Ultimateknicks.com Forums: man...we should've never traded kurt thomas

FAQ | Sign up & start posting now!

[ IMAGES:

turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED

why? ]

man...we should've never traded kurt thomas

Forum Index › NY Knicks Forum

Page 3 of 3 ‹ Previous 1 2 3

« Reply To Topic

Author

Thread

Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871

12/17/2005 11:55 AM

Reply with quote

Posted by djsunyc:
Posted by Knicksfan:

Everybody praises Isiah for making a great move in getting both Nate and Q for Kurt. Most claim its the first time in a while that we get the better end of the deal, and all agree that it was a no-brainer.

Now it was a terrible trade by Isiah because the Knicks suck? Like they didn't suck last year with him? Like they were so tough and so great defensively with him? Please! This is just a reaction for our recent play. Next thing will be questioning his picks, remembering who was still avaliable.

Give me a break! It was a good move no matter how much Q has sucked this season or how much out of control Nate plays. It was a move for the future. Im sure if we traded Davis for a young player right now and went on to have a 10 game losing streak everybody would start missing Davis and call for Isiahs head. I hate this stretch of losing as much as you, but tell me, do you really believe Kurt alone would've made us a winning team?

one question...if q and/or nate are gone within 2 years, what would you say about the trade then?

listen to me, kurt thomas was traded b/c of his problems with steph. this was the FIRST deal to come across isiah's plate (remember, colangelo CALLED HIM). isiah jumped on it. this is not opinion or speculation. it's FACT. it had nothing to do with building for the future.

Sorry DJ, but Knicksfan is right. Most people were praising the trade, especially with Nate involve. Hindsight is 20/20.

I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni

AUTOADVERT

OldFan
Posts: 21456
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/24/2003
Member: #446

12/17/2005 12:02 PM

Reply with quote

Posted by crzymdups:
Posted by djsunyc:
Posted by martin:

holy knee jerk batman. Agree with the Bonn.

The Knicks are sucking but do we have to regress to hating every past trade?

Frye is not the best at defense, but the only way he is going to learn is to play. The only way Curry and Frye are going to learn to play together is to get minutes together.

Chill DJ, chill.

not kneejerk at all. frye would still get his 30 mins. curry would still start. BUT kurt would've provided some really valuable minutes for us. it has nothing to do with getting blown out for 3 games in a row. it has to do with nate making some bonehead mistakes and Q really just being a nice scrappy player inside (NOT a shooter). but at the end of the day, kurt would make a BIGGER impact on this team. imagine we started kurt all those games instead of AD - we could've been something like 8-11 and have a COMPLETELY different mindset.

i love nate. i think he has a nice role in the nba. he just needs to have his head checked. q is replaceable. but kurt was and more importantly, STILL IS a solid player.

so at the end of the day, i weighed the pros and cons for kurt and nate/q and i think kurt would've given us more, not just this year, but the next two as well. and by then, BOTH nate AND q could be gone.

Hey, DJ, you know Q can actually be a valuable player if allowed to shoot 3pters... oh wait, how would anyone know that? We have the one coach in the league who is apparently too good to adapt his game plan to his talent.

Q is taking 6.2 per 48 minutes - how many would you like?

OldFan
Posts: 21456
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/24/2003
Member: #446

12/17/2005 12:08 PM

Reply with quote

I do think this team would be much better this year with KT.

But we did get some young players and I'm not willing to give up on them yet. I can live with Nate needing to learn and Q getting off to a rough start. (Though I think the Q not getting to take 3 pointers argument is pure Horse sht).

Knicksfan
Posts: 33464
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 7/5/2004
Member: #691
USA

12/17/2005 12:11 PM

Reply with quote

Posted by McK1:
Posted by Knicksfan:

Tell me again how great has KT been for the Phoenix that we miss him so much?

Kurt this season

27 mpg 47% from the field 74% from the line 9.5 ppg 8.8 reb 1.1 blks 1 asst

great numbers for a guy in his role with the Suns

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kurt_thomas/index.html

[Edited by - McK1 on 12-17-2005 10:44 AM]

Tell me, does that makes a difference on this team? I would get your point and agree if this team lacked just a piece to become a winning team. But thats far from the truth. This team lacks so many things that the only thing that KT would do would be to disrupt the Knicks' longterm plans. He wouldn't make any significant difference on this team as of now, and you know that somehow Larry would play him 35+ minutes and Channing maybe wouldn't even be in the rotation.

Get this players to play with effort again, make them follow Larry's plan, make a leader out of Marbury, keep Curry away from the injury department, make Q go back to the solid player he was, make Craw be more consistent, make the team play defense, trade for a point guard, trade for a starting SF, get this team going and then we will talk about how valuable a guy like KT would be to the Knicks...

Knicks_Fan

djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536

12/17/2005 12:15 PM

Reply with quote

Posted by Pharzeone:
Posted by djsunyc:
Posted by Knicksfan:

Everybody praises Isiah for making a great move in getting both Nate and Q for Kurt. Most claim its the first time in a while that we get the better end of the deal, and all agree that it was a no-brainer.

Now it was a terrible trade by Isiah because the Knicks suck? Like they didn't suck last year with him? Like they were so tough and so great defensively with him? Please! This is just a reaction for our recent play. Next thing will be questioning his picks, remembering who was still avaliable.

Give me a break! It was a good move no matter how much Q has sucked this season or how much out of control Nate plays. It was a move for the future. Im sure if we traded Davis for a young player right now and went on to have a 10 game losing streak everybody would start missing Davis and call for Isiahs head. I hate this stretch of losing as much as you, but tell me, do you really believe Kurt alone would've made us a winning team?

one question...if q and/or nate are gone within 2 years, what would you say about the trade then?

listen to me, kurt thomas was traded b/c of his problems with steph. this was the FIRST deal to come across isiah's plate (remember, colangelo CALLED HIM). isiah jumped on it. this is not opinion or speculation. it's FACT. it had nothing to do with building for the future.

Sorry DJ, but Knicksfan is right. Most people were praising the trade, especially with Nate involve. Hindsight is 20/20.

forget about us...we're just fans. i'm talking about isiah thomas, the GM of our team who's getting paid to not play the "hindsight is 20/20" game. he has to assess our team and it's needs and do what's best for it. i understand the philosphy of the deal but if Q was the centerpiece, then it hurt us. if nate was the centerpiece, then we'll have to take our lumps during his growing pains but it's almost universally acknowledged that you don't trade big for small (in most cases). but even COLLECTIVELY, kurt still helps us more. i'm more upset at the fact that kurt was moved mainly b/c of steph. lb would not have traded kurt. isiah GAVE him a 4 year extension. this was not about kurt the player. i understand the philosphy of the trade...maybe just not in the principles. and yes, it's all hindsight.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 12-17-2005 12:18 PM]

BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024

12/17/2005 3:07 PM

Reply with quote

I agree with Dj that Kurt was moved cause of Steph. Otherwise he's exactly the sort of tough 2-way player most coaches and GMs love. And he's the one veteran on the team who can still play.

On the other hand I didn't bash the trade at the time under the theory that it's better to trade a guy one year too early than one year too late. When it's too late you get nothing for him. But in no way do I subscribe to the theory that either Q or Nate alone are better than KT. You gotta work hard to make this a good trade for us impact wise.

One of the biggest reasons this team presently stinks is how few 2-way players we have. LB has to constantly keep subbing guys to find a mix of offense and defense. Hence the long rotations and frequent substitutions. Anyone who's followed LBs career knows he is an 8 or 9 man rotation guy, This is NOT his style, he's just stuck.

[Edited by - BlueSeats on 12-17-2005 3:09 PM]

djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536

12/17/2005 3:13 PM

Reply with quote

Posted by BlueSeats:

On the other hand I didn't bash the trade at the time under the theory that it's better to trade a guy one year too early than one year too late. When it's too late you get nothing for him. But in no way do I subscribe to the theory that either Q or Nate alone are better than KT. You gotta work hard to make this a good trade for us impact wise.

yup. i supported the trade when it happened b/c of the situation then. but i am not afraid to say that i was WRONG.

islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712

12/17/2005 3:25 PM

Reply with quote

Posted by djsunyc:
Posted by BlueSeats:

On the other hand I didn't bash the trade at the time under the theory that it's better to trade a guy one year too early than one year too late. When it's too late you get nothing for him. But in no way do I subscribe to the theory that either Q or Nate alone are better than KT. You gotta work hard to make this a good trade for us impact wise.

yup. i supported the trade when it happened b/c of the situation then. but i am not afraid to say that i was WRONG.

I'm not afraid to say that I was right about this being a bad trade from the very beginning.

If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System

franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA

12/17/2005 5:43 PM

Reply with quote

Posted by islesfan:
Posted by djsunyc:
Posted by BlueSeats:

On the other hand I didn't bash the trade at the time under the theory that it's better to trade a guy one year too early than one year too late. When it's too late you get nothing for him. But in no way do I subscribe to the theory that either Q or Nate alone are better than KT. You gotta work hard to make this a good trade for us impact wise.

yup. i supported the trade when it happened b/c of the situation then. but i am not afraid to say that i was WRONG.

I'm not afraid to say that I was right about this being a bad trade from the very beginning.

And next year, if KT's ankles go down, and he's slower and just about finished, is it still a bad trade.

I loved KT- he was a hustle guy that got by with not all that much talent, he worked and improved every year- but at some point, its going to be down hill for the guy.

If I'm in a position to make a championship run, he's a great piece to have.

Assuming Q regains some semblance of his game, in two or three years, it will be a lot easier to move Q or Nate than it would have been to move KT.

Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA

12/17/2005 10:32 PM

Reply with quote

Posted by gunsnewing:
Posted by Bonn1997:

I love the thought of having Kurt so that Channing can get about 12 mpg and we can squeeze out a few meaningless victories

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 12-16-2005 10:58 PM]

exactly! ughhhhhhhhhh!

You and I are simply wrong; Isles has a very clear minute distribution for our 7 PF/Cs that would give Frye the same 28 mpg, enough minutes to the veterans to keep Larry happy, and plenty of minutes for Lee and Butler to develop. Just don't ask him to state the distribution; he'll insult your reading comprehension because you couldn't comprehend the minute distribution that he never posted.