[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

The Real Zach to LA offer
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 2 ‹ Previous 1  2 
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
MS
Posts: 27064
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/28/2004
Member: #724
7/19/2008  9:47 AM
To be honest, there were times when zach wasn't in the lineup and we looked very good. Subtracting zach, and adding a pg that plays a little defense, with gallo and a maturing chandler, and a healthy q, not to mention stability in the front office and a new coach i don't think i would have turned down the deal. Draft picks are very important but so is the cap space....

Duhon/Crawford
Marbury/Nate
Q/Chandler/Balkman
Lee/Gallo
Curry

Either way I think you can add 5 wins because there is actually a coach in the fold this year who will define roles and play a style that gets minutes spread out a lot more. But the deal is dead, and I think we are overvaluing where we will be in the draft. Addition by subtraction.
AUTOADVERT
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/19/2008  11:16 AM
Posted by MS:

To be honest, there were times when zach wasn't in the lineup and we looked very good. Subtracting zach, and adding a pg that plays a little defense, with gallo and a maturing chandler, and a healthy q, not to mention stability in the front office and a new coach i don't think i would have turned down the deal. Draft picks are very important but so is the cap space....

Duhon/Crawford
Marbury/Nate
Q/Chandler/Balkman
Lee/Gallo
Curry

Either way I think you can add 5 wins because there is actually a coach in the fold this year who will define roles and play a style that gets minutes spread out a lot more. But the deal is dead, and I think we are overvaluing where we will be in the draft. Addition by subtraction.
really? because the only lineups that really worked last year where when Lee was at PF and Zach was at center
http://www.82games.com/0708/0708NYK2.HTM

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/19/2008  12:27 PM
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by MS:

To be honest, there were times when zach wasn't in the lineup and we looked very good. Subtracting zach, and adding a pg that plays a little defense, with gallo and a maturing chandler, and a healthy q, not to mention stability in the front office and a new coach i don't think i would have turned down the deal. Draft picks are very important but so is the cap space....

Duhon/Crawford
Marbury/Nate
Q/Chandler/Balkman
Lee/Gallo
Curry

Either way I think you can add 5 wins because there is actually a coach in the fold this year who will define roles and play a style that gets minutes spread out a lot more. But the deal is dead, and I think we are overvaluing where we will be in the draft. Addition by subtraction.
really? because the only lineups that really worked last year where when Lee was at PF and Zach was at center
http://www.82games.com/0708/0708NYK2.HTM
Maybe that had more to do with Lee being at PF than with Zach being at center? The five man unit stats are too ambiguous because you don't know which of the five men are playing a big vs. a small role in the stats. Consistent with my interpretation, Zach was never on a productive 5 man unit that did NOT have Lee on it. Zach needed Lee, in other words. Lee didn't need Zach, though:
Marbury-Crawford-Richardson-Lee-Curry 54 0.94 1.05 -5 6 5 54.5
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
7/19/2008  12:50 PM
Posted by MS:

To be honest, there were times when zach wasn't in the lineup and we looked very good. Subtracting zach, and adding a pg that plays a little defense, with gallo and a maturing chandler, and a healthy q, not to mention stability in the front office and a new coach i don't think i would have turned down the deal. Draft picks are very important but so is the cap space....

Duhon/Crawford
Marbury/Nate
Q/Chandler/Balkman
Lee/Gallo
Curry

Either way I think you can add 5 wins because there is actually a coach in the fold this year who will define roles and play a style that gets minutes spread out a lot more. But the deal is dead, and I think we are overvaluing where we will be in the draft. Addition by subtraction.



I would put down some cash to bet on Chandler starting whatever position he plays--he may be the best player on the team.
RIP Crushalot😞
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
7/19/2008  12:54 PM
also just for sleuthing sakes---unless we make the playoffs this year we dont haev a number 1 pick to trade until 2012--it's not believable

what I believe is the Clippers offered somewhat of the same scenario to the Knicks in terms of what Demver was offered[maybe Mobley coming back?] and we tried to get more and the Clippers went in a different direction. If you look at our first round pick availablity--it makes sense On top of its the SAME deal that we supposedly turned down. This is Knick spin.
RIP Crushalot😞
Anji
Posts: 25523
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 4/14/2006
Member: #1122
USA
7/19/2008  1:47 PM
The knicks can't even agree to trade our first rounder in the next three drafts. I think Walsh made a big mistake not trading Zach for a 2nd rounder...... that deal is never going to come again.,... NEVER!!!
"Really, all Americans want is a cold beer, warm p***y, and some place to s**t with a door on it." - Mr. Ford
4949
Posts: 29378
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/25/2006
Member: #1126
USA
7/19/2008  4:13 PM
Posted by VDesai:

“I have learned that the Clippers’ offer to the Knicks for Zach Randolph last week was much more audacious than first suspected. In addition to Randolph, they wanted the Knicks to send them a first-round pick and $3 million in exchange for Brevin Knight. The Knicks said no.”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ian_thomsen/07/18/weekly.countdown/1.html

It let's Lee off of any blame for not wanting to be a part of a zach trade. Something a few tried to pin on him.
I'll never trust this' team again.
Markji
Posts: 22753
Alba Posts: -4
Joined: 9/14/2007
Member: #1673
USA
7/19/2008  5:07 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by MS:

To be honest, there were times when zach wasn't in the lineup and we looked very good. Subtracting zach, and adding a pg that plays a little defense, with gallo and a maturing chandler, and a healthy q, not to mention stability in the front office and a new coach i don't think i would have turned down the deal. Draft picks are very important but so is the cap space....

Duhon/Crawford
Marbury/Nate
Q/Chandler/Balkman
Lee/Gallo
Curry

Either way I think you can add 5 wins because there is actually a coach in the fold this year who will define roles and play a style that gets minutes spread out a lot more. But the deal is dead, and I think we are overvaluing where we will be in the draft. Addition by subtraction.
really? because the only lineups that really worked last year where when Lee was at PF and Zach was at center
http://www.82games.com/0708/0708NYK2.HTM
Maybe that had more to do with Lee being at PF than with Zach being at center? The five man unit stats are too ambiguous because you don't know which of the five men are playing a big vs. a small role in the stats. Consistent with my interpretation, Zach was never on a productive 5 man unit that did NOT have Lee on it. Zach needed Lee, in other words. Lee didn't need Zach, though:
Marbury-Crawford-Richardson-Lee-Curry 54 0.94 1.05 -5 6 5 54.5
I haven't studied all of these stats, but if Lee was the key with both of these lineups (and perhaps others) why dont we wake up and keep Lee. He plays well, is a hard-working team player, and everyone likes him.

Don't trade Lee. Keep Zach and trade Curry.
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense. Tom Clancy - author
4949
Posts: 29378
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/25/2006
Member: #1126
USA
7/19/2008  5:33 PM
Don't trade Lee. Keep Zach and trade Curry.

I'd do that one in a minute.
I'll never trust this' team again.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/19/2008  8:23 PM
Posted by Markji:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by MS:

To be honest, there were times when zach wasn't in the lineup and we looked very good. Subtracting zach, and adding a pg that plays a little defense, with gallo and a maturing chandler, and a healthy q, not to mention stability in the front office and a new coach i don't think i would have turned down the deal. Draft picks are very important but so is the cap space....

Duhon/Crawford
Marbury/Nate
Q/Chandler/Balkman
Lee/Gallo
Curry

Either way I think you can add 5 wins because there is actually a coach in the fold this year who will define roles and play a style that gets minutes spread out a lot more. But the deal is dead, and I think we are overvaluing where we will be in the draft. Addition by subtraction.
really? because the only lineups that really worked last year where when Lee was at PF and Zach was at center
http://www.82games.com/0708/0708NYK2.HTM
Maybe that had more to do with Lee being at PF than with Zach being at center? The five man unit stats are too ambiguous because you don't know which of the five men are playing a big vs. a small role in the stats. Consistent with my interpretation, Zach was never on a productive 5 man unit that did NOT have Lee on it. Zach needed Lee, in other words. Lee didn't need Zach, though:
Marbury-Crawford-Richardson-Lee-Curry 54 0.94 1.05 -5 6 5 54.5
I haven't studied all of these stats, but if Lee was the key with both of these lineups (and perhaps others) why dont we wake up and keep Lee. He plays well, is a hard-working team player, and everyone likes him.

Don't trade Lee. Keep Zach and trade Curry.
I think it was a combo of Lee + Zach. Curry doesnt reb, box out, play D, pass.. he does nothing. When Lee/Zach are at the PF/C together they simply clean the glass. Neither defend.. get that, but they do eliminate 2nd shots and get offensive rebs as well.

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/19/2008  8:37 PM
Posted by Anji:

The knicks can't even agree to trade our first rounder in the next three drafts. I think Walsh made a big mistake not trading Zach for a 2nd rounder...... that deal is never going to come again.,... NEVER!!!

& who knows if it was ever here to begin with for that matter.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
7/19/2008  10:51 PM
sportsillustrated's source sounds like someone from the knicks. leak the deal, got punked by the clippers, then try to cover their *** with this *new* offer.
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
7/20/2008  12:42 AM
Again, as mentioned, this rumor is likely bogus. If we had a first round draft pick to sacrifice, though, this isn't as as unreasonable as it sounds. My only change would be try to keep the pick at least lottery protected, maybe even top 20 protected. You have to give something to get something. To expect the Clips to eat that kind of salary, handing them a pick for their troubles isn't actually unreasonable. It's actually very reasonable. As long as it's not a lottery pick, there's a lot of logic to it.

That all being said, clearly we don't have a first round pick we can trade, so, if this rumor was true, it would mean that we decided that their request for a second rounder was worth killing the deal. If so, double ugh.
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
Page 2 of 2 ‹ Previous 1  2 
« Reply To Topic
The Real Zach to LA offer
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy