Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

arkrud wrote:

smackeddog wrote:We won't get him but that's not because the front office has learnt anything- it's because melo won't agree to it.

For once Melo is really helping Knicks.

How is Melo helping the Knicks? He wants to go to Houston only.... no trade is going to work for the Knicks.

Trading Melo for Kyrie is a no brainer. I don't get the narrative that it's the same old Knicks. If it was the same old Knicks we'd be trying to trade a 25 year old Melo for a 34 year old Kyrie.... but its the opposite..... we're talking about Melo and Courtney Lee for Kyrie, Frye and Shump... is that a bad trade for us? We would have to throw in a 1st round pick.... would that be the same old Knicks? That would be a fantastic trade to make. It would make the Knicks a better ball club by far

Cavs will not trade him for Melo type player without getting good young prospect and 2 1-st rounders with 1 unprotected.
And it may be fine for some team with a lot of assets but deadly for us.
You will get Marbs or Melo deal all over again and suck another 7 years with Irving.

I get that people don't like the melo trade. But in order to not like the melo trade don't have to pretend if they didn't make it the Knicks were on a path to being a good team.

The had a ****ty pg, no real center to speak of, two small forwards (one who was going to be an RFA, one that went on to be oft injured) and no 2012 first round pick, and they were well short of mac cap space.

In 2011-12 they would have been a lottery team without a lottery pick.

No, they're two separate issues. Let's try this with other transactions.

"I get that people don't like the Rose trade. But in order to not like the Rose trade don't have to pretend if they didn't make it the Knicks were on a path to being a good team."

"I get that people don't like the Noah signing. But in order to not like the Noah signing don't have to pretend if they didn't make it the Knicks were on a path to being a good team."

I know what I responded to and my response was on purpose.

People conflate the two things.

For all we know, the Knicks series against the pacers may of been the high water mark of the last 6 years in either universe, the one in which the trade happened and the one where it didn't.

The trade hasn't worked out as intended, but it didn't necessarily prevent a better last 6 years.

People struggle with the concept.

Many fans are very binary/either-or.

Knickoftime wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

arkrud wrote:

blkexec wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

arkrud wrote:

smackeddog wrote:We won't get him but that's not because the front office has learnt anything- it's because melo won't agree to it.

For once Melo is really helping Knicks.

How is Melo helping the Knicks? He wants to go to Houston only.... no trade is going to work for the Knicks.

Trading Melo for Kyrie is a no brainer. I don't get the narrative that it's the same old Knicks. If it was the same old Knicks we'd be trying to trade a 25 year old Melo for a 34 year old Kyrie.... but its the opposite..... we're talking about Melo and Courtney Lee for Kyrie, Frye and Shump... is that a bad trade for us? We would have to throw in a 1st round pick.... would that be the same old Knicks? That would be a fantastic trade to make. It would make the Knicks a better ball club by far

But I don't think the Cavs would agree to that....And would want more!

Much more... And they will get it... or will keep him.
Same as us with Melo.

Much more like what? Melo makes double what Kyrie makes

No he doesn't.

You are annoying. Ok so Melo makes 24 mill.... Kyrie makes 18 mil..... Melo still makes more. Cleveland has to packedge extra salary to make the trade work straight up. So why would Cleveland expect more than Melo, a rotation player plus a pick? More like what? Their left testicle?

It's cool to be technical... but why do the Knicks have to give up their whole present and future for Kyrie, but the Knicks have to accept horrible contracts and mediocre Talent for Melo?

EnySpree wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

arkrud wrote:

blkexec wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

arkrud wrote:

smackeddog wrote:We won't get him but that's not because the front office has learnt anything- it's because melo won't agree to it.

For once Melo is really helping Knicks.

How is Melo helping the Knicks? He wants to go to Houston only.... no trade is going to work for the Knicks.

Trading Melo for Kyrie is a no brainer. I don't get the narrative that it's the same old Knicks. If it was the same old Knicks we'd be trying to trade a 25 year old Melo for a 34 year old Kyrie.... but its the opposite..... we're talking about Melo and Courtney Lee for Kyrie, Frye and Shump... is that a bad trade for us? We would have to throw in a 1st round pick.... would that be the same old Knicks? That would be a fantastic trade to make. It would make the Knicks a better ball club by far

But I don't think the Cavs would agree to that....And would want more!

Much more... And they will get it... or will keep him.
Same as us with Melo.

Much more like what? Melo makes double what Kyrie makes

No he doesn't.

You are annoying. Ok so Melo makes 24 mill.... Kyrie makes 18 mil..... Melo still makes more. Cleveland has to packedge extra salary to make the trade work straight up. So why would Cleveland expect more than Melo, a rotation player plus a pick? More like what? Their left testicle?

Cavs only have to send back about $21m to satisfy CBA rules, or $5m less than Melo makes.

Irving & Jefferson gets that done.

Details matter.

It's cool to be technical... but why do the Knicks have to give up their whole present and future for Kyrie, but the Knicks have to accept horrible contracts and mediocre Talent for Melo?

They don't.

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

arkrud wrote:

smackeddog wrote:We won't get him but that's not because the front office has learnt anything- it's because melo won't agree to it.

For once Melo is really helping Knicks.

How is Melo helping the Knicks? He wants to go to Houston only.... no trade is going to work for the Knicks.

Trading Melo for Kyrie is a no brainer. I don't get the narrative that it's the same old Knicks. If it was the same old Knicks we'd be trying to trade a 25 year old Melo for a 34 year old Kyrie.... but its the opposite..... we're talking about Melo and Courtney Lee for Kyrie, Frye and Shump... is that a bad trade for us? We would have to throw in a 1st round pick.... would that be the same old Knicks? That would be a fantastic trade to make. It would make the Knicks a better ball club by far

Cavs will not trade him for Melo type player without getting good young prospect and 2 1-st rounders with 1 unprotected.
And it may be fine for some team with a lot of assets but deadly for us.
You will get Marbs or Melo deal all over again and suck another 7 years with Irving.

I get that people don't like the melo trade. But in order to not like the melo trade don't have to pretend if they didn't make it the Knicks were on a path to being a good team.

The had a ****ty pg, no real center to speak of, two small forwards (one who was going to be an RFA, one that went on to be oft injured) and no 2012 first round pick, and they were well short of mac cap space.

In 2011-12 they would have been a lottery team without a lottery pick.

No, they're two separate issues. Let's try this with other transactions.

"I get that people don't like the Rose trade. But in order to not like the Rose trade don't have to pretend if they didn't make it the Knicks were on a path to being a good team."

"I get that people don't like the Noah signing. But in order to not like the Noah signing don't have to pretend if they didn't make it the Knicks were on a path to being a good team."

I know what I responded to and my response was on purpose.

People conflate the two things.

For all we know, the Knicks series against the pacers may of been the high water mark of the last 6 years in either universe, the one in which the trade happened and the one where it didn't.

The trade hasn't worked out as intended, but it didn't necessarily prevent a better last 6 years.

People struggle with the concept.

Many fans are very binary/either-or.

Perhaps the Knicks would have made other equally bad or worse trades than the Melo trade. It doesn't make the Melo trade good. It just makes the organization incompetent.

Maybe, that has nothing to do with my post.

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

arkrud wrote:

smackeddog wrote:We won't get him but that's not because the front office has learnt anything- it's because melo won't agree to it.

For once Melo is really helping Knicks.

How is Melo helping the Knicks? He wants to go to Houston only.... no trade is going to work for the Knicks.

Trading Melo for Kyrie is a no brainer. I don't get the narrative that it's the same old Knicks. If it was the same old Knicks we'd be trying to trade a 25 year old Melo for a 34 year old Kyrie.... but its the opposite..... we're talking about Melo and Courtney Lee for Kyrie, Frye and Shump... is that a bad trade for us? We would have to throw in a 1st round pick.... would that be the same old Knicks? That would be a fantastic trade to make. It would make the Knicks a better ball club by far

Cavs will not trade him for Melo type player without getting good young prospect and 2 1-st rounders with 1 unprotected.
And it may be fine for some team with a lot of assets but deadly for us.
You will get Marbs or Melo deal all over again and suck another 7 years with Irving.

I get that people don't like the melo trade. But in order to not like the melo trade don't have to pretend if they didn't make it the Knicks were on a path to being a good team.

The had a ****ty pg, no real center to speak of, two small forwards (one who was going to be an RFA, one that went on to be oft injured) and no 2012 first round pick, and they were well short of mac cap space.

In 2011-12 they would have been a lottery team without a lottery pick.

No, they're two separate issues. Let's try this with other transactions.

"I get that people don't like the Rose trade. But in order to not like the Rose trade don't have to pretend if they didn't make it the Knicks were on a path to being a good team."

"I get that people don't like the Noah signing. But in order to not like the Noah signing don't have to pretend if they didn't make it the Knicks were on a path to being a good team."

I know what I responded to and my response was on purpose.

People conflate the two things.

For all we know, the Knicks series against the pacers may of been the high water mark of the last 6 years in either universe, the one in which the trade happened and the one where it didn't.

The trade hasn't worked out as intended, but it didn't necessarily prevent a better last 6 years.

People struggle with the concept.

Many fans are very binary/either-or.

The Melo trade was a good trade with a really bad outcome. But that doesn't mean you can quantify the opportunity cost of not doing it or just write it off as people conflating it with the Melo trade outcome. The nature of opportunity cost is what makes Bonn's argument hard to make or validate, but I agree with his POV.

To further clarify, I agree the Knicks were not on a path to greatness, my comment here is based on what could have happened in the intervening six years.

nyknickzingis wrote:Same old Knicks is trading Porzingis for Irving.
Melo, pick and another pick gotten by trading Lee is NOT same old Knicks.

Willy, KP, Hardaway, Ntilikina, Irving big 5 would be awesome.

nyknickzingis wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nyknickzingis wrote:Same old Knicks is trading Porzingis for Irving.
Melo, pick and another pick gotten by trading Lee is NOT same old Knicks.

Willy, KP, Hardaway, Ntilikina, Irving big 5 would be awesome.

If it's the same old Knicks, tell me which old Knicks traded a runner up ROY? No old Knicks team would have done that. They might have traded the pick that eventually landed KP years before the draft in a starphuck, but that's what you're saying they should be doing now to get Kyrie.

They traded Gallinari when he was only a few years into his career, on a rookie contract. The Knicks traded a player they drafted top 6 for Melo, along with their starting Center at the time, as well as more. Galli was our KP, back then. Not as good, but he was the main young player we had. It's fortunate he never turned into a great player, but usually smart teams never trade a player like that.

I've never said to trade a top 3 pick for Irving. What I'm saying is trade protected first rounders for Kyrie. Top 10 in year 1. Top 7 in year 2 and 3. Then after that, maybe top 3. You can protect them as much as you want as long as the other team agrees. But likely if we get Irving, we end up drafting 10-12 in the 2018 draft. I am totally comfortable with giving up Melo and 10-12 range pick in the 2018 draft.

When we traded for Melo 7 years ago, we didn't have

Willy Hernangomez - 2nd year player on rookie contract
Porzingis - 3rd year player on rookie contract
Ntilikina - 1st year player on rookie contract
Hardaway - 5th year player, paid to be the star wing on the team in his prime

The way the team is currently set up, we can trade for Irving and still have many strong assets left over. A KP/Irving duo would be one of the best 5 duos in the league based on talent. One guy is 22 the other guy is 25. Still have Willy, Frank and THj.

To me the deal is not hard to make if Cleveland accepts protections of top 10, top 8, top 5 etc.

Has Cleveland actually indicated they have any interest in Melo? I haven't seen anything that says that they have, and I think they can get better value than Melo from other teams. Maybe, just maybe they are no longer interested in their immediate one year window. In that case they would focus on unprotected draft picks from bad teams like the Knicks, Nets and Kings. Not saying Kyrie would want to play at Nets/Kings but don't know how much influence he has on it either.