ESOMKnicks wrote:I doubt a tuna fish sandwich is capable of scoring 22.4 ppg, with close to 6 rpg and 3 apg. Neither is Austin Rivers for whom so many here are keen to trade Melo.

I vividly recall how Knicks fans circa 2000 were blaming Ewing for all the team's shortcomings, calling him a ballhog, a plodder who was slowing down the marvelous Camby-Spree running game, etc. So we traded Ewing for Rice, who may have been in decline at the time, but was still better than Austin Rivers is today. Did it do us any good? I know that it didn't do any good to Ewing and the Sonics either, so that trade was not worth it for anyone. Then what's the point of making a trade here if it will benefit no one (unless Melo really insists on one and commits to helping us getting a good return)?

ESOMKnicks wrote:If Melo does not want to be a babysitter and wants to go elsewhere to chase the championship, that's fine, and the Knicks should try to oblige. But then they should also tell him to help them make it happen by waiving his trade kickers, etc., so that the Knicks can get a decent return for him. And by decent return I mean a lottery pick, rather than Austin Rivers.

CrushAlot wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:If Melo does not want to be a babysitter and wants to go elsewhere to chase the championship, that's fine, and the Knicks should try to oblige. But then they should also tell him to help them make it happen by waiving his trade kickers, etc., so that the Knicks can get a decent return for him. And by decent return I mean a lottery pick, rather than Austin Rivers.

He can't just waive his trade kicker. It is pretty complicated but factors include the team receiving Melo's cap situation, how much salary they send out etc. In some situations he could waive part of his trade kicker. But if you want a guy to give up 12 mil to help you out is it good practice to trash him in the media?

right, it's like selling a car you announce was a lemon

ESOMKnicks wrote:The point is: the Knicks should not try too hard in shopping Melo. We know that they ain't winning a chip in the next couple of years whether it is with him or without him. Rather let him help himself get onto a championship team. And if he refuses to help himself, I see no downside in the Knicks keeping him for another 2 years as opposed to giving him up for a tuna fish sandwich.

Knixkik wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:The point is: the Knicks should not try too hard in shopping Melo. We know that they ain't winning a chip in the next couple of years whether it is with him or without him. Rather let him help himself get onto a championship team. And if he refuses to help himself, I see no downside in the Knicks keeping him for another 2 years as opposed to giving him up for a tuna fish sandwich.

Given the NY media, it would be a problem. Keeping him would likely become a walking-dead situation and the media would keep going after it. It would create a circus and being unable to fully rebuild and move on. Do we really want to put KP, Willy, and our draft pick in a situation where they can't be apart of a new era and a fresh start? It just seems like parting ways is already a little overdue, and stretching it out even more will really hurt.

ESOMKnicks wrote:There is no upside from trading Melo either. Unless Boston is stupid enough to give us a 2018 lottery pick for him.

I don't think Melo is the type of person who would create a circus. He does care about his image, and would not want the negative PR of being thought of as someone forcing his team to do a lopsided trade to accommodate him. And what do the Knicks have to lose? If he misbehaves or proves to be a cancer, they can simply bench him, and let KP, Willie and whatever other young studs play without him, that's a worst case scenario that is not really that different from not having Melo on the team at all.

If you recall, even with all the drama surrounding his departure from Denver, he enabled the Nuggets to get decent value back.

ESOMKnicks wrote:This is really conjecture, but even if it is true, then Donnie Walsh would not have made the trade at all and Melo would have gone to the Nets. But this is not the point, the point is that Melo should be willing to help the Knicks get decent value in return the way he helped the Nuggets, and the Knicks would be foolish to dump him for just about anything, like an Austin Rivers.

CrushAlot wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:There is no upside from trading Melo either. Unless Boston is stupid enough to give us a 2018 lottery pick for him.

I don't think Melo is the type of person who would create a circus. He does care about his image, and would not want the negative PR of being thought of as someone forcing his team to do a lopsided trade to accommodate him. And what do the Knicks have to lose? If he misbehaves or proves to be a cancer, they can simply bench him, and let KP, Willie and whatever other young studs play without him, that's a worst case scenario that is not really that different from not having Melo on the team at all.

If you recall, even with all the drama surrounding his departure from Denver, he enabled the Nuggets to get decent value back.

the only reason denver got good value back was because james dolan made that trade not donnie walsh

Walsh made bad trades and bad signings he was just good to the media. If you think the inclusion of Moz pushed that trade over the top for Denver then I agree with you about Dolan. But Moz was 3rd and 2nd string center when he was in Denver.

ESOMKnicks wrote:Not to say, if I am in Phil's place, with all the criticism over trading Chandler for a low return in Calderon, i would be hesitant in trading a future hall of famer for Rivers, who is essentially a younger Calderon, only without the assists and with a worse 3pt shot.