Ewing was dealt too late. I regret trading him for scraps, though had they traded him two years earlier (like they did with Oakley and Starks and Mason) the team could've reloaded. Imaine the 99 run had the team acquired a young, dynamic player and some depth for Ewing

The Ewing trade ruined us but it was over for him and the Knicks when he refused to come off the bench and take a lesser role. Bad blood ensued and he had to be dealt. What he was dealt for was a disaster. We should have just held on to him and let him expire no matter the turmoil it may have caused. We were already finished anyway at that point in terms of playoff runs.

The Camby trade hurt because of yet again what came back. Fans seem to forget how finished we were as a fanbase with Camby and his endless injuries. He was absolutely undependable and even hurt several seasons by going down so often. He absolutely had to be dealt before he became a permanent cripple - something he was clearly on the verge of being. Again, what came back in return wasn't good but it was more compounded by the third shoe - Truckbury - coming here and destroying the team. Yet, if it weren't him, Isiah sure would have gone for some other disaster, probably Francis a day later. So...it's moot.

Beyond that you only have nostalgia. Sad to see Starks go but Spree put us in the finals. Sad to see Oakley go but Camby was a young stud in return. Sad to see Mason go for an injured LJ but - like the other two mentioned moves - these three moves put us back in the NBA Finals - something that would not have happened with the status quo.

So is there really a player I regretted dumping in the past ten years? The answer is: NONE. It's just the subsequent damage caused by what was returned in said trade. Yet, I don't believe that's the question at hand.

Posted by Papabear:

Papabear Says

I think Spreewell only if he could be controled. Not the Spree who complained about feeding his family.
John Starks mayby because he was an inspriation to the team.
Ewing should have retired a Knick.

trading for starks gave us sprewell so that trade was a good one. the spree trade was necessary because he was being too volatile and disruptive. though getting back van horn definately sucked.

A few of our trades were pretty excellent on paper - that is, if we hadn't gotten damaged goods in return. The Ewing trade was actually pretty reasonable all things considered, *IF* Rice were healthy (a shooter with an elbow problem!) and Longley were healthy, they'd have been a nice boon - another pure shooter/scorer a smooth-passing jumbo-sized big man. Heck, the Pre-Varejao garbage big man in Travis Knight also sounded good. But none of them worked out.

Posted by technomaster:

A few of our trades were pretty excellent on paper - that is, if we hadn't gotten damaged goods in return. The Ewing trade was actually pretty reasonable all things considered, *IF* Rice were healthy (a shooter with an elbow problem!) and Longley were healthy, they'd have been a nice boon - another pure shooter/scorer a smooth-passing jumbo-sized big man. Heck, the Pre-Varejao garbage big man in Travis Knight also sounded good. But none of them worked out.

They weren't and weren't at the time of the trade that's the problem.

The biggest problem is we went from a team with 56M in committed salary - looking to watch Ewings 14M expire putting us at 42M that next summer - to a team with 72M in committed salary instead.

I don't know how he did it but Scott Layden turned a potential 42M cap team into a 72M mess in a few quick moves that one summer. Then pumped it up to 84M the following...before Isiah took that and turned it into a 143M+ payroll that scientists in several nations are still working around the clock on the numbers to come to a final conclusion on what the Knicks payroll was that one year.

Yet, back to the SPIRIT of the thread, to me the question is of players we traded that were still good and getting better that we shouldn't have traded.

Are there really any? Ariza bloomed but only so much. Was there really a player we regret sending out? - the question to me doesn't consider what was RETURNED - but just the player we sent OUT.

KVH is a good nomination, perhaps the best, as he went 17/7 for us and we looked pretty good. After that it went downhill in the Isiah era so to be honest, and sad to say it at the same time, KEITH VAN HORN might have been the one. The one we shouldn't have traded.

But honestly, as soon as we did, he quit on life, so maybe he was about to tank it anyway....

it was time to let ewing loose. he was a great player but a pain in the ass to management and he was definitely pushing for a trade. the original trade was good at the time - rice and vin. they both seemed healthy, sober and productive at the time.

i also agree that camby had worn out his welcome with his injuries, high maintenance and victim mentality. if dice had been healthy it would have been an amazing trade. i'm sure you guys remember him absolutely beasting in the preseason. but alas he was held together with glue and snapped like a f’g twig.

actually the ariza for francis trade was the one that finally revealed that isiah was totally out of his mind as a gm and needed to go.

I agree. I was totally pissed after that deal. Another deal, really letting a guy go, that goes back more a little over 10 years that hurt the team. Is letting Derek Harper go. I think we would have been better served with him around.

Posted by jaydh:

hands down, the camby trade. i was disgusted the second it was announced.

Ime Udoka!

I always regreted losing derek harper and patrick ewing, and i think we had a strong spreewell still, and camby, of course, and then most recently i regret losing stephon marbury (just kidding haha)