TymeLessKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

TymeLessKnicks wrote:We are not trading Billups. It's personal.

Better to spend your time thinking of a PG we can draft and a Mozgov 2.0 we can sign.

kinda like Felton?

not kinda like Felton.

who is/was easier to trade?

i don't know what you are saying anymore. First it's personal, now you are suggesting that Billups is harder to trade.

Who cares. If Knicks can make the team better, Felton gone, Billups gone.

And trading for a starting defensive C is getting better IMHO.

NYKBocker wrote:With Cleveland picking 1st and 4th in this years draft. They will most likely pick Kyrie Irving and maybe luck out with Kanter in the 4th pick. Baron would be great in teaching Irving the ropes but the best scenario would be to get another vet PG with a shorter contract. Enter Billups. I think Billups would be a great mentor for Irving and his 1 year contract opens up Irving starting in the 2nd year.

A trade straight up would work.

I think Baron Davis could be another star, not a superstar, that we can add to our core. He would work perfectly with Amare in that Baron is great at setting up big men that can fly for easy dunk shots. He averages about 7 dimes a game. His 3pt %age is a little low but I can live with it.

OR

We can make it a little more interesting. Since they now have a log jam at the 4 spot with Jamison, JJ Hickson, Varejao, and Harangody...maybe we can expand the trade to something like this...

Billups, Turiaf, Balkman and Fields for Baron Davis and Varejao. This would instantly fill 2 of our needs. PG and C.

This would open us to drafting the BPA for the 17th pick instead of concentrating on just the PG and C spot. Then buy 2 more late picks and we are there.

C-Varejao
PF-Amare
SF-Melo
SG-17th pick?
PG-Davis

Bench - TD, Walker, Re-signed Shawne Williams, Rautins, 2 late picks.

I would be good with that.

This trade sucks. All you did was trade a past his prime point guard for another past his prime point guard and traded Fields and Turiaf for a guy who's basically the same as Turiaf but with a garbage contract. It's basically a net loss of Fields and all the cap space for a small upgrade at point guard. Plus, Varejao's coming off a serious injury so there's more risk. Jamison fits D'Antoni's system better than Varejao does as a PF, but I don't want Amar'e to play center so I don't do that either,

Point guard is a need, but it's not a short-term need or a need next year. It's a need where New York can afford to draft somebody and have him come off the bench next season. New York is better off letting Billups run it next year unless a Chris Paul deal comes through or something.

TymeLessKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

TymeLessKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

TymeLessKnicks wrote:We are not trading Billups. It's personal.

Better to spend your time thinking of a PG we can draft and a Mozgov 2.0 we can sign.

kinda like Felton?

not kinda like Felton.

who is/was easier to trade?

i don't know what you are saying anymore. First it's personal, now you are suggesting that Billups is harder to trade.

Who cares. If Knicks can make the team better, Felton gone, Billups gone.

And trading for a starting defensive C is getting better IMHO.

I think you got what I am saying. People just want to start baseless trade rumors. At the trade deadline all we are going to hear is where chauncey might be playing.

They signed him for a year to play a year. what's so wring with that way of thinking?

I guarantee you that if we trade our starting PG at the deadline we wont win a championship. I think you will agree...

The Knicks retained Billups cause there was not better choice; in 1 scenario I can see him playing the full year, but if a trade comes up where the team gets better long term, he is gone. They did not sign Billups for a year to play a year. I don't even know what that means.

I have not idea what your pointless guarantee means; let's just say that the probability of knicks winning championship next year is very slim, regardless if they trade Billups or not.

TymeLessKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

TymeLessKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

TymeLessKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

TymeLessKnicks wrote:We are not trading Billups. It's personal.

Better to spend your time thinking of a PG we can draft and a Mozgov 2.0 we can sign.

kinda like Felton?

not kinda like Felton.

who is/was easier to trade?

i don't know what you are saying anymore. First it's personal, now you are suggesting that Billups is harder to trade.

Who cares. If Knicks can make the team better, Felton gone, Billups gone.

And trading for a starting defensive C is getting better IMHO.

I think you got what I am saying. People just want to start baseless trade rumors. At the trade deadline all we are going to hear is where chauncey might be playing.

They signed him for a year to play a year. what's so wring with that way of thinking?

I guarantee you that if we trade our starting PG at the deadline we wont win a championship. I think you will agree...

The Knicks retained Billups cause there was not better choice; in 1 scenario I can see him playing the full year, but if a trade comes up where the team gets better long term, he is gone. They did not sign Billups for a year to play a year. I don't even know what that means.

I have not idea what your pointless guarantee means; let's just say that the probability of knicks winning championship next year is very slim, regardless if they trade Billups or not.

You sound like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

They sit Billups in a room and explain the team picking up his option. Did they say "we might trade you at the deadline"? Highly doubt it.

I also recall Donnie Walsh saying he will try avoid trade deadline deals for the rest of his career.

You guys just love a good trade scenario, I get it. It's just annoying and BASELESS. But carry-on...

Billups for who else?

with each post you make less sense to me

I would be interested in Baron Davis and Jeremy Lin for Chauncey Billups, if Chris Paul is pipe dream

martin wrote:

TymeLessKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

TymeLessKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

TymeLessKnicks wrote:

martin wrote:

TymeLessKnicks wrote:We are not trading Billups. It's personal.

Better to spend your time thinking of a PG we can draft and a Mozgov 2.0 we can sign.

kinda like Felton?

not kinda like Felton.

who is/was easier to trade?

i don't know what you are saying anymore. First it's personal, now you are suggesting that Billups is harder to trade.

Who cares. If Knicks can make the team better, Felton gone, Billups gone.

And trading for a starting defensive C is getting better IMHO.

I think you got what I am saying. People just want to start baseless trade rumors. At the trade deadline all we are going to hear is where chauncey might be playing.

They signed him for a year to play a year. what's so wring with that way of thinking?

I guarantee you that if we trade our starting PG at the deadline we wont win a championship. I think you will agree...

The Knicks retained Billups cause there was not better choice; in 1 scenario I can see him playing the full year, but if a trade comes up where the team gets better long term, he is gone. They did not sign Billups for a year to play a year. I don't even know what that means.

I have not idea what your pointless guarantee means; let's just say that the probability of knicks winning championship next year is very slim, regardless if they trade Billups or not.

You sound like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

They sit Billups in a room and explain the team picking up his option. Did they say "we might trade you at the deadline"? Highly doubt it.

I also recall Donnie Walsh saying he will try avoid trade deadline deals for the rest of his career.

You guys just love a good trade scenario, I get it. It's just annoying and BASELESS. But carry-on...

Billups for who else?

with each post you make less sense to me

well, thats not good.