mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Nalod wrote:

mreinman wrote:how about stability?

how about fan stability?

how would this feel to the team if Rolo came here, was a very good player, a very good role model, a very good locker room guy, a very good defender and we trade him for a sulking PG on the decline?

how does this make us look as fans for suggesting this? Maybe this is why players don't care for NY much ... the fans are impulsive/compulsively impatient and unstable.

This is irrelevant. We don't factor in. More so is the fact its not great to recruit a player, then trade him. Other free agents watch that.

They do watch but they also see that there has been a coaching change and with it may come a change of philosophy. Also, I am not sure Teague is in decline. I seem to remember him dealing with a nagging injury for much of the year. I remember posting that Lopez wasn't that good based of off his last year in Portland. Even though this is the second year his WS/48 has deep I still think he is a good player.

Can you find a FA center that will give you Lopez production? Can you find a FA PG that will give you Teague's production?

players should know that if they come to a team, give it their all and do a great job based on what was asked, they won't get shipped out or the object of continuous trade fodder.

If I went to work for a company, I would hope that they built a morale that would make it look like a good place to work.

Okay but what happens when the company is under new management and wants to go in a different direction? Also, we know sports do not work like that regardless.

I just have questions on if RoLo will finish out his contract as a Knick regardless because of Porzingis so the question for me is now or later and what are you getting in return. Will Lopez have the same value when his role might be reduced going forward. It's like Teague in a way because he is a valuable player but people see that Shroeder maybe the future.

to me its a lateral move at best and that is not enough to mess with the chemistry and stability.

if a team (or company) changes direction every year, I would go work for or sign with someone else.

It is a lateral move but there are other things that factor into it like smackeddog said. It would free up enough money to go after Fournier and Crabbe/Bazemore/Lee or one of those wings and Horford.

the money diff is a good point but we only have him for one more year before he asks for some stupidly crazy new contract.

Very true but the Knicks would have his bird rights. Unless Grant turns into a starting PG the Knicks will look for a PG in 2017 anyway. This just gives them a bird in the hand

i can see both sides of the argument: from KP isnt ready for the 5, we need a PG, dont break up the front court, etc etc. my main reasons for liking this trade are: my supreme confidence in KP handling the 5 and thriving at that position and i dont think we'll get a solid PG (the quality of teague in the FA). i think having a solid PG attracts other free agents.