current team players that the GM can justify to his fans was the best deal he could get. IT has put us in the perfect situation because we now have two 20 point lowpost big men to offer. We give up Curry, we still have Zack. If we give up Zack, we still have Curry. Thus, we can package a big man and a few of our perimeter players and put together a competitive package for a superstar and still have enough of a team left to be competitive.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by VDesai:

Look, I didn't like the fact that the trade had us taking on more money, but isn't a bit presumptuous to assume we can't get under the cap for 2010? If they can shed Crawford and Jeffries for like Artest and Kenny Thoams that immediately gives us shorter term deals.

Exactly. The NBA is too dynamic to try a strategy of "we are getting under the cap in 3 years." So what, the team is supposed to lose for three more years while we get under the cap on the hope that LeBron or Wade would rather play for N.Y. About six years ago, Orlando took the same under the cap strategy to try and land Tim Duncan. They traded away Maggette, Ben Wallace, and Chucky Atkins to get Grant Hill and ultimately Tracy McGrady. They lost out on Duncan because he decided to resign with his hometeam, which is going to happen 90% of the time. You know the rest of the story; the Magic won nothing and ultimately traded away McGrady. There are no guarantees and this idea of waiting around for 3 years in the hope that a superstar wants to sign here is not a winning strategy in my opinion. Moreover, as Boston and Memphis can attest, the strategy of trying to lose games to draft a superstar is not a guaranteed strategy either.

News flash, we can trade Randolph in two years for an expiring contract and get under the cap then when we have a better idea whether James or Wade actually want to leave their current teams. Randolph has value. Curry has value. There are not many players on this team who we could not trade to another team for cap space and the few that we couldn't will mostly be off the books by 2010. In the meantime, IT has given us a better chance to win now. I think James and Wade would be more likely to come to NY if we are in the playoffs and look like we just need one more piece to get over the hump, rather than us being a nonplayoff team hoping to sign a savior in 2010.

[Edited by - thegame on 07-05-2007 12:46 PM]

LOL Who is going to trade for Zach, for their cap room, when he has 2 years left at around 18M a year if the Knicks are going to be looking to trade him after just 2 years?

Same goes for Curry, who can opt out in a couple years anyway so who would give up cap space when they can sign him outright if they wanted.

THe reason we got Zack cheap is because of his off the court problems. If he stays out of trouble for the next two years and continues to put up 20/10 type numbers and shows that he is a team player, other teams will want him, but it is not even about trading him for an expiring deal. The most likely way to get a Lebron or Wade is the have 5-6 players that other teams want. Why do you think everyone always mentions Chicago as a trading partner. Because they have 4-5 young players that other teams want. Assuming that Zack stays out of trouble and Curry continues to develop, in 2-3 years we will have Lee, Curry, Balkman, Zack, Crawford, and Collins as solid young guys other teams would want. Moreover, if Nichols and Chandler actually can play, that is 2 more guys. You get a Lebron or Wade by: 1) them demanding a trade out of town; and 2) offering their current team players that the GM can justify to his fans was the best deal he could get. IT has put us in the perfect situation because we now have two 20 point lowpost big men to offer. We give up Curry, we still have Zack. If we give up Zack, we still have Curry. Thus, we can package a big man and a few of our perimeter players and put together a competitive package for a superstar and still have enough of a team left to be competitive.

So a team has 18M in expiring contracts, in the year that LeBron, Wade and Melo all become unrestricted, and their going to kiss that goodbye to trade for Zach Randolph instead of offering one of those 3 max contracts?

Please explain.

And the rest of your post is so out of whack I don't know where to start.

[Edited by - islesfan on 07-05-2007 1:13 PM]

Posted by djsunyc:

we just get a 20/10 player and the board is more polarized than ever.

we're the best fans ever. you gotta love it.

Posted by BigRedDog:

Posted by djsunyc:

we just get a 20/10 player and the board is more polarized than ever.

we're the best fans ever. you gotta love it.

Are you kidding me?? You are one of the posters ripping this trade and now you make it seem that these NY fans are upset getting a 20/10 player. Alot of us are "polarized" trying to justify this trade to posters like you.

Posted by BigRedDog:

real cute DJ -how old are again?
If you follow the post and read it reaaal slowww i said you were ripping the trade NOT defending it.

Posted by newyorknewyork:

If Isiah didn't make the move. The same guys talking about how great it is would be saying how smart Isiah is for staying away and looking for cap flexability instead. Talking about patience. It would require more patience to take the cap space route then the Randolph route. So who really are the ones with patience?

Its almost like people are trained to like whatever move Isiah does. No matter what it is.

When Isiah first came in and made moves like the Marbury deal comming off the Layden era I was excited and showed patience and supported all his moves. Even showed patience for Mo Taylor & Jerome James even though I hated those moves. But it hasn't brought us any success. So at what point do we learn from our mistakes.

Go for salary cap space, keep your draft picks. If we suck there is still a shot to win the lotto or a top 3 pick and possibly land a franchise player. Plus the shot to land a true superstar in free agency. If we don't we would still be in great position. Thats 2 seprate ways we would have been attacking a franchise player. The problem is Isiah has screwed up the last 3 yrs so he can't afford have another non playoff season. So he made the move trying to save his job rather than whats best for the Knicks.

After the last couple of yrs of losing its not up to us to give them patience anymore. Its up to this organization to win and earn our patience back by winning. If Isiah were to balance the roster by moving Curry & Crawford for better fits I would give him more patience. But he will probably be content with very talented unbalanced lineup.