Posted by metra:

Posted by fishmike:

you look at ALL of Walsh's trades and he's never really made a bad one. He's always been smart and I trust him to make the right choice.

Metra.. as for our team 'needs'

We are on a par with the worst teams in the NBA. What DONT we need?

We need to rebuild this team with a core of real young talent. Walsh will use garden money to rebuild. Not rephuck

I'm not talking in Isiahspeak. I'm talking like a sensible person, where the word trade does not mean starphuck. Trade means make the team better & more cohesive, not selling out for overpaid players and throwing chemistry out the window.

So when I looked at our situation with pick 5, a lot of the players I saw were small SGs. That didn't seem like a good position to be in since the only thing we've got are decent SGs trying to be PGs. If there is a legit player we can use at that spot (C like Lopez or PF like Griffin or SF like Gallinari) then by all means go ahead and take him.

But if these guys aren't what they're hyped up to be then we should consider trading a pick for someone else around the league. And if we like a player that we can have with pick #15 then why not trade down?

[Edited by - metra on 03-26-2008 1:29 PM]

Posted by Solace:

Posted by metra:

Outside picks 1 & 2, none of these players seem to fit our needs. These guys don't seem to be superstars so maybe we should draft based on need. But the value we can get at pick 5 we can also get in the early teens.

So can someone tell me why we don't trade this pick?

I actually agree. I'm not of the assumption that the Knicks aren't trading the pick, though. I think the problem comes in that we desperately need stars, so my question in any trade is what kind of trade would you like? Me, personally, I'm only interested in a trade that gives us a better shot at a young franchise-ceiling player who has a legitimate at being a core piece for 10 years, and/or massive cap reduction.

My fear is that the Knicks will trade the pick, add another $20 million per season in salary, give up some future youth and wind up with an overrated player who will be exposed in NY. Based on past history, keeping the pick may be the safer option, even if it a far cry from the player that will put us anywhere close to over the top.

[Edited by - Solace on Mar 26 2008 12:50 PM]

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by metra:

Outside picks 1 & 2, none of these players seem to fit our needs. These guys don't seem to be superstars so maybe we should draft based on need. But the value we can get at pick 5 we can also get in the early teens.

So can someone tell me why we don't trade this pick?

I actually agree. I'm not of the assumption that the Knicks aren't trading the pick, though. I think the problem comes in that we desperately need stars, so my question in any trade is what kind of trade would you like? Me, personally, I'm only interested in a trade that gives us a better shot at a young franchise-ceiling player who has a legitimate at being a core piece for 10 years, and/or massive cap reduction.

My fear is that the Knicks will trade the pick, add another $20 million per season in salary, give up some future youth and wind up with an overrated player who will be exposed in NY. Based on past history, keeping the pick may be the safer option, even if it a far cry from the player that will put us anywhere close to over the top.

[Edited by - Solace on Mar 26 2008 12:50 PM]

I'm not sure it has to be a franchise player. Would you trade pick #5 for Joe Johnson or Michael Redd?
These guys might be untouchable but what about #5 plus David Lee for
Rudy Gay or
Danny Granger or
Lamarcus Aldridge

Why would these teams do it? These are already high lottery pick players who are playing at high levels in the nBA--why do they want to go back in time?

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by metra:

Outside picks 1 & 2, none of these players seem to fit our needs. These guys don't seem to be superstars so maybe we should draft based on need. But the value we can get at pick 5 we can also get in the early teens.

So can someone tell me why we don't trade this pick?

I actually agree. I'm not of the assumption that the Knicks aren't trading the pick, though. I think the problem comes in that we desperately need stars, so my question in any trade is what kind of trade would you like? Me, personally, I'm only interested in a trade that gives us a better shot at a young franchise-ceiling player who has a legitimate at being a core piece for 10 years, and/or massive cap reduction.

My fear is that the Knicks will trade the pick, add another $20 million per season in salary, give up some future youth and wind up with an overrated player who will be exposed in NY. Based on past history, keeping the pick may be the safer option, even if it a far cry from the player that will put us anywhere close to over the top.

[Edited by - Solace on Mar 26 2008 12:50 PM]

I'm not sure it has to be a franchise player. Would you trade pick #5 for Joe Johnson or Michael Redd?
These guys might be untouchable but what about #5 plus David Lee for
Rudy Gay or
Danny Granger or
Lamarcus Aldridge

Why would these teams do it? These are already high lottery pick players who are playing at high levels in the nBA--why do they want to go back in time?

Posted by kam77:

Michael Redd does not deserve his max deal. He is a non-Defense playing shooter.

Posted by kam77:

Michael Redd does not deserve his max deal. He is a non-Defense playing shooter.