Posted by Knicksfan:
Posted by Ira:
Zach played well for us and he's playing well for the Clips. I think we could have gotten more if we waited. We still had time this season and all of next season to maximize his value in the trade market. Getting Tim Thomas for Zach is little better than cutting him.
Don't underestimate the value of making the trade early, making evert acquisition available for another trade in the deadline. Also don't factor out the possibility of an injury, bad play or any other negative issue affecting a Zach trade if we had waited.
We wanted cap relief. For all his good play, Zach isn't a star but was paid like one. The Knicks could get 3 solid players for what his contract is worth in 2010, and we know how decent and solid players can contribute to this system.
Why not let go of the Zach trade? We got what we wanted and some more. Unfortunately Mobley wont play for us but the DPE could be extremely valuable for us if we get it.
I think another point is that making the Craw/Zach trades on the same day removed the chances of teams trying to get more out of us for moving either player had they been moved separately. Once teams saw we were open for a fire sale they'd up their asking price. Since both trades were done at the same time all teams interested in either player were blindsided and we got good value for both players. These trades were made for two reasons as well 1) we weren't winning anything with these players and 2) these players contracts prevented any chance of building a future winner. Yet, this gets ignored, as if Walsh made the trades thinking Tim Thomas was going to be an improvement and take us to the playoffs.
A couple of points that those upset over the Zach trade, it's timing, or what came back ... of which seem to get completely ignored are:
*We acquired Zach for garbage - and we traded him for garbage. Where's the surprise in that? There is a reason for that.
*Zach's Stats: Although pretty, were offensively inefficient, froze out his teammates, stopped ball movement, and was a poor fit for the offensive style of play.
*OMG we were 6-3!!!. No, we were 6-5 actually. Also, since it's seemingly ignored for whatever reason: We played TERRIBLE TEAMS all suffering injuries to core players those first 11 games. Since then our schedule got MUCH tougher. We also played shorthanded, we have our own injury problems, and Mobley was going to be a very good SG fill in but he had to retire.
*We were so awesome with Zach now we're terrible and Walsh failed cause we didn't get any better! Not true: Since Zach and Crawford were dumped the team has come together with chemistry I never saw before. Players like Lee and Duhon and Chandler and Nate have all stepped up their games as has Harrington. The Crawford/Zach stats were easily replaced by those players.
Why are the facts ignored or glossed over and why do we constantly come back to:
*We were awesome with Zach and stink without him.
*OMG he's a 25/12 player. Why couldn't we get first round picks and other star players in return! Should have waited!
*Who cares about capspace!
*wow we suck see the trades suck.
etc? It's baffling, really, to see people cling to players who were traded who were anything but good or winning players. Crawford stunk. Zach was a losing player because he froze out his teammates. Both players were a big part of our failures over the years. Both players prevented any chance from us getting out of this mediocre 30-something-win rut.
I'll never understand it. I think some people are forgetting the name on the front of the jersey and have become fanboys during our down years looking to just cling to any player that excited you and have forgotten about the big picture here.
12/21/2008 2:15 PM